Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

When I gave evidence to the committee at that time, I had not met Mr Ruskell or looked at the specific considerations in relation to greyhound racing on an oval track, which is the aspect that the bill is now focused on. When Mr Ruskell introduced his bill, he spoke about dogs hitting that first bend at 40mph. There is no way of removing that risk while racing continues to take place on oval tracks. That is the specific reason why the Government is now prepared to support the bill.

The sound evidence base relates to oval tracks and dogs hitting the first bend at 40mph. Mr Ruskell has given evidence to the committee on how that affects the front part of the dog.

There is evidence to suggest that there are dangers to the dogs. There is also the danger that the speed at which they are going and the fact that they can lose their footing on that bend can result in collisions and the dogs hitting barriers. All those things put an inherent risk on that part of the track.

The penalties that we are looking at will be in line with the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and that is the maximum penalty available under that act. Rather than have a bespoke system specifically for greyhounds, it will probably be better to tie the penalties in to the 2006 act. That does not mean that it is a given that the maximum penalty will be applied. That is not for the Government to decide; it is for the judiciary and whoever the case is in front of.