Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are listening to comments about capacity and the time pressures that people face. My final question is to Donna Smith. I was exploring how the land management plan process can take account of crofting communities and local contexts. One proposal is to add a site of community significance. Would that criterion be helpful?

Convener, I have a final question, because I know—

I was going to put some questions on land management plans, but Donna Smith has helpfully put her position on the record. You are saying that the threshold is too high and that you have recommended that it should be 500 hectares.

I am interested in unpacking the idea of flexibility a bit. What would flexibility look like, ideally? I will come to Gary Campbell and Andrew Thin. What do we mean when we say “flexible”?

That is the challenge—how do we future proof legislation? Your newspaper advert example is good, but perhaps that is keeping local newspapers going—I do not know.

I know that you do not want to give a view on what the threshold should be, but are you concerned that there could be unintended consequences of having a threshold at the proposed level or having a threshold at all? Gary Campbell is nodding and Andrew Thin wants to come in.

It is reassuring to hear about the work that is going on in Government, particularly in the community safety minister’s portfolio. However, many stakeholders and communities feel frustrated and perhaps do not feel reassured, because they do not see action and outcomes happening quickly enough—there is lots of reviewing and lots of work, but nothing substantially changes.

The UK is a party to the Aarhus convention, and the Scottish Government has a responsibility to implement the convention in devolved areas. Even if the UK Government is taking longer, is it a priority for the Scottish Government? Given that the human rights bill—which we hoped would have included the right to a healthy environment—is not going ahead as planned, will that right be included in any other Government bill, such as the natural environment bill? Is there a way to tie that together? Obviously, that is really important. If it is not done in this parliamentary session, who knows what will happen next time around.

I have a final question on that. The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment does not automatically unlock a door to environmental justice. What would be the benefit of having those rights enshrined in Scotland? What would it mean to communities? What is the Government’s understanding of that? What difference would it make?

Good morning. Some important issues have been raised, and it is human rights day, so these discussions are timely. I appreciate that people across Scotland might not know what the Aarhus convention is. To recap, it is about protecting every person’s right to live in a healthy environment, and it guarantees the public three key rights on environmental issues, which are access to information, public participation and access to justice. We know that those things are important.

We also know that the EU and its 27 member states are all parties to the Aarhus convention, and the policy of this Government is to align with EU law and to keep pace with developments. Cabinet secretary, you said that the Scottish Government is looking at compliance with the Aarhus convention. Why is the convention not something that the Scottish Government absolutely wants to sign up to, given the well-established policy of keeping pace with the EU and taking such international treaties very seriously?

It has been fascinating to hear you put on the record the benefits and opportunities of crofting and its importance to Scotland.

Although we are here to scrutinise the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, I am aware of media reports this morning, certainly in The Courier and possibly in other newspapers, in which it has been stated that:

“Crofting is in danger of being consigned to the history books”.

That is a warning from the Scottish Crofting Federation. I think that the reported comments were made largely in relation to the budget, which we are not scrutinising today, but we cannot look at things in isolation.

I want to give you an opportunity—I am looking at Donna Smith, but also Andrew Thin and Gary Campbell—to comment on whether you recognise those fears and concerns. The Scottish Crofting Federation chairman, Jonathan Hedges, says:

“It’s clear the government still does not fully understand the unique contribution that crofting makes”.

Is that being understood in relation to the bill, or to policy more widely? I come to you first, Donna.

Would Magnus Linklater like to add anything?

I note that we heard evidence on cost. Given that large estate owners are doing the plans anyway, it does not feel as if there will be too much of an additional cost.

I have a final question for Andy Wightman. Earlier, you mentioned that the dynamic between those who live on the land and those who own the land can be difficult at times. If there are breaches, how can the process be balanced to ensure anonymity and be as transparent as possible? If there is going to be a mechanism to allege breaches, which you want to widen out to practically anyone, what about the individuals who are maybe nervous about the process?