Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely.

Yes, absolutely. We also have the “Peatland Code”, but there have been issues with validation of projects through that, which need to be addressed. As I said in a previous response, private investment will be essential in those key areas, going forward. We need to manage that and ensure that we have an integrity-based and values-led market in that respect. Again, we know what the issues are. We are doing what we can to address them and to ensure that we are seeing the restoration rate increase.

The community land leadership group had its first meeting in May this year, so it is still at the early stage of setting out its terms of reference. The group will be a positive forum for sharing challenges and ideas, and looking at any opportunities going forward. The group’s minutes are published online and it will be looking at some of the key issues that communities face and how we assess and monitor our progress, which will be critical work in future. As I say, that work is in its early stages but it will be important as we move forward.

That is a fair point; there are additional barriers, particularly because of the checks and balances I referred to. Those extra steps are there to address the need for balance. If the committee hears evidence that the balance is not quite right, I would be keen to get that information. It is important that we have those protections, for both communities and landowners. I feel that the balance is currently correct and that we have the right steps in place, but I would be more than happy to consider any other information.

Let us look at those applications in particular. Even though the community right to buy was part of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, it came into force in 2018, so it has only had a few years to bed in. It is important to look at those different applications and, of course, every application is assessed on its own merits. The three applications were ultimately unsuccessful for a variety of reasons. In two of them, the landowner was doing work to the land periodically, so it could not be classified as neglected and abandoned. In the other case, in the end, a negotiated transfer of the land was facilitated and funded through the Scottish land fund. Even though the transfer did not go through the process that we are talking about, the mechanism was still there. Ultimately, when it comes to land transfer and acquisition, we would like it to be done through negotiation and agreement.

That would warrant a closer look to see what the barriers are and whether there are criteria that would need to be reconsidered. We will see where the application under consideration gets to but, given that one of them was ultimately successful, I think that it is a positive step. However, it is something that we have to continue to monitor.

It would be fair to say that we have not made as much progress against the report’s outcomes as we would have liked to. When the report was first introduced in 2018, the key focus was on implementing the 2016 land reform act. Soon after that, we had the pandemic, which rightly led to a complete shift in focus for the whole Scottish Government.

Progress has been made against some of the recommendations in that report. There is, however, one key area that I would like to take forward, and I will follow it up with the Scottish Land Commission to see how we can progress it. That area is in relation to the vision for community ownership, which was an important outcome from the report and I am keen that we progress it.

With reference to the first recommendation, we have now published national planning framework 4, which references some of the policy outcomes. The second recommendation talks about indicators, different measurements and how we assess and monitor progress, and we have addressed that through the national outcomes. We now monitor not just the scale of what has been transferred but the number of assets that are in community ownership.

There is also scope for us to address some of the other recommendations that came out of the report through the review of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which is being done at the moment. It is key to remember that the various rights to buy and community asset transfer rights do not just fall to land reform legislation but to the 2015 act, which is the responsibility of the community wealth minister. We can try to address the recommendations in the report through the different vehicles that we have got, and there are areas in which I want to make more progress.

Could you ask your second question again?

It is important to clarify that George Burgess was not saying that it is the committee’s fault that the process is late. We have been getting to grips with the new process that we are following with the Ethical Standards Commissioner—we are by no means blaming the committee. I am happy to follow up on that with the convener afterwards, but I just want to clarify that point.

I would be interested to hear the committee’s thoughts on that. Byelaws are an important mechanism for trying to manage risks relating to irresponsible behaviour, or to address issues of public safety, but we also know of successful campaigns in areas where byelaws have not been used. A good example is the “Lek it be” campaign that is being run in the Cairngorms. It seeks to manage the really difficult issue that I referred to earlier, of allowing free access while trying to protect what is a hugely important species—the capercaillie—for us in Scotland. That work, which has been carried out with ecologists and other groups, has been shown to be successful.

It is also right that the national parks have the mechanism to introduce byelaws when they think that they are necessary. Enforcement is only ever a last resort, but it is an important mechanism that the parks have; indeed, there has recently been a review of the byelaws in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, after an increase in incidents at the loch resulting from greater numbers of people being outdoors. We have heard about the tragic incidents there. It is important that the national park is able to take measures to address such issues when it can, in the interests of public safety, while enabling people’s enjoyment of and access to the outdoors. I think that we have struck the right balance in enabling those things but—again—I am more than happy to hear the committee’s thoughts and views on the matter.

Again, I suppose, as with anything, where there are challenges, there are also opportunities. We see that with the work that we are doing with climate change on the islands. They will be at the forefront of the climate change impacts that we see, but I think that they have the capabilities to deal with that. I see the same with the circular economy.

As part of the work on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, there has been an island communities impact assessment, which shows that benefits are expected for businesses on the islands. We are trying to support that work already, including through the islands programme and the funding that we offer through it. Earlier this year, I visited Shetland to announce which projects we were providing funding for. A particular one is a project that will look at the circular economy there and how we can improve it.

Again, there is no getting around the fact that there probably will be issues, but it is important that our islands feature in the work, as we go forward. Part of the bill is about a circular economy strategy, so I know that there will be engagement with island local authorities. It is critical that they are part of the process, because they can devise many of the solutions in what we are trying to achieve.