Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

There is no doubt that there is a substantial number of individual examples of the 2015 act having a positive impact, and not just through what the act has allowed local authorities to do and local communities to benefit from. We need to accept that there is a signalling effect by a Government creating primary legislation that makes those obligations, rights and responsibilities clear.

However, some years down the line, we cannot be blind to the fact that there are some ways in which things do not appear to have worked as we had expected. Waiting lists are long and growing; as you have identified, the availability of land remains a problem; and I know that the committee sees that the disparity of experience remains a problem. On the latter point, that could be so, but, equally, I am mindful of the need to recognise the different experiences in local authorities across the country. We all come from different parts of the country, and we will see different need. We need to remember that local authorities are dealing with different situations.

Your first point was about data gathering. The act does not place duties on the Scottish Government to collect or benchmark data. I am open to the idea that that could be explored. You suggested that the annual allotment reports might be a suitable place from which to do that, and I will consider whether that is doable and what the benefits would be to local authorities and the Scottish Government.

Thank you. I will take that on board.