 The final item of business is members' business debate on motion 16015, in the name of Andy Whiteman, on who owns Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Andy Whiteman to open the debate for around seven minutes, please. I refer members to my register of interests, in particular to my on-going administration of the Who in Scotland website. I am pleased to open the debate today and thank all members who signed the motion and who are speaking this afternoon. The debate is intended to highlight the need for a wide range of information, not just the ownership of land, to be more easily and freely available. It is something of a contradiction that Scotland has the oldest national public register of land, the 1617 register of say scenes, and yet today it has a system of land registration and land information that is poor by international standards and where it is next impossible to obtain critical information easily and quickly. In 2018, Transparency International published a framework for assessing the transparency of land ownership information. Scotland was one of the case studies, and in Community Land Scotland's report towards land ownership transparency in Scotland, the authors concluded that, I quote, "...there is currently a gap between the desire for a publicly accessible land registry and the reality. Access for citizens to anything other than the most basic information is fragmented, expensive and complicated." I want to emphasise the outset that a land information system involves much more than ownership. It includes, yes, of course, information on ownership and associated legal entities, but also valuation data, non-domestic rates, council tax, planning permissions, on heritage designations, energy performance certificate ratings, flood risks, contaminated land, utilities data, coastal and marine data, and the list goes on. In Scotland today, all of that information is available in theory, but it is difficult, time-consuming and expensive to obtain. For example, a constituent of mine was concerned about short-term lets in her tenement in Edinburgh. There were five in all. She wanted to know who owned them, whether they had planning consent and whether they were paying their local taxes. Now such a task should be straightforward with a modern land information system, but not only must she look in three different places, but the ownership information alone would cost her £150 plus fat money that she did not have. It is worth noting that we were far better informed historically. In 1872, the Government conducted a survey and published a full return of the owners of lands and heritages. I have a copy here, if anyone is interested in perusing it. It is an odd state of affairs that it is easier to find out the ownership, value and use of land in 1915 than it is in 2018, because following the Finance Act of 1910, Lloyd George's famous People's Budget proposed a levy on the value of land. In order to establish a baseline, surveyors mapped out in intricate detail ownership, occupation, value and the use of virtually all of Great Britain and the whole of the island of Ireland, covering 99.7 per cent of the land area of Scotland. Nothing comparable has been produced since. Other countries such as Norway, Singapore, US states and European countries such as Sweden, Netherlands and Estonia are well ahead of us. In a ranking of countries by the ease of registering property, for example, the World Bank ranks the UK number 42 in the world. Above us are Rwanda, Belarus, Slovakia, Latvia, Finland and Kosovo. One of the best examples of information is the cadastral service of the US state of Montana. You can go online—do it now if you fancy—and you can examine a wide range of information relating to every parcel of land in Montana from your computer or smartphone here in Edinburgh. You can even find out how many bathrooms folk have and the type of heating systems they use. England and Wales, too, are making greater progress. For example, in the land registry of England and Wales online, you can enter a postcode, pay a fee of £6 and download the information. In Scotland, that will cost you £30 and cannot be done online by the user. More widely, the UK geospatial commission has been set up and is running with a mission to make geospatial data available for free and without restriction. My motion notes another issue of relevance to this debate. In 2014, following the publication of the final report of the land reform review group, the Government committed to complete the land register by 2024 and to have all public land registered by 2019. As revealed in correspondence with the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee towards the end of last year, however, the public land target will not be achieved. Edinburgh Council said that it has neither the resources nor the budget to accomplish the task in the envisaged timescale. Stirling Council said that it will not complete. Highland Council said that it would cost £8.5 million to do so. All of that begs the question, who is accountable for this policy? In discussions with the keeper of the registries of Scotland at the economy committee in January, she claimed that she is doing all she can. Local authorities in particular cannot afford to provide the information and appear never to have been consulted about the target in the first place. Regardless of how complete the land register is and latest data shows that 66 per cent of the 2 million units of property are on it, representing 33 per cent of the land area, it remains impossible to easily and quickly identify and secure access to this and a wide range of other information. All of that looked as if it might change in 2015. Following a report in July 2015, John Swinney announced in October 2015 the establishment of the Scottish Land Information Service, an online portal that would, I quote, enable citizens, communities, professionals and businesses to access comprehensive information about any piece of land or property in Scotland. Scotland was delivered in November 2017, but it did not and does not deliver on the commitment made by Scottish ministers in 2015. Indeed, it is next to useless. Members can have a look for themselves online. Most particularly, it is not comprehensive. It only includes some of the information that is held by the registers of Scotland and you have to pay for it. The public in particular receives a much inferior offering than do business users, who not only enjoy easier and better access but are charged 10 per cent of the fees that the public are. Like the completion target, Government policy is not being delivered. I would welcome the minister's views on why this is the case and who is actually responsible, because, from what I can tell, governance is the key failing. The system should never be placed under the control of registers of Scotland. Such an ambitious project requires a broad governance structure that includes COSLA, public agencies such as SEPA and SNH, the volunteering community sector, valuation boards and others. Most importantly, it requires leadership by government, a broad governing delivery board, an agreed design delivery plan and timetable, accountability for its delivery and requires to be developed to match the best in the world. None of that is difficult, but, for far too long, the people of Scotland have been unable to find out information about who owns their country and about the value and use of land and property. Citizens in my view have the right to openness and transparency in relationship to information that is held by public authorities about land. It is their right and it is the responsibility of this Parliament and Scottish ministers to ensure that its stated policy goals are delivered on time and in full. In particular, to conclude, we need a new work programme and a governance framework to deliver the ambitions of the Scottish land information system as a matter of some urgency. We move to the open debate. Speeches have up to four minutes, please. Gillian Martin, followed by Finlay Carson. I want to thank Andy Wightman for bringing his well-documented specialism to the chamber and, indeed, for all his work over the years in bringing issues around the lack of transparency around land ownership into a mainstream discussion, a discussion that fueled a lot of the debate in the independence campaign when we, more than any other time, started to compare our country to other northern European countries, where people's ownership of those countries' land is seen more as a right rather than a privilege reserved to a wealthy few. The availability of accessible and free information on who owns and controls every piece of Scotland is also a right. One of my first duties as the convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee was to oversee a report that Andy Wightman mentioned on how the register of persons with a controlling interest in land will work. The creation of the register will go a long way to address issues around transparency and the fulfilment of the right of ordinary Scots to get information on who owns and controls the land around them. The issues raised in Mr Wightman's motion around ease of access to information were forefront in our minds as we questioned stakeholders and the keeper of the register. This resource should make it easy to locate and contact anyone with a controlling interest in a piece of land. Particularly one of the issues is that people are fronting up for the people who do real have the controlling interest and they will no longer be able to be hiding behind any kind of front of a person that could not answer questions. It should be easy to locate. My understanding of the evidence that the keeper gave us that this process is under way in making this website to the standard of which Mr Wightman has just been saying that it should be at, seems to be something that I thought was under way, certainly from her evidence. There was also a great deal of debate around the penalties that were in place for people who did not put their information on the resource. The committee was quite upfront in recommending that the penalties not just look like the cost of hiding what you own, they should be meaningful. Mr Wightman was having every piece of information in one place. The keeper of controlling interest register said that users would be signposted to other registers without duplicating other publicly available information, without the need for double reporting or the register becoming too unwieldy or resource. We do not want any loopholes or any ways of opening up that mean that those responsible for land can hide any information. We questioned her directly on the user friendliness of the website interface that would make access to all the registers intuitive and straightforward and crucially without cost. That was a recommendation that we made in our report. The keeper said in her evidence—I will quote her directly—that it almost does not matter that the information is kept in separate registers. What matters is how we allow people to bring together and aggregate the information when they view it. Under our proposal for introducing the register, Scotland's Land Information Service will allow someone to look at a piece of land and then look through to see whether their controlled interest is registered for that land. It will be seamless for the person who is looking. They will not know that the information about the controlled interest is held in a separate database. They will be able to see all the information that has been drawn together, so that is a much more elegant solution. It is my understanding that that work is on-going. Before I sit down, one issue that I want to raise is the problem of long-term unused rural buildings that are left to rot. The land registry will assist communities and individuals who have been able to put their finger on the ownership of such properties. It is my view that some thought has to be given to how long we allow empty rural estate farm properties to stand vacant and to what condition we allow them to deteriorate. I think that it is an environmental issue, but it is also a social justice issue, particularly in areas where lack of affordable housing in rural areas and areas that struggle to keep their young people like the constituency of the minister. I commend the work done by the Scottish Government in the empty homes partnership that has brought more than 700 empty homes back into use. I agree also with the empty homes partnership that it calls for compulsory sale order power for vacant and derelict land and buildings. I will end there. I thank Andy Wightman once again. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased that Andy Wightman has brought to this important subject to the chamber this evening and for the opportunity to set out my own thoughts on it. As a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I had the chance to take part in the evidence sessions regarding the register of persons owning land across Scotland and its objective of increasing public transparency in relation to individuals who have control over decision making in relation to land. The sentiments that Andy Wightman put forward this evening in his motions are ones that I and my Conservative colleagues largely share, particularly in relation to transparency. However, I also have concerns over how the information that we gather will be resilient and future proof. At the evidence session last year, I raised my concerns over the use of snail mail as the method taken is the best point of contact for people to access owners through the register. I do believe that the register should have the flexibility to adapt to the fast-paced technological times that we are living in. Given that electronic signatures and electronic personal identification and authentication are now becoming a commonplace as contactless payments, that should certainly have been considered. During the evidence sessions, I pointed out that email is now more often than not the default way for people in terms of communication. I felt that more could have been included alongside a geographical address, and that could have also been added in the speed of processing registrations. As Andy Wightman's motion points out, the Government's target for registering all land by the end of 2019 is very unlikely to be reached. Indeed, only a few days after that particular evidence session, it emerged from the new keeper of the registers of Scotland that there was a backlog of about 40,000 registration applications. Many applications are taken two years or longer, which is simply unacceptable, which was acknowledged by the new keeper. 56 per cent of the registrations had not met the target process time, which we must all acknowledge and prove. Local authorities are way behind schedule, and the Government must use a carrot and stick approach to get back to somewhere near the target. However, a balance must be struck in terms of ensuring that the process works and, in a suitable timescale, the data is robust and secure. Indeed, ensuring an adequate level of data security and privacy remains critical. There are also concerns surrounding the identification of individuals and their names and addresses. For example, south of the border, farmers whose information has been published have been the target of protesters resulting in protests at farm gates and individual houses. In some instances, it has caused serious disturbances and damage to property and livestock. That was a result of full details of farmers being published on the Food Standard Agency England website, and thankfully we do not have any plans to do that up here. I raised the aspect of privacy and committee pointing out that the registered landowner should perhaps provide a response or information to any query within an appropriate timescale, but that could be provided through the address of an agent or a lawyer's office with personal address details that are possibly made public. It makes real difficulties and I looked to the Scottish Government to let us know what protective measures will be put in place to ensure that farmers or indeed any landowners will be protected from the possibility of intimidation or threats associated with the land that they own or what they do with that land. As we advance in technology, there is going to be a greater and greater demand for our constituents who will want information represented simply, quickly and transparently, and the land registry is no different. It should not be difficult or costly to access that data. I disagree with the part of the motion that suggests that there should be a value, because the value, as I would believe, changes and it is the market that actually dictates that. It could change on a daily basis, but it certainly is all about making that process open and easy for constituents to access. The land registry is a system that must do what it is set out to do, but a system that ensures that the rights of landowners are sufficiently protected. You will have to close rather than welcome anything else, Mr Carson. Well, I hope that the system is fit for purpose. My apologies for referring to you as Mr Finlay early. Rhoda Grant, followed by Gail Ross. Can I too congratulate Andy Wightman on securing this debate and also apologise to the chamber as I am unable to stay for the whole of the debate? Land is an asset and is also an economic driver. Land reform was demanded because, too often, the beneficial owner of the land was a dead hand over communities. Their action or their lack of it stopped community development and forced people of the land. The ability to develop the local economy is very difficult if you cannot work with the landowner, but if you cannot trace them, it becomes impossible. In the highlands and islands where crofting tenure is common, it is imperative to be able to deal with the landowner. If you want to develop your croft, diversify your business or install renewable energy, you need the landlord's permission for all of that. If you do not know who the owner is and the agent will not work with you, any development that you would wish to undertake is blocked. You cannot then appeal to the landowner because you have no knowledge of who they are or where they are based—a faceless somebody who holds your future in their hands but with whom you cannot communicate. Frankly, where owners are proving to be a dead hand over the land, we need to remove the land from them and make it a driver for economic growth and repopulation. However, until we have the ability to do that, the very least we need to know is who they are and to hold them to account. Community Land Scotland's report on land ownership transparency reminds us that part 3 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016 deals with the ownership of land. The report covers many aspects of ownership and access to information, and I would recommend it for reading. However, I want to focus on identifying beneficial owners, because I have tried, with my constituents, to trace landowners and found it impossible. That has to change. They need to be able to be identified. The Scottish Government has yet to publish the regulations on the registering of controlling interests. However, in the opinion of Community Land Scotland, those regulations are unlikely to change the transparency of land ownership in Scotland. That is incredibly disappointing, because it seems very odd and wrong that I can walk on a crofter's land and be entitled to view publicly available and free to access register, which tells me who that crofter is. However, the ownership of the land on which the crofter has its tenancy might remain secret. What is good enough for the crofter should be good enough for the land owner, too. One of the reasons for that is that overseas entities will not be required to disclose beneficial ownership. Unless there is a way of tracing that in their country of origin, that will remain secret. That in itself could encourage landowners to set up offshore companies to avoid traceability. We see state agents selling land emphasising its use as a tax avoidance measure. If that is the motivation of a buyer or an owner, setting up a business in a tax haven would also be a measure that they would consider. Already too many overseas owners cannot be traced. We need laws and regulations that would make it impossible for a beneficial owner to hide. With ownership of land comes responsibility for the communities that live on that land. How can a landowner be held responsible if they cannot be traced? The highland clearance has brutally removed people from the land. They called home and replaced them with sheep. So much history and culture was lost and, sadly, even today, the effects of that are still felt in our empty glands. We need to stop those practices happening again. Lack of transparency on who owns Scotland is allowing that to happen and it needs to change. Gail Ross, followed by Edward Mountain. I would also like to thank my colleague Andy Wightman for bringing this debate to the chamber today. The only surprise is that it took him so long. I would also like to take this opportunity, as I do whenever I can, to thank my predecessor Rob Gibson for all his tireless work on land reform and registration. I know that he and Andy Wightman have often worked together on this subject, sometimes even successfully. Scotland has one of the most unequal patterns of land ownership in Europe. You only need to read Andy Wightman's book, The Poor Had No Lawyers, to really understand how land ownership in Scotland works. I would particularly recommend the chapter in which he forensically scrutinises the ownership of the cullin when it went up for sale in 2000. At the moment, as soon as a land or a building changes hands, it is required to be registered. The property registers of which there are 20 public are maintained by the keeper and supported by staff at the registers of Scotland. However, what about the land that is not changing hands? As Andy Wightman's motion points out, there are targets for the registering of land, 2019 for public land and 2024 for land in private ownership. I recently asked the Scottish Government how much of the land register is completed, and the minister told me that, as of 31 January 2009, there are 1,808,661 titles on the land register, which represents 66.7 per cent of the total. The land mass that this represents is only 33.8 per cent of Scotland's circuit, 8 million hectares. We all agree that land ownership in Scotland needs to be transparent, but that requires time, funds and political will. We have the first and the third, but the second, the funds, are indeed limited. As Andy Wightman has already said, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recently wrote to local authorities in Scotland to see if they were confident of hitting the 2019 target. The City of Edinburgh Council said that it was not likely. Stirling Council said that the council will not complete the registration by 2019. Aberdeen City Council said that it will not be able to because we have no resources available, so work does have to be done to help local authorities complete the work. Of the targets, the keeper of the register said, we are working as hard as we can to meet the target, but the completion of the register requires lots of organisations to submit information to us. It is helpful that ministers have set out that aspiration. Comprehensive multi-layered land registers can take decades to complete. Spain and Switzerland have systems that are amongst the best in the world, and the cadastral system in Switzerland began in the early 19th century. The official Swiss federal land registry has been operational since 1912, and since then all land ownership throughout that country has been secured by official entry into their land register. Transparency in land ownership is a fundamental lever of SNP policy for land reform, but it is a journey that still has a long way to go, due to so many powers over land still residing with Westminster. Andy Wightman will be aware of Popea Daniel's independent research published just last year. In fact, I believe that he actually contributed to it, and the research makes the following observations. Better information will enable better communication and help communities better influence land-related decisions that affect them. Better information on patterns of ownership will promote better understanding of equalies relating to land and help to promote fair and equal access. Better information on influences on land use, ownership and transfer will help to design better land policy. We all want to see more transparent land ownership, and the debate is still open about how we get there. Edward Mountain, followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I start, I would like to refer members to my register of interests. I would like to thank Andy Wightman for securing the debate, and I would like to say that I share with him the need for openness and transparency when it comes to land ownership. I think that there is nothing that should be ashamed of when it comes to owning land, and let's be clear that there are lots of groups and bodies around Scotland who do own land. Andy, Mr Wightman asked a question—I will get this right in a minute—on valuations. I will trust my speech to allow a question to come back on that particular subject, because I know at a later stage that there will be a moment to come in. If I can just make a bit of headway and then allow you to come in, I think that the point will become clear then. Let's be clear that the Scottish Government owns a huge amount of land, not only because it manages the national forest estate, but because it also owns a land ownership as far as the crown estate concern. That is 91,000 acres covering farming, residential, commercial, sporting and minerals operations. There are also charities that own a lot of land. National Trust for Scotland owns 190,000 acres, RSPB Scotland owns more than 120,000 acres, with an ambition to double that by 2030. In the past 20 years, we have seen a lot of rising community land ownership with 400 groups now owning just over half a million acres in total. I believe that Scotland is becoming a situation where there is a diverse mix of private individuals, businesses, public bodies, charities and communities that own land. I believe that, and I have stressed at the beginning that the public have a right to have an interest in who owns Scotland. We, the Conservatives, agree with the principle that information on land ownership should be open, transparent and readily available on a register. We cannot see any need for secrecy. I also believe that it is very important that land managers are clearly identifiable at all stages so that people who want to use and access that land or have an interest in it know who to contact. The point that I disagree with Andy Wightman on is the fact that the need to value land. As an ex-surveyor, I can tell you that land values are very subjective and it is very difficult. The only person who can really put a value on the land is the market. As I agree with, transaction values should be based on when they are published, asking landowners to submit land values for their land would be expensive on of little use. For example, I will, if I can just finish this bit, to value a small parcel of land say of 500 acres using a definition of valuation used by surveyors may cost in the region of £3,000, and I really question if that is money well spent. I do not think that it is. Andy Wightman, I want to respond to him and his colleague Mr Carson on the valuation point. At the heart of my motion is the suggestion that existing sources of information should be more easily available in one place, and the valuation information that I am talking about is the valuation information held by the Scottish assessors. I am not asking for any new valuations, I am just asking for existing data to be made much more easily available and integrated with other data. Thank you, Mr Wightman, for making that point. I think that that is something that we can sign up to. If the information there is on land transactions, it is very important that they are published and are easily to get to. The whole issue of land ownership loses the fact that probably the most important thing to take into account is what is done with the land. It does matter to me, for example, that the Forestry Commission's figures show that since 1999 it has sold 64,000 hectares of forestry and only bought 34,000 hectares of forestry. We need to know that, and the public has a right to know that, because that contravenes the Parliament's policy on the repositioning of Scotland's woodland estate. I welcome the moves of transparency when it comes to land ownership information. We should know who knows what in the countryside and indeed within our cities. There should be no problems with including details of who to contact regarding land, but we must not lose sight in the rush to do this, which is correct, that it is what happens to that land that is critically important, and that is what we value. I do not support it all. The last of the open debate contributions is from Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is indeed a timely debate on a motion about who owns Scotland by the author of the book by that very title. It seems appropriate that Andy Wightman has secured this debate, as I readily acknowledge that it is his work and passion for the subject of land ownership transparency that has helped shed light on exactly who does own Scotland. Andy Wightman's work builds on that of the late John McEwen, who devoted a lifetime to opening up understanding of Scotland's anachronistic and wholly unjust land ownership patterns. However, as far as the work of those two have taken us, there still remains altogether too much secrecy around land ownership. Those issues matter. The few who own land hold great power and influence over the many who occupy it, explore it and look at it. How the land is managed has profound implications for a range of issues, and I am going to highlight some of them. The scenic qualities of our landscape and how we enjoy it, whether that land is ecologically sound or in decline, whether the land supports our needs as climate change accelerates, whether it supports vital economic activity and creates economic opportunity for the many and not just the few, whether it provides for our national housing needs, whether our sources of water supplies are of good quality and that the land management contributes to or mitigates flood risks, and much, much more. Land use is to a very large extent the consequence of the preference of the owners of that land, so land ownership is vital to use. Andy Wightman has highlighted a range of other related matters, which are relevant here. We are all affected by the ways in which I have just illustrated. Also, knowing who owns all our land, urban and rural, is vital as communities wanting to negotiate a purchase, of course, can't do it unless they know who the landowner is and a fundamental importance how to contact them. Having free access to such land ownership details is part of the land justice approach that Labour has and many others in this chamber have as well. We, the people of our nation, have the right to know too much of that land ownership is secretive still. Owners hiding behind shell companies, sometimes overseas, territories that hide their identity. One has to ask why and whether that can be in the public interest. I say that it is in the public interest that who owns Scotland is entirely transparent. The only exception should be where secrecy is justified to protect someone from harm such as anyone in an abusive relationship. There should be no more hiding ownerships as a matter of preference of owners, not in such circumstances. Today's debate is an opportunity for the minister to update us on the progress that Parliament has long been seeking in opening up land ownership information. Andy Wightman's motion mentions community land Scotland report towards land ownership transparency. That report signals that Scotland could become a world leader in those matters, but it has to want to be so. Perhaps the minister and her reply can be clear if that is the ambition of the Scottish Government and does it want to take a lead on those matters. The minister will recall that, as the previous minister pelleted the last land reform bill through Parliament, it was then amended by one of her own backbencher Graham Day. That was an amendment that was crafted by Community Land Scotland and Global Witness. It provided provisions for a truly radical advance. Along with Scottish Labour spokesperson on land at the time, Sarah Boyack, I was pleased to support Graham Day in that. The Government subsequently moved to replace the amendment with the promise of something even better to be achieved through the use of regulations. That was a couple of years ago, and progress has been slow. Can the minister also confirm that it will now expect to see this matter completed quickly? Can she confirm, finally, that the proposals will fully meet the will of Parliament to have this matter resolved, finally, and in the interests of the people in Scotland, to have a completely open and free access—free eyes stress—to the details of who are in Scotland? Thank you, Presiding Officer. There are a lot of areas that have been raised, and I will certainly try to cover those areas. I hope that we can return to the debate in future days, weeks and months, because now that it is part of my portfolio and it is an area where I have a very personal interest in those matters over the course of the last few months, I have taken out a very active interest in the way in which Registers of Scotland is progressing plans and the point that has been made frequently in the debate about the political will that is there. To answer Claudia Beamish's question, I think that we absolutely want to be a world leader when it comes to transparency. At a time of change, transformation and transition, there is clearly further that we need to go. The report that is referenced in Andy Wightman's motion makes that clear. It identified a number of positive steps that had already been made but highlighted the need to go further, because clearly land is one of Scotland's key assets, if not the key asset. Our land reform agenda has got to be based on simple, transparent understanding of land. We have got to be transparent about who owns, manages and uses land. However, the point that has been made about valuation is very interesting, because I also have two other hats around public finance and the digital government. One of the things that I am actively looking at at the moment, although I am not making any promises just now, is the way in which other countries have used and made, for example, the non-domestic rates information far more accessible, not just to ratepayers themselves, but more generally. The way in which particularly Northern Ireland is a good example, and I do not know if Andy Wightman has any opinions on that, but the way in which we make sure that ratepayers, businesses and individual citizens can access far more information about valuations through a very simple portal. I am currently looking at what kind of prototype we could develop in Scotland to make sure that existing data that we hold is made available to the public, and that portal can then be expanded to include information around planning as well as registration, but that is a far broader issue. Of course, transparency is not limited to information about who owns land. It also critically applies to what land is used for. The Scottish land rights and responsibility statement and our guidance on engaging communities in decisions relating to land both encourage those who make decisions about land to engage with communities so that they understand what the land is being used for and why. I completely agree with the point that Rhoda Grant made, that, often, if there is a strained relationship or a community does not even know who owns it, there is an inability to engage properly. The point around the report is that the Community Land Scotland report highlighted the strength of the current system but also pointed the way to necessary improvements. Andy Wightman Minister for taking intervention, one of the points that the report highlights is the fact that, for a member of the public, like my constituent, it costs £30 plus that. For a business user, for Scotland's biggest law firm, it costs £3. Those fees are set out in a fee order introduced by ministers passed by Parliament. Last one was in 2014. Does she have any plans to consult on any new fee orders and would she use that opportunity to introduce a rather more benain and fair system? Kate Forbes I am pleased to be able to respond to that question quite positively because, in coming months, citizens will be able to download and purchase a copy of property information from Scotland for £3. That includes the title plan and title sheet that had previously been available through the customer services at a fee of up to £30 plus VAT. I can give the assurance that we are seeking to change those fees to make it more accessible for ordinary citizens. That takes me on to Scotland, which is the new map-based online land information service in October 2017. Again, with my digital hat on and looking at the different ways that different parts of government are trying to digitise, I am quite impressed with the way in which registers of Scotland have adopted a more digital system to Finlay Carson's point about the changing ways in which we communicate and are able to submit information. I think that it is quite an impressive system. However, I think that it is on a journey, as it were. For the first time, Scotland provides online public access to information about land and property held on the register, including title numbers, property prices, boundaries and sales information. However, we need to continually develop it. New features are constantly being introduced for both businesses and citizens based on feedback. I know that there is an open invitation to any member who wants to go and visit registers of Scotland to see it in action. On the point about public bodies and the targets, it depends on collaboration. There is progress being made. I recognise the point about not meeting the target by the end of 2019. Register of Scotland is also working on a programme of keeper-induced registration of some public sector property and I have registered over it. Edward Mountain. Very briefly minister, when you were on the Wreck Committee, I think that you sat in on the report on crofting and crofters found it very difficult and did not have the funds to complete the register. They were very keen to do it and the committee felt that it was a very good idea to do it, as far as I remember. Are you going to make more funds available to them to allow them to continue the registration process, which everyone seems to think is so vital? It is not just about funding, if I could say that. It is also about registers of Scotland coming alongside individuals who are trying to register and support and guide them. The point that was made is that funding is a challenge and funding is a challenge when it comes to public bodies. That is one of the reasons that has been highlighted in this debate already. However, there is also a question of priorities too and busy people, particularly when it comes to crofters and farmers, and being able to support them with the expertise, the guidance and come alongside them. It is certainly something that I would be very happy to consider. It is registered that Scotland obviously receives no public funds and that it is entirely self-funding from the fees that it charges and the services that it provides. That means that, for example, the cost of providing information requires to be met either by those accessing the information as at present or subsidised by home buyers through higher land register fees. However, I believe that it is right that those who want information are able to access that information. There has been no increase in fees or the fees charged for access to information since 2011. I realise that I am well over time so I just want to conclude by saying that the land reform agenda in which I believe passionately depends on information, transparent information about land, about its ownership, about its use, about its management. As minister now with responsibility of registers of Scotland, I take that very seriously. That concludes the debate and this meeting is closed.