Seòmar agus comataidhean

There needs to be a joined-up picture that people can input into, rather than many complicated consultations that do not mean anything to anybody.

I turn to the transfer test. I am struggling to understand why the original proposals from the Scottish Land Commission for a public interest test were rejected. Instead, we have a transfer test, which is, in effect, backward looking. It is applied to the seller of the land rather than to the purchaser of the land. I am interested in why that judgment was made and why the Land Commission’s proposal on a public interest test was discounted.

I am inviting you to do that—I will not mention the seals.

Indeed.

The matter came up in the evidence on the bill.

You have spoken about decisions on lotting embedding the public interest. Does that mean that particular obligations and conditions should be applied to lotted land?

So, it will be implicit within a lotting decision that there will be land management that is different from how the land was managed previously. I am still struggling to see how ownership will deliver on aspects such as the public interest.

This is probably the final question—if there is time, convener. It is about your relationship with other stakeholders, Dr Dixon. We now have the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland, which presumably drives quite a lot of referrals to ESS; there was also the work that ESS did—with, I think, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—around reporting scope 3 emissions. There was perhaps a different interpretation about what was appropriate there. Do you have any comments or thoughts about how those more challenging stakeholder relationships are working and how you wish to progress and develop them? To summarise, I guess that there will be those that want you to go faster and those that want you to go a wee bit slower.

Thank you.

However, if good practice has been stuck to, you would not envisage that being part of a compensation claim.