Seòmar agus comataidhean

If you feel that the process is a bit gumsy at the moment, what would a process that has teeth look like?

As it stands, the bill has a prescribed list of those who can raise complaints. Is having a prescribed list the right approach, and does who is on that list need to be expanded? Do you have a view on who else should be on the list or is a prescribed list of that nature the wrong approach and anyone should be able to make a complaint if they wish to do so?

It is like taking the fifth amendment. [Laughter.]

If the commission does not have a view, the federation must have a view, Donna Smith. [Laughter.]

On that suggestion, do you have any practical examples of times in the past 10 to 20 years when such a provision could have been useful and would have allowed land to be used for crofting? Can you think of any examples off the top of your head? If you cannot, feel free to get back to us later.

Is that a concern on the basis of how the crofting land will be used over that 99-year period, if somebody enters into an agreement of that nature?

Andrew Thin, I will briefly take you back to threshold sizes. I assure you that I will not push the commission to say what the threshold should be, given that you have been clear that you do not want to do that—and I understand that. I will try to summarise your position—correct me if I am wrong. I take it that you feel that the threshold should be based in regulations, as opposed to being in the bill, in order to provide flexibility. Should the threshold size then be set at Donna Smith’s preferred position of 500 hectares, for example, and we found unintended consequences as a result, that would allow us to move relatively quickly to address those. It would be more complex to do that if the threshold size was in the bill, as amending that would require primary legislation. Is that a fair summary of your position?

Notwithstanding whether you think that there is a gap in governance, it would be fair to say that the review identified issues with governance in environmental matters and with access to justice in itself. On the basis of what you have said about the changes to access to justice arrangements that are being made, alongside ESS’s powers, are you satisfied that the existing governance arrangements are adequate? The review suggests that there could be further engagement to look at areas in which improvements could be made. If there is a need for further engagement, are there areas that you think should be prioritised?

I have a broader question about the 2021 act, which has been referred to in today’s evidence. That act does not require us to align with EU environmental regulations, but my recollection is that the Scottish Government’s stated position at the time was that it would continue aligning with those regulations, largely because there was concern about a potential rowing back on environmental standards. Is it still the Scottish Government’s stated position that we will align with EU environmental regulations and standards?

It is helpful to note that the unqualified position of the Scottish Government is that it will align with environmental regulations or standards that are set by the EU for its member states.