Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not able to commit to that at this stage, without having had those further conversations. As has been highlighted in our discussions today, there could be wide-ranging implications. Moreover, I do not lead on this policy area, so I would need to discuss it with my other colleagues, too. I will understand it if you still want to move the amendment, Mr Greer, but I must ask the committee not to support it, as a whole host of other work would need to happen in the background for the issues to be resolved. I do not believe that the bill is the right vehicle for that to happen.

With regard to Ross Greer’s amendment 485, on a carbon emission land tax, we have, as Ross Greer has outlined, committed in our Scottish budget to working with the Scottish Land Commission to consider options for a land tax. In the letter and the update that I have committed to providing to Ross Greer, I am more than happy to provide an update on the work that is already under way specifically in relation to that tax.

Engagement with stakeholders has also been taking place to ensure that we develop the necessary evidence base for understanding any potential impacts. I am concerned that the way in which amendment 485 is set out and what it requires would mean that the Government would have to set out a plan to implement a carbon land tax, regardless of the evidence that we received during our consultation, which would, in turn, undermine its purpose. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support the amendment.

Thank you, convener. My colleague Gillian Martin has recently met community energy stakeholders in relation to proposals to use public land for community energy projects. Either I or my colleagues would be happy to speak to Ariane Burgess on the matter, too.

Notwithstanding the concerns that the convener has outlined, there are a few practical difficulties with amendment 467 as it stands. For example, the proposed changes to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 appear to apply to all land and buildings owned by all public authorities, irrespective of the nature of their use or of their location. It is unclear what is within the scope of the phrasing.

Public authorities have to consider five criteria in particular when they are assessing asset transfer requests, which include matters such as public health and economic development. Amendment 467 would add an overarching green energy priority, which would not work in practice. It would make it too hard to ensure that we give due weight to the particular merits of an application.

However, I appreciate what Ariane Burgess is trying to achieve and I am more than happy to have further discussions with her and with my colleague Gillian Martin.

I thank everyone for the points that they have made and for the discussion.

Throughout the committee’s evidence taking on the bill, I heard the criticism on the timing of the community right to buy review. I accept that, as well as the points that you and Mercedes Villalba have made on that, convener. That is a significant piece of work, and it is important that we continue with the significant work that we are doing now on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Some of the examples that Mark Ruskell touched on are really important, and they highlight why the review is so important. That is the only reason why I would ask members largely not to support the amendments in this group. It is purely because they relate to exactly the kind of issues that we need to tease out in the course of the review.

I am more than happy to have discussions with Mark Ruskell and other members of the committee to talk about their concerns in more detail. As I set out in relation to a point from Douglas Lumsden last week, we are looking to publish the consultation on the community right to buy review in the coming weeks. The intention is to outline and publish the overall outcome of the review towards the end of this year. I am happy to engage in conversations with members throughout that process, so that we can pick out specific examples that highlight issues with the existing community right to buy.

I was grateful to hear from Monica Lennon about the rationale behind amendment 514. I do not believe that it is necessary, because the right to buy does not exclude common good land. I accept what Monica Lennon is trying to say, which is that it is about not necessarily having to purchase the land. However, it is not clear from the drafting what “seize” means in that context. I am also not sure why Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow councils are excluded from the provision. That is why I ask the committee to oppose amendment 514.

Again, the only reason why I ask the committee not to agree to amendment 486, which is from Tim Eagle, is that we are undertaking the community right to buy review. The amendment would mean that, once the bill has been passed, we would have to do another review in quick succession, which I do not think is necessary.

You are absolutely right about the boundaries. NatureScot had said that, should ministers decide to designate, it would have recommended the smaller core area, as it outlined in its report.

The situation was difficult according to the different reports that came out. NatureScot also outlined in its report that, if somebody felt that they were against a national park, it was harder to engage with them about the different options of what boundaries could look like and what shape governance could take. The boundary choices were informed by engagement with local people and other stakeholders. There were always going to be difficulties with that.

Can you remind me of your second point?

I hope that I was able to outline in my announcement and my statement to Parliament a couple of weeks ago why we reached the position that we reached.

We have been through an extensive process. The statutory process, in which we appointed NatureScot as the reporter to advise on the proposal, commenced last summer. We received that report, in which the main recommendation was that we should not proceed with the designation but should, instead, look to build on existing structures within the overall area.

The NatureScot report outlined significant opposition to the idea of a national park. The overall figures from the consultation showed that 54 per cent of people were opposed to the national park and that 42 per cent supported it, but, when local responses alone were considered, that first figure rose to 57 per cent of people being opposed to designating Galloway as a national park.

The NatureScot report detailed a number of concerns that were raised throughout the consultation process. I know that there were concerns from specific sectors such as renewables, agriculture and the forestry sector. On the basis of its consultation, NatureScot made the recommendation that was the basis for our decision.

Could I come back to some other points that you raised about the process, convener?

It is challenging, because, as I outlined in my previous comment to Mark Ruskell, a key element of the nominating process that we went through was to ensure that there was local support. There was no point in taking forward a nomination if it did not appear to have strong community backing.

I do not know whether you mean that we must ensure that the community as a whole is represented but that some areas felt that their community had not necessarily been represented in that process. If so, that is why a key part of the reporting process on the back of that appraisal was to gauge the overall interest across the area and to do a deep and wide consultation to get people’s views. That is where the nominating process and the appraisal are important. In the appraisal for Galloway, I think that it was found that there was quite significant and extensive local engagement in and support for the proposal. That is why it was recommended as one of the areas that could proceed to the next stage.

If there are any particular suggestions from members as to improvements that could be made to the nominating or appraisal processes going forward, I am more than happy to consider them, but we did try to build aspects into the process to ensure that there was community engagement and support.

Sorry—are you saying that it is the reporter stage and the engagement stages before it that need to be considered?

I hope that it builds on work that is already happening across our national park areas. Having a stronger duty to facilitate the implementation of the plans puts more of a focus on all public bodies to work to deliver that. That is an important element that we have introduced to the bill.

It is also important to remember that our national park plans are not developed in isolation—our national parks already have to work with local authorities and other public bodies in their development, and there is extensive consultation around that.

Ultimately, it is up to public bodies to deliver a lot of what is set out in the plans. We have touched on housing today, and I think that there are provisions in the bill that will help with that. I do not perceive too much of a conflict between what the national park plans are trying to achieve and the overall duties of our public bodies. A section of the bill makes it clear that the obligation will apply only

“so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of”

that public body’s functions, which I think manages that issue. I hope that what comes through in the evidence that you are hearing from stakeholders is the strong relationships that exist between the national park authorities and other public bodies, particularly local authorities. It was interesting to see the evidence that the committee received from some of the councils, which welcomed some of the duties that we intend to introduce.

What we are proposing to introduce through the bill will build on the strong partnership working that is already in place. The real benefit of the plans is—to come back to some of our discussions this morning—in the overall convening power that the national parks are able to bring and the focus that they are able to put on those critical areas to drive the plans forward. The plans are strong and focused, and they help to drive that delivery. The measures that we are planning to introduce through the bill will help to make them even stronger and ensure extra focus on the delivery of what is set out in the plans.