Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I know that the assessment has been undertaken. I presume that it has been published, but I can double check that for you.

No problem.

Just for clarity, peatlands fall within my portfolio, too.

It is not as straightforward as it can appear in relation to applications in that category in particular: in a couple of the examples, the land ended up not falling into those categories.

Whenever there are challenges or issues we want to try to get to the bottom of them. That is where the community land leadership group can help us to look at some of the issues. For example, we know that right now the cost of living pressures and the inflationary costs that people are seeing can be a barrier to progressing transfers or acquisitions. That is why the funding and support that we provide through the Scottish land fund is critical.

George Burgess might have further information to add to that.

I am not in a position to outline that, purely because it is being led by the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, but I would be happy to follow that up with colleagues and provide that written advice to the committee.

To pick up on your first point, I do not know whether Granton falls in your constituency or in Ash Regan’s, but I undertook a visit there in May. It was great to see what people can do through the Scottish land fund in an urban area and how important land transfers can be for community groups.

On the market insights report, we welcome the work that the Land Commission undertook. Its findings were based on desk-based analysis as well as interviews with a number of land agents and valuers. The report highlights the fact that the number of transactions in the year concerned was low. It found that the price of timber had largely impacted land values before, but it was interesting to see the impact of the changes to the woodland carbon code, which were seen to have had a cooling effect on the land market. It is valuable for us to consider such insights and how interventions that we make, such as the changes to the woodland carbon code, have an impact.