Seòmar agus comataidhean

As you know, we have a programme for government commitment to make sure that every public owner of land, which includes the Scottish Government and anyone who has crofting land, to look at the opportunities to get new entrants in. As you well know, I am passionate about making sure that we get a vibrant new generation of young folk coming into crofting and farming. We are taking the steps to make that happen and we are starting to see the results.

We are not saying definitively that, if someone has three crofts, they cannot have any more. We are saying that, if someone has three crofts or more, the Crofting Commission would take a look at any further assignation. However, that does not mean that it would say, “No, that’s not allowed. You can’t do that.” It is about making sure that there is an appropriate spread among the people in a crofting community and that, as I said, one family or one person does not just keep gaining crofts and land banking.

Those in RPID are the people on the ground in local areas. The Crofting Commission cannot be everywhere. It has the powers of enforcement, and using local knowledge through the RPID offices is clearly beneficial. As the committee knows better than anybody, being on the ground and knowing what is happening locally is probably one of the most important things that we can do to ensure that the crofting way of life and the crofting townships are functioning in the way that they were designed to do. It is a matter of using local knowledge and resource to ensure that crofting is functioning properly.

The bill provides crofters and landowners with a legislative framework to help them to propose and take forward environmental initiatives on common grazings. We hope that that will encourage crofters and their communities to have a much greater say in how the land is used in their area. We want to avoid a situation in which crofters are unable to access the funding schemes and incentives in order to do those things.

As I understand it, the legal ownership of carbon credits is still to be fully determined through case law, so I am not sure that we are in a position to state in crofting legislation whether the carbon rights sit with the landlord or with the crofter. In the meantime, we encourage crofters and landlords to start looking at and entering into joint ventures and to develop and secure shared solutions that benefit all parties. As I said, at the moment, we still do not know the legal ownership situation for carbon credits.

If we get absolute clarity on what you have just stated, we can come back to you. My understanding at the moment is that the legal ownership of carbon credits is still to be fully determined.

That is exactly why shared community conversations should be going on, until we have clarity.

I think that it is vitally important. When the requirement for a Gaelic-speaking member of the court was first established in statute in 1912, Gaelic speakers had no protection in law. The inclusion of that requirement created an opportunity for Gaelic speakers to use their language of preference in at least one institutional setting of importance to them. The requirement was also an important recognition of the worth of the language and of its speakers, and it is important that that respect for the language is not lost.

The 2020 consultation on the future of the Lands Tribunal and the Land Court gauged opinion on whether the Land Court required to have a Gaelic-speaking member, and the majority of respondents considered that essential. Many of the stakeholders who are in favour of maintaining the requirement for a Gaelic-speaking member have noted that, for many crofters, Gaelic is their first language, and that that identity must be acknowledged to ensure that their civil and human rights are not eroded.

Stakeholders also highlighted that there is a close relationship between the Gaelic language, the land and crofting. There is reasoning in the Gaelic language that does not transfer into English, meaning that an argument can sometimes be made properly only in Gaelic, and it requires a Gaelic speaker to fully understand the points. From a personal point of view, it is a heritage that I believe we should cling on to dearly. That is despite the fact that I cannot speak the language, although I would very much like to.

I am generally aware of that, given the fact that I am not a Gael. I cannot give a specific answer, I am afraid.

I absolutely concur with what you have just said. The bill team has done a phenomenal job in the engagement that it has undertaken. As I went out on my own around the crofting counties, it was clear that the bill team had done a phenomenal amount of work. I hope that that will enable us to get the bill absolutely right.

With regard to your question about a clear definition, the bill makes it clear that “environmental use” must be planned and managed for a clear purpose and must not adversely affect adjacent land. Crofters are already familiar with the concept of acting in a planned and managed manner. It is vital that environmental use is undertaken in a planned and managed way, and for a clear purpose.

We are sympathetic to the concerns that someone might neglect their croft and claim that they are rewilding, but we believe that it will not be difficult for the commission to tell the difference between someone who is actively putting their croft to environmental use, who will be able to explain what the environmental benefits are and what they are trying to achieve, and someone who is simply neglecting their croft and presenting the results of that neglect as good environmental practice.

We have intentionally framed the provisions in broad terms to allow for flexibility and adaptability as new environmental practices and technologies emerge. We have taken note of the concerns that stakeholders have raised, and, as officials have already discussed at meetings of the crofting bill group and the cross-party group on crofting, we will strengthen the wording of the bill to avoid any misunderstanding of the policy intention.

Those changes might be along the lines of what has been expressed by those who have already given evidence. For example, “environmental use” could mean any land that is deliberately planned and actively managed to achieve a specific environmental outcome. Allied to that, in its evidence session, the commission explained that it intends to make changes to its policy plan. That will bring further clarity on the matter and explain what would be expected of crofters in meeting that specific duty. The legislation provides the framework and the policy plan provides the detail for how it will be implemented and enforced in reality.

The land is the key asset and we need to optimise its use, whether it be to produce food more sustainably, to cut emissions or to enhance the environment. There are 750,000-plus hectares of land in crofting tenure, which represents a significant opportunity to deal with some of the key challenges that we face in creating potential benefits for crofters.

The thing about crofting is that it is supposed to be about crofting communities, and I would hope that those communities would work together. Anyone who has been in the crofting counties and communities will know that there is always the potential for difficulties, but my understanding is that, if there are individual disputes, the Crofting Commission will have a role to play in making sure that they are agreed amicably for the benefit of the entire community.