Seòmar agus comataidhean

My initial reaction is to say that that is certainly something to be done at local authority level. Local authorities are best placed to respond to their own lists.

Interestingly, I note that, in your report, you say that lists might not be accurate because some people on them might have got allotments, moved or whatever, so there would be a bit of work for local authorities to do to ensure the accuracy of the waiting lists. A mapping exercise on the amount of land that is needed, if it were to be done, should certainly be done at the local level.

Thank you.

I will take the final point first. Local authorities face different situations. Something as basic as the fact that a local authority has a geography that allows more people to have their own gardens will make a difference compared with an urban local authority that deals with fewer instances of that. They certainly deal with different local circumstances and different demand, and they need to make resource decisions about that and about where to place funding as part of the block grant.

To be very cut and dried, I say that if statutory duties are not met by a local authority, it is possible in theory to bring legal proceedings against it, but I say that only as a matter of fact; the Scottish Government would not want to pursue that. We would far rather work with local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, if need be, to work out constructively how to make progress together. We can do that in a number of ways, such as continuing with the tripartite group and considering whether additional guidance would be helpful.

I am conscious that we produced guidance on food-growing strategies but have not done so on allotment reports, and I accept that that might be a reason why there have been difficulties. We talked about considering benchmarking data and easing regulation on permitted development rights. The Scottish Government has all those tools and, ultimately, a legal power to bring proceedings, although we would not want to go there.

That is a good point. I will hand over to my colleague Tracy McCollin to say a bit more about that, given that she heads up the good food nation team. I see local food growing and provision for it, both in a statutory sense and more widely, as being part of local good food nation planning in a very practical sense, in that a food-growing strategy under part 9 could form part of what a local authority produces as its local good food nation plan. The provision in general of good opportunities for local growing is part of our vision for a good food nation.

I think that there is statutory provision under the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 for the Scottish Government and local authorities to work together on guidance on the production of the local good food nation plans. I am sure that Tracy McCollin will correct me if I am wrong about that. Tracy, do you want to say a little bit more about the interplay in that?

I do not currently have any plans for an audit, but that does not mean that I am not sympathetic to the view that public bodies should consider the scope to allow their land to be used in that way. I know that the question of whether the 2015 act should be extended to include other public bodies was considered. I do not think that that is necessary just now. Coming from the land reform portfolio, I see that we already have a suite of right-to-buy mechanisms that apply to public and private land, including a mechanism to buy abandoned or neglected ground to do further sustainable development, and the crofting right to buy. There are also negotiated purchases and sales that happen outside the legislation.

I see an environment with a lot of opportunity for that just now. For that reason, I do not currently think that the 2015 act should be extended beyond local authorities.

Again, owing to my not being the planning minister, I will hand over to Simon initially for a view on that. If there is anything that I can add, I will do so.

It is not necessarily directly linked with the land fund, but community bodies can approach our community right to buy team for guidance on navigating land reform legislation.

Yes. Perhaps James Hamilton wants to come in on that. What I was trying to say at the beginning of the meeting, convener, is largely what you described there. I would not want to say that the strategy sits underneath the plan; rather, it is part of it, as a reflection of the fact that local growing is part of our plans for a good food nation, of which there are other facets.

I echo your initial comments—I, too, have had the opportunity to meet folks who either have started or are involved in long-running community-growing organisations. I have met more groups that have done that under the land reform legislation and with the support of the Scottish land fund than groups that have done so under the statutory allotment work. That is probably something for me to reflect on in this context. They are some of the most enthusiastic and excellent groups that I have had the pleasure of meeting.

I have viewed what the committee said on the national partnership forum and your comments on the tripartite group and its remit. I am keen that that remains a tight group with SG, local authorities and SAGS. I always forget what that stands for, but I think that it is the Scottish association of growing—

Thank you for inviting my colleagues and me today. Thanks also for your time spent looking at this important matter. I very much welcome the work that the committee has done and the recommendations that you have produced. I take them all on board.

I say that because local growing is very important to the Scottish Government. Part 9 of the 2015 act demonstrates the importance that we place on allotments as part of the wider picture of community growing. I mention the wider picture because I am glad that your investigation looked at the non-statutory growing environment, as well as allotments. I am absolutely committed to and convinced of the multiple benefits of community growing, and you set out a number of those benefits in your report. They include benefits for physical and mental health, social cohesion and biodiversity, as well as reduction of our carbon footprint and tackling loneliness and isolation. Among the benefits, you also included ageing well or healthily, which is really important. I believe in those co-benefits, and I believe that everyone in Scotland should be able to access them. A lot of the work that we are doing here will help us to progress that.

We have recently been living through a period of disruption. In many ways, that has served only to make the co-benefits much more important. We know that people turned to their natural environment as they took solace during some of the darkest days of the pandemic. When we were able to unlock, people sought cohesion and coming together after lockdown. Of course, the disruption has created a period of difficulty for governance, implementation and delivery, both locally and nationally. When part 9 was considered and passed, none of us could have foreseen the events that would follow.

Finally, I will make two points about delivery. First, the Scottish Government clearly has responsibilities under part 9 of the 2015 act. Those have been fulfilled by the letter of the legislation. The vast majority of the responsibilities lie with local authorities, which are best placed to make decisions based on their local demography, geography and resource. I want the Scottish Government to be a helpful broker of progress on that, but I do not want to impinge on local decision making. The second point about delivery is a practical one. I flag the point that we cannot escape the very difficult financial restrictions that local and national Government face just now, but I hope that, despite that, with the good work of the committee, which I want to take away and take on board, we can make progress in the months and years to come.