���˿���

We talked about the different steps that need to be taken before an interest can be registered and how the process moves forward. Ensuring that we have all the checks in place is important in ensuring that, as far as possible, the community right to buy is exercised sustainably. However, I will look into the matter and provide the information to the committee.

Absolutely.

We know that more needs to be done to accelerate peatland restoration, but there are a number of challenges in that. First of all, there is only a short season in which the work can take place. There is also a challenge in skills capacity. I think that there were also challenges in the past in relation to the overall future commitment to funding, but—of course—we now have the 10-year funding commitment of £250 million.

There are a number of factors at play, but we are taking action to address the key bottlenecks. NatureScot is leading on a peatland skills action plan. We also have a delivery improvement plan to identify the key challenges and the actions that we will take to mitigate and address them.

To end my response on a positive note, I highlight that, even though the peatland restoration rate is not what we would like, and we know that we need to go further and do more, the trajectory is in the right direction. Our target this year, which we set out in the PFG, was to restore 10,700 hectares. That is a 40 per cent increase on the restoration rate that we saw in the previous year, in which 7,500 hectares were restored. Even those 7,500 hectares represent a 35 per cent increase on the previous year. Therefore, even though we are not where we need to be, the trajectory is strong and we are, because we know that we need to do more, taking action to address the challenges that we know exist.

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.