Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will phrase my question in another way. This power is “to be exercisable concurrently” with UK ministers. What does “concurrently” mean in practice?

Good morning. It would be helpful to clarify the scope of the powers that the Scottish ministers can exercise under the regulations. The environmental outcomes reports regime is the mechanism that is being pursued to replace the environmental impact assessments that were previously provided for. What scope is there for the Scottish ministers to take their own approach to environmental outcomes reports? Is there scope for ministers to vary the powers that apply under the regulations at present?

In short, it is like saying, “Proceed until apprehended.” The Scottish Government can exercise the function, but if you reach a point where that function is being exercised in a way that UK Government ministers do not agree with, they ultimately have the power to overrule on that matter. Is that correct?

In exercising the function, if you were to take an approach that was in conflict with the UK Government’s approach, where would the power reside to make the final decision on that?

Good morning, and thank you for your evidence so far. I want to go back to the point about the 3,000 hectare threshold that is set out in the bill. Beyond what is stated in the policy memorandum, why do you think that the 3,000-hectare figure has been selected and not the 500-hectare figure that you have suggested?

However, I am taking that as a “wrong”.

I turn to Jon Hollingdale. In your evidence on consultation on land management plans and engagement, you raised concerns about the lack of a definition of “community” in the bill. Will you expand on what you mean by that? Do you have a definition that you believe should be in the legislation? If so, should it be in the text of the bill or in the regulatory provisions?

As a word of caution, I note that I would not use community councils as the marker here because, even in urban areas, many of them do not function due to a lack of members.

That gives you more flexibility if it is not working properly.

My reading of what you are saying is that you think that the threshold of disqualification is sufficient, but the risks associated with the issue of potential conflict are better managed by the commissioner being based within the Land Commission. Is that correct?

Are you saying that you do not believe that the land and communities commissioner should be a stand-alone commissioner and that they should be part of the Scottish Land Commission? Is that correct?