Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member give way?

I support Ariane Burgess’s desire to see new crofts being created. However, I cannot support amendments 154, 200 and 201.

New crofts are a means to provide opportunities for new entrant crofters, so I will preface my remarks with some comments about the actions that are being taken to free up existing crofts. Each year, the commission reports to the minister—to me, at this moment—on the number of new entrants into crofting. On average, that figure has been around 500. From October 2023 to September 2024, there were 543 new entrants into crofting. The commission also reports each year on the number of crofters who have self-reported, through their annual notice, that they are in breach of one or more of their duties. In 2024-25, that number was exactly 1,000. If we consider that approximately 25 per cent of crofters did not return their annual notice, we know that the true figure is significantly higher. However, I am pleased to say that the commission is now taking decisive measures to encourage the return of annual notices and is taking action on more of those who are in breach of their duties. That is the work that the commission needs to focus on. I am delighted to say that, due to its increased focus on duties and enforcement, the commission is currently letting one croft a week to a new entrant.

Amendment 154 would place a very short period after royal assent for the preparation and publication of two reports. It is important that we let the bill bed in and take effect. That, together with the excellent work of the commission, will give us a much better idea of what new crofts may be needed and where.

The expansion of crofting outwith the crofting counties is a topic that needs serious thought. We need to consider whether there may be practical and unintended consequences from simply allowing crofts to be created anywhere in Scotland. I would want to seek the views of the crofting public before making any firm decision. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 200.

I am unable to support Tim Eagle’s amendment 211 and Ariane Burgess’s amendments 212, 213 and 215. I am not saying that because we do not want to commit to future crofting reform, because we absolutely do. As I said in my evidence to the committee, future reform is necessary, but I urge caution about rushing into reform in the next five years, as is suggested by Ariane Burgess’s amendments.

We need to establish, first, what crofting policy should be in the future, and, similar to the approach we took with this bill, we need stakeholders to consider what that policy is. Although it is ultimately the Government’s responsibility to set policy, that should never be done in isolation and policy should only ever be based on good evidence—that comes from discussions with stakeholders and those involved in the sector, which take time.

The past four years of discussions in preparing the bill have been informative and have led us to produce a bill that has wide stakeholder input and buy-in. However, these discussions have also told us that there is a wide range of views out there.

Alasdair Allan also raised that point. I am more than happy to continue those discussions, to make sure that we try to find the solutions. I am not sure that we can find them in the bill, but we can definitely talk about how we will go forward.

Unfortunately, I cannot support Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 168. The matter was raised in our 2024 consultation and, although the majority supported it, others pointed out that it is already widely recognised that crofters can be supported by family members and hired labour in working the croft, so I do not think that it is a problem that needs to be fixed. The fear is that that well-meaning amendment could encourage more informal lending of crofts, which our crofting communities would see as a backward step.

I cannot support any of Ariane Burgess’s amendments in the group. I have already mentioned why I support Tim Eagle’s amendments that will give grazings owners the ability to express their support for or opposition to a crofter-led proposal freely and fully before the commission makes the final decision. Ariane Burgess’s amendments 142 and 146 would run counter to that position. Her amendments 148, 196 and 198 would attempt to intervene in the balance of carbon rights between grazings shareholders and landowners. I have set out my reasons why we should not seek to do that at this stage. Finally, her amendment 152 would require ministers to make provision for advising grazings committees on forestry and environmental use of grazings. I agree with the sentiment, but any future Government should be free to decide whether and how to add to what is already available from, among others, the commission, the Farm Advisory Service and private land agents.

I will turn to my amendments in the group. I listened to the debate at stage 1 and I agree that energy generation, transmission and storage should count as other uses of common grazings rather than environmental uses. My amendment 76 will clarify that point and my amendment 77 will give ministers a power to make further clarifications by regulations, should that be necessary.

I am content to support Edward Mountain’s amendments 171 and 172. The commission is committed to improving application processing times and has made strong progress over the past two years. However, as it will remain an important issue, requiring the commission to publish its service standards is appropriate.

I turn to the two amendments in my name. The commission occasionally finds that an order or direction that it has issued contains an administrative error, such as a typographical mistake or small inaccuracy in an attached map. My amendment 78 will empower the commission, in the event of a manifest error, to vary a direction or order to correct inaccuracies, provided that all affected parties are notified in advance and given 14 days to comment and as long as none has disputed the proposed correction or relied on the original error.

My amendment 79 requires that any transfer of ownership of land that contains

“any of the following … a croft … an owner-occupied croft … a common grazing”,

whether by sale, gift or inheritance, must be notified to the commission within one month. The commission must maintain the register of crofts, including ownership details, so it is important that it is notified of any change of ownership at the earliest opportunity. If a new owner fails to notify the commission or comply with an information request, the commission can

“reject any objection submitted by the person”

until that failure is remedied.

I cannot support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 139, which would make the right to apply for a residential decrofting direction conditional on the land being made subject to a rural housing burden. That is a significant change to how decrofting currently operates, and its interaction with the existing house-site provision is unclear. Such changes risk creating unintended consequences, so crofters should be fully consulted on them, and I would be happy to work with Ariane Burgess before such a consultation was carried out.

On Edward Mountain’s amendment 210, I recognise the importance of landlords’ interests, which is reflected in the bill, but I cannot support the amendment. Given that, normally, only three commissioners are appointed and that such appointments are made only every few years, we need flexibility in order to select the strongest overall mix of skills and experience. The bill already provides that ministers must consult the commission on the desired attributes, while also having regard to the value of a commissioner who can represent landlords’ interests. That approach gives proper weight to the landlord voice without constraining ministers’ ability to make the best appointment for the commission as a whole.

First, I support Alasdair Allan’s amendments 12 and 41, which further strengthen the provision on the enforcement of duties, set out in the bill at introduction, by restricting crofters who have not been complying with the duties from exercising the right to buy in the Land Court.

I acknowledge that Rhoda Grant has said that she is not going to move amendments 177 and 178, but I will point out that the crofters’ right to buy has been a fundamental part of crofting legislation since 1976, and any proposal to remove such a significant right should be informed by a proper widespread consultation with all interested parties and a full assessment of the potential impacts. I am aware of the concerns about the right to buy, and I believe that it absolutely needs to be looked at in any future reform, but I would also make the really important point that, in the meantime, the bill will remove the right to buy from tenant crofters for 10 years after a croft has been let to them by the commission. Moreover, if amendment 41 is agreed to, the right to buy will also be removed from crofters who are in breach of their duty. I think that we are taking steps to address some of the concerns that Rhoda Grant has placed on the record, but I absolutely understand the point that she is making.

I would also say that removing a landlord’s ability to apply for resumption on grounds relating to the good of the croft or the estate is a significant change, and it, too, should not be made without full consideration and proper consultation. That said, I am more than happy to meet Rhoda Grant to discuss those issues ahead of stage 3.

Moved. [Interruption.] Apologies, convener.

I ask the committee to support Alasdair Allan’s amendments 25 and 26 and Rhoda Grant’s amendments 39 and 40. They will make important technical changes to the provision on the assignation and acquisition of crofts.

However, I cannot support amendment 176. It would prohibit a fast-track family assignation to a crofter who holds fewer than three crofts where the total area of one or two of the crofts was more than 500 hectares, which is nearly 2 square miles. That particular set of circumstances will arise very rarely, if ever. The committee noted in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government had not used hectarage because the three-croft rule includes deemed crofts, which are unattached grazing shares and do not have a hectarage.

I ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendment 176. If she moves it, I ask the committee to reject it.

I will start by saying that I am happy to support all of Alasdair Allan’s amendments in the group—that is, amendments 27, 28, 30, 35, 36 and 38—as they address various points that have already been raised in the debate. Amendment 38, in particular, would provide a power for ministers to introduce regulation of transfers of owner-occupied crofts, subject to appropriate consultation.

I also support Beatrice Wishart’s amendments 29, 31 to 33 and 37, which would provide a practical solution to the problem identified at stage 1 with regard to a rural housing body or other organisation wanting to take title to an owner-occupied croft so that it could be let or sold to a new crofter. The key point is that we do not need to restrict who can hold title; what matters is that it is a natural person who has owner-occupier status. My amendment 34 defines the “relevant date” referred to in Beatrice Wishart’s amendments 29 and 31, and it makes it clear that the provision requiring all new owner-occupier crofters to be natural persons will take effect as soon as we commence this section of the legislation.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments 178, 179 and 187 seek to add new conditions to section 19B of the 1993 act, with the effect that a person will acquire the status of an owner-occupied crofter only if the commission is satisfied that the person is able to comply with the duties of owner-occupier crofters under section 19C of the 1993 act. Those duties are that the person must reside “within 32 kilometres” of the croft,

“must not misuse or neglect the croft; … must … cultivate the croft; or … put it to another purposeful use”

and must keep it

“in a fit state for cultivation”

or such use. The new condition is not intended to apply only at the time that the status is acquired; it would mean that the person would cease to be an owner-occupier crofter as soon as the commission was no longer satisfied that the condition was being met, even if the commission had not told them about any concern that it might have. It would mean that the status of the person would change according to the view of the commission, so that the person might, without knowing about it, cease to be an owner-occupier crofter when there was a concern and become one again if the concern was removed.

That is unfair and cuts across existing processes. Currently, if the commission considers an owner-occupier crofter to be in breach, there is a period when that person is invited to make an undertaking about how to resolve the matter. Such undertakings could include returning to the croft in the near future, making arrangements for it to be cultivated, letting it on a short lease, and perhaps dividing or selling it. The process also gives the commission time to pause and reflect on the best solution in all the circumstances. All of those options would be wiped away by these amendments. In particular, amendment 187 would mean that the commission would immediately have to direct the person to let the land.

10:45

Just to be clear, I do not agree that we need to add a fourth condition to section 19B of the 1993 act. Section 58A of that act already gives the commission a legal obligation to take into account whether duties will be met when deciding on any application. After all, one of the commission’s main purposes is to see crofts worked and the residency duty met, so it is unlikely that it will give owner-occupier status to someone who is not going to fulfil those duties. As the committee knows, crofting law is already incredibly complex, and we should add further requirements only when we have clear evidence that doing so will fix a known problem. That is not the case here.

I understand where members are coming from with their proposals, but, for all the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support them. The changes proposed would have a significant impact on the owner-occupiers of crofts and would raise significant doubts about the rights and obligations of an owner, such that the measures might not be within competence.

As for Ariane Burgess’s amendments 180 to 182, they have the same policy objectives and raise similar concerns, so I cannot support them either.

I disagree with none of that, but, as Andrew Thin and Gary Campbell made clear in the evidence session at the committee, they are cracking down on crofting duties—they are getting out into the communities and making sure that crofting duties are being upheld. They are pushing people. That in itself will help to free up crofts.

It is the start of a process. We are working with many years of history, so I believe that our current approach is right. That will help us on our way, but I am more than happy to carry on the discussion after the debate.

Ariane Burgess’s amendments 185 and 186 would allow a community group or a not-for-profit organisation to become an owner-occupier crofter. I can see why that has been suggested as a way to address the concerns that were raised at stage 1 about rural housing bodies taking title to support new entrants, but, as Beatrice Wishart has set out, this is not the right solution. It does not feel appropriate for any non-natural person to be an owner-occupier crofter when a better solution is available. I will finish on that point.