Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hear two different concerns when I speak to groups across the piece. One is that they cannot get new funding, and the other is that new funding appears to be all that is available. There are concerns on both sides. I know that community and third sector organisations are calling out for reliability of funding and the ability to plan ahead that comes with multiyear funds. Of course, the Scottish Government has to work on an annual basis, and we are doing so in volatile economic circumstances just now.

As with much of this, I am absolutely prepared to consider how we can strive for more stable multiyear funding patterns, because I know how that allows groups to plan. The fairer funding practice should be adopted as far as practically possible. I will certainly aim for that.

That is a good question. Obviously, the act is wide-ranging, and you will know that my colleague Tom Arthur, in his ministerial role, is undertaking a review of the act, which was a commitment. A lot of work on part 9 had already started in advance of the commissioning of Tom Arthur’s review. We meet regularly; in fact, just last week, we had a cross-ministerial meeting on food that included the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands and colleagues from local government. It is certainly my intention to meet Tom Arthur specifically to discuss the recommendations of your report and our reply, so that that can, as far as possible, be built into his review.

We always want to learn from neighbours far away and closer about how they manage such things, and I was interested in the evidence that the committee took from Wales. Since your report was published, Scottish Government officials have met their counterparts in the Welsh Government to discuss its commitments and how they think those are going. We absolutely will seek to learn from what they have done, and I will watch closely to see how achievable the doubling is and how the funding has worked in that regard.

That is an interesting question. My experience so far is that a number of groups have either formally used land reform legislation to acquire land for purposes including growing, or they have been able to enter into a negotiated sale because landowners now realise that a suite of legislation requires that and it has that signalling effect. Of course, that is supported by the Scottish land fund.

Prior notice to communities is important because it can be an onerous task to not just constitute an appropriate body under land reform legislation but to buy and take on the land. The longer communities have to prepare for that task, the more able they will be to take it right through to purchasing and managing the land. For me, the real value of prenotification is in giving time for communities to prepare to navigate a sale and to plan how the land will be managed thereafter. That is already helpful in the community growing space.

I do not have a timeline that I can give you just now, except to say that the review is on-going and that we are committed to including allotments as part of that. I wonder whether Simon Bonsall has a timeline that he could add to that. I do not think that we do, but I would like to share it if we are able.

Do you mean at the time of the passage of the act?

I am afraid that I cannot speak about what happened at the passage of the act, as I was not in Government at the time, but any additional statutory responsibilities placed on local authorities are borne in mind when the local government settlement is considered. I know that the committee is and will be looking closely at this year’s settlement. For the purposes of the act, when legislation creates additional statutory responsibilities, that will be considered and will be part of the settlement, because it is part of the core funding. We expect local authorities to fund it from there.

No. First, it is about believing that more people and organisations should have the opportunity to own more land. Secondly, it is about giving communities as much time as possible to prepare for the purchase, if that is something that they want to pursue.

As I said, it is a substantial task, but it is probably right that it is. We believe that with rights come responsibilities. That goes for large landowners under land reform legislation just as it does for a community organisation that is looking to buy land, but the more time and support that they have, which the Scottish Government provides under land reform legislation, the better.

Yes—exactly.

I am keen that that group remains quite tight. However, I am interested in what the committee recommended about a national partnership forum. We already fund GrowGreen Scotland to the tune of about £20,000 per annum, in part to co-ordinate the community growing forum. My officials and I will go away and consider the extent to which the role that the group is undertaking is akin to what the committee has recommended as regards a national forum. We will see whether that role is already being fulfilled or what changes may be required or are desirable.

The figure for GrowGreen Scotland is £19,800 per annum. No, we have not yet looked at the costs of a national forum. I need to consider that, and it will require careful consideration about not just the costings but, equally, the value of a forum to the Scottish Government and to local authorities. As of today, a considerable bit of work is under way, backed by annual funding of nearly £20,000, which I think we will agree is not insignificant in the circumstances. I want to go away and compare what is being done now against that which the committee has suggested and consider what the gap is and how we might fill it, if that would be beneficial.