Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

If you are saying that people are getting in touch and they are not getting any response, I want to follow that up, because that should not be happening.

I have undertaken to meet some industry representatives, as I think I mentioned in my committee appearance last week, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Just Transition is doing the same, because we want to do that active engagement and go out and listen to people. I am not going to prejudge the outcome or the next steps of the consultation, because we are still working through the responses.

I appreciate the point about displacement and the issues that could arise from that, and that will all be factored in to any decision making as we go forward. We recognise the importance of the fishing industry to our coastal and island communities and to Scotland’s wider economy. That is why we support the industry.

Our negotiations have secured £486 million for our fishers. Annabel Turpie mentioned some of the figures for what we spend on science and how we are trying to encourage new entrants. We also spend £22 million on compliance. We continue to invest in the industry because we see a role for it now and we also want it to be sustainable for the future. Our blue economy vision also recognises food security and food production because they are critical for the future.

I have said that we will publish the bill this year. I hope that you appreciate that, under the ministerial code, it is not possible for me to give a definitive date until it has all been agreed by Cabinet and discussed with the Parliament. I cannot give a definitive date for the introduction of the bill, but we intend to do that as soon as we can.

That conditionality will not be in the bill. As I outlined in my response to Alasdair Allan, that is where we need the transitional provision, using the powers within the current act, to allow for conditionality and continuity so that we can deliver what we set out in the route map.

There will be an opportunity for scrutiny as the bill goes through. We need a piece of framework legislation, which is what we will introduce, to give us an adaptive framework for the future. That is what we set out in our proposals, and we will introduce that as part of the bill.

We have been working through our consultation responses so I cannot say definitively what will be in the bill at the moment, but the aim is for the secondary legislation to contain that detail.

I understand the calls for clarity, more detail and more information. We set out in the route map when that information will become available. There will, of course, be the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny as part of the process.

That is what we have set out in our vision. I hope that, during the debates that we have had in the Parliament in the past few weeks, we have emphasised the importance of producing our own food. Our vision for agriculture sets out that we want to produce more and meet our food needs more sustainably.

Yes.