Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Thank you, Peter, that is helpful. Laurie, what are your views on community wealth building?

That is another area that we perhaps need to hear more about from the Government.

Good morning and thank you for all the contributions so far. Community wealth building has been mentioned a couple of times by Laurie Macfarlane and Peter Peacock. What could be done with this bill? Given that the Scottish Government has also committed to a parallel but separate bill on community wealth building, is enough being done to join up Government work in this area or should we think about amendments at a later stage of the bill? I mentioned Laurie and Peter, but if others have a view, I am happy to hear it. Peter caught my eye first.

Yes—we are still on land management plans. We have had written evidence that highlights broad concerns about the framework for alleging breaches of the requirement to produce and consult on a land management plan, because, as we know, the list of those who are allowed to report an alleged breach of community engagement obligations is relatively narrow.

I will go to Peter Peacock and Andy Wightman, because I do not think that we have Magnus Linklater at the moment.

Hello. The question is really for Peter Peacock and Andy Wightman anyway. Is the list of those who can report an alleged breach about right? What are the benefits and disadvantages of its being so narrow?