Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendments 2, 9, 23, 74, 100, 101, 106, 110, 111, 115, 120, 121, 125, 128 and 130 can be accurately characterised as minor amendments that correct technical issues in the bill, such as typographical or referencing errors. I will run through them as quickly as I can.

Amendments 100 and 101 limit the Government’s and the commission’s powers to make provision about the giving of public notification and specifying the form and content of public notices in relation to the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 to provision under section 12(8) of the 2010 act only. That is because section 12(8) is the only public notice requirement in the entire 2010 act, so the broader reference is not appropriate.

Amendment 127 cancels an insertion that the bill was going to make to section 58A(4)(b) of the 1993 act, to confirm that that sub-section applies to any non-crofters who hold shares in the common grazings. That insertion is now considered not to be needed, because section 47(10) of the 1993 act already makes that provision.

Amendment 131 is a consequential change. It updates the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 to remove the Lands Tribunal for Scotland from the listed tribunals that may be transferred into the Scottish tribunals. The jurisdiction and functions of the Lands Tribunal will transfer to the Scottish Land Court under section 36 of the bill, and amendment 131 ensures that the statute book accurately reflects the tribunal landscape.

I invite members to agree to the amendments.

I move amendment 2.

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendment 168 moved—[Beatrice Wishart].

We do not need to restrict who can hold the title—only a natural person can have owner-occupier status. Therefore, I think that Beatrice Wishart’s amendments cover the concerns that you have—or, I should say, that the member has. I apologise, convener. I would therefore ask the member to support Beatrice Wishart’s amendments. However, as I said at the start, there are lots of other things that we can discuss. The bill is not going to cover all the concerns that we currently have, and there is more work to be done on it.

I am not sure where I have got to, convener—I should have marked my page. [Interruption.] I am in agreement with Rhoda Grant’s amendment 184, but it will not be needed if Alasdair Allan’s amendment 36, which goes further, is agreed to.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 138 would create a regulation-making power to allow ministers to make regulations limiting how many owner-occupied crofts one person can hold. That is a contentious proposal, which some crofters would support and others would be very much opposed to, and a change of that scale would require much wider consultation than simply consulting the commission. It is an important issue, but it requires much wider consultation.

Amendments 42, 43, 90 to 99 and 126 would ensure that crofts have to be registered before most regulatory applications may be made. There are currently two separate routes for processing commission regulatory applications, depending on whether the croft has previously been registered in the crofting register. That can result in parties having different roles depending on whether the croft has been registered.

The amendments will require that applications can be made only in respect of crofts that have already been registered for the following application types: enlargement, exchange, assignation, division, resumption, decrofting, subletting, apportionment and letting of an owner-occupied croft. The amendments also make consequential changes to the 2010 act in respect of provision about registration. This change will simplify these processes and bring clarity, consistency and certainty.

Amendments 42 and 43 are made in consequence of the amendments just discussed and they will amend section 12 of the bill, which made some modifications to the 1993 and 2010 acts that are no longer needed, given the broader changes being made in relation to registration requirements.

Amendment 95 would apply the rule for crofts to be registered before an application is made to applications to the Land Court for a resumption.

Amendment 96 operates on the assumption that, for an application for reversion of resumption, the croft will have already been registered, because resumption has been a trigger for registering a croft since the 2010 act was brought into force.

On amendments 80, 81 and 82, section 22 of the bill will modify the 2010 act to require a tenant crofter of an unregistered croft who acquires title to the croft to apply to register the croft in the crofting register. The amendments apply the same requirement to the circumstance where, instead of the tenant crofter acquiring title themselves, they nominate someone else to do so, the effect being that, in that circumstance, the nominee will be required to apply to register the croft.

The purpose of amendments 83, 84 and 85 is to ensure that the fee handling for registration is consistent with the legislative approach that is taken to payment of registration fees in the keeper’s other registers, such as the land register. Amendment 83 will allow the keeper to accept an application for registration if the payment has already been submitted to Registers of Scotland as an alternative to arrangements having been made to pay it in due course. If neither has been done, the keeper must reject the application.

The effect of amendments 84 and 85 will be to remove the commission’s role in checking that payments have been submitted for an application in respect of a registration event affecting a common grazing or land held runrig, as that function has effectively been transferred to the keeper.

Although I cannot support Edward Mountain’s amendments 204, 205, 207 and 209, I would be happy to work with him ahead of stage 3 with a view to finding a different solution so that the forms are prescribed by the Crofting Commission and not the Scottish ministers by regulations. The commission is very experienced in such matters and already provides some forms for a wide range of regulatory processes, and it is far more efficient to allow the commission to adapt and improve the content of a regulatory form and how it is processed than to have to draft and revisit regulations. I therefore ask Mr Mountain not to press the amendments. If he does, I ask the committee to reject them.

I do, however, support extending the time period for the landlord to respond from 14 days to 21, so I ask the committee to support Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 86.

I cannot support Edward Mountain’s amendments 206 and 208. When the commission receives a first registration application, it already checks, in accordance with section 7(3) of the 2010 act, the information that is contained in or that accompanies the application against the information relating to the croft in the register of crofts. If there is a dispute between the landlord and crofter, it should always be a matter for the Land Court. The commission does not have the authority to resolve registration disputes, and even a voluntary commission function of trying to get parties to agree would be very resource intensive. It could also result in a crofter’s registration being stalled for long periods of time. I therefore ask Mr Mountain not to move amendments 206 and 208. If he does, I urge the committee to reject them.

On amendments 87, 88 and 89, the keeper of the registers of Scotland has come to the conclusion that they would not use the power to make corrections to a manifest error in the crofting register of their own volition. There is no point in making provision in statute for something that is never going to be used. However, section 26 of the bill continues to include the new provision in the 1993 act that would allow the Crofting Commission to direct the keeper to rectify material errors in the crofting register when the means of correcting them are clear and obvious and the parties involved have been consulted. That will make it easier for clear errors to be corrected quickly and with the minimum of costs for the parties involved.

I move amendment 42.

I am unable to support Ariane Burgess’s amendments 140, 191 and 192. The Scottish Government already provides financial assistance to support the planting of trees and woodland creation. Section 42 of the 1993 act does not exclude those activities; indeed, it has been intentionally framed in broad terms to allow for a wide range of financial assistance to crofters.

With regard to amendment 191, there is already provision under section 46A of the 1993 act to allow ministers to provide for loans. Once again, that provision has been intentionally framed in broad terms to allow for loans to be available for any purpose deemed suitable.

On amendment 192, I do not think that it would be appropriate to compel any future Government to provide loans; as I have said, section 46A of the 1993 act already allows ministers to provide loans to crofters and others. It is not uncommon for the Government, when considering financial assistance, to have to decide between providing loans or grants, or both, and I would not want that choice to be reduced.

Amendments 44 to 64 make technical refinements to the commission’s powers to adjust boundaries, enhancing their flexibility for use in different circumstances. The amendments resolve points that were raised by the committee during stage 1 and further points of detail that were subsequently raised by the commission.

Amendment 44 clarifies that, if there is an unresolved registration challenge affecting a registered croft, that croft cannot be included in a boundary adjustment application until the challenge has been resolved.

11:15

Amendment 55 extends the restrictions regarding challenges to the registration of the subject crofts to boundary remapping applications as well as all boundary adjustments. Those safeguards will avoid any risk of two different applications operating concurrently in relation to the boundaries of the same newly registered croft.

Amendments 46 and 59 give the commission power to impose conditions when approving a boundary adjustment or remapping, for example to give consent subject to specified conveyancing being completed. Applicants will therefore be able to avoid the risk of their croft boundaries diverging from the boundaries in their title.

Amendments 49 and 62 are consequential to amendments 46 and 59 and provide that, if any conditions are specified by the commission, the direction for the boundary adjustment or remapping will expire three months after the date on which the conditions are satisfied instead of the date on which the direction was made.

Amendments 51 to 54 provide that an owner or part-owner of a croft may be the applicant for a boundary remapping. That is a significant extension of boundary remapping, and it means that it will be capable of resolving problems for crofts that are in multiple ownership, as long as all the owners agree. That is the result of a recommendation made by the crofting law group in the sump report.

A key requirement of the boundary remapping power is that it can be exercised only if all affected parties consent. Amendments 56 and 58 therefore bring flexibility to the specification of an affected party, giving that decision to the commission instead of prejudging it in the bill.

Amendment 63 gives the Scottish ministers a power by regulation, subject to the negative procedure, to specify classes of people whose consent must be required or to allow new classes of applicant. For example, the power could be used to extend the scope of boundary remapping so that, in the future, an application could be made by a grazings committee in regard to the boundary between a common grazing and a croft.

My other amendments in the group—45, 47, 48, 50, 57, 60 and 61—make minor adjustments to the wording of section 14 to ensure accuracy, clarity and consistency with other parts of the 1993 act.

I move amendment 44.

Amendment 44 agreed to.

Amendments 45 to 64 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

With that in mind, I do not think that we need any of this in primary legislation. I hope that the member appreciates that there is work on-going, and I ask her not to press her amendments.

The bill that we have in front of us already does what Rhoda Grant is looking to do. Her amendment 195, which would insert a section 52ZB, on reunification of grazing shares with a croft, states:

“Scottish ministers may, by regulations, make provision to enable reunification of any share in grazing land with a croft to which it once pertained.”

I hope that that gives Rhoda Grant comfort. If she does not move amendment 195 and there are concerns, I am happy to have a discussion ahead of stage 3. If that still does not satisfy Rhoda Grant, the amendment can come back at stage 3.

To reiterate my point, I am more than happy to have a discussion with the member. If we can find solutions to this issue without going to a vote, I am more than happy to do that.

I press amendment 65.

Amendment 65 agreed to.

Section 15— Notice of and objection to diversification

Amendment 66 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.