Seòmar agus comataidhean

It has already been reflected in committee sessions that the crofting market is running too hot for new entrants, which threatens the future of crofting, and that needs to be dealt with. People who want to be active on a croft by managing the land or producing food are the lifeblood of our crofting communities. In the face of the climate and nature crisis, people producing food for local consumption will be crucial. Restricting decrofting for residential purposes is a must, but we must also ensure that we do not create unintended consequences.

My amendment 139, which I worked on with the Scottish Crofting Federation, states that decrofting orders for residential purposes may be given only in connection with a “rural housing burden”. Such a policy would allow us to maintain stocks of affordable housing in our rural communities, which would slow rural depopulation and ensure that crofting communities can continue to thrive into the future.

You have said that you support Beatrice Wishart’s amendments on the rural housing burden. Can you remind me why you have confidence in those amendments? I have said that I am not going to support them, but I would just like to get some reassurance.

Will the minister give way?

It is important that we encourage crofters to put land to environmental use or forestry. It can be hard to make environmental use pay, but we need crofters and other land managers to put their land to such use if we are to meet our nature and climate targets.

Amendment 140 would extend the crofting agricultural grant scheme to woodland crofts and crofter-led forestry. The bulk of new crofts are woodland crofts, given that they are often established on former Forestry and Land Scotland land. They come with restocking requirements, but the CAGS is unavailable to woodland crofts, as the grants are tied specifically to agricultural activity. Forestry grants are also highly competitive, so it is difficult for crofters to access them, and, even if they do, they do not reflect the reality of the cost of undertaking that activity.

Even when a crofter pursues sustainable and regenerative dual usage, such as agroforestry, planting shelter belts or installing fencing for rotational grazing, they are often rejected for subsidy by some rural payments and inspections division offices because the usage is not deemed to be agriculturally justifiable.

Amendment 140 would greatly relieve that pressure and allow more crofters to explore environmental and other more nuanced uses of their crops. For example, crofters could use their land to meet the demand for native tree nurseries, which would help us to meet tree planting and biodiversity targets. Crofters are already doing that to an extent, but a wider form of CAGS could help more of them engage in that kind of activity.

Amendments 191 and 192 seek to introduce a Government-backed loan facility for crofters. All too often, commercial loans do not match up well with crofting, mostly because crofting is—and should, of course, remain—a regulated system of land tenure. Commercial loans are usually unavailable for land that is subject to Government regulations, and that is also the case when it comes to accessing finance for croft housing or for other large capital investments that crofters might have to make. On the housing front, in particular, a croft house would need to be decrofted to be eligible for a commercial loan—a nonsensical situation that puts such housing at risk of being lost to the wider market. That is especially problematic in the Highlands and Islands, given the overheated market that is being fuelled by second homes and Airbnbs.

If the Scottish Government is serious about halting depopulation, creating affordable rural housing and ensuring that crofting land gets to genuine crofters, we need to enable conditional finance in this space. The crofting house grant scheme, even with the proposed changes, is not providing enough to help those who lack the necessary funds to build a croft house—and all the more so since the Covid pandemic, as building costs in the Highlands and Islands have surged by an average of 5 per cent each year.

I would also mention other investments such as loans for support. We need to acknowledge that crofters need money up front for subsidies such as CAGS, which pays out only once the project in question has been completed. As a result, crofters need favourable Government-backed terms if they are to be able to access those funds. I urge members to accept these amendments, so that we can provide these crucial loans to crofters.

I move amendment 140.

During the committee’s discussion of the bill, there was a good deal of reflection on disputes in rural areas and crofting communities. In our round-table evidence session with stakeholders, I proposed creating a soft-touch mediatory function that could work in a similar way to the successful Common Ground Forum, which was intended to take the heat out of misunderstandings related to deer management and very much did so.

During the evidence session, there was a reflection that members of the Crofting Commission would, in the past, have had people on the ground who helped to resolve conflict, along with their other duties. It appears that that practice died out when the commission faced budget cuts over ensuing years. As we all know, when things disappear, it can be mighty difficult to resurrect them down the line.

I will finish my point, and then I will.

Amendment 141 is my proposal to resurrect some of the old function that the Crofting Commission performed. Applying specifically to a grazings committee, it would require Scottish ministers to give the commission powers to intervene or seek to resolve conflicts between a grazings committee and the owner of a common grazing. I remember that, when I suggested that to stakeholders at the round-table meeting, the idea received support from across the spectrum.

I take the minister’s earlier points in this part of the debate, but I think that we need to recognise that there is conflict across rural Scotland. We need to acknowledge that physical infrastructure such as roads and bridges is crucial for our rural communities. We also need what I call soft infrastructure, which is support for people to come together to resolve misunderstandings. I take the point that the Crofting Commission could take that work on, and I feel encouraged by the approach that is being taken by the chair of the commission and his presence at the committee, but we have a real opportunity here to take the heat out of some points of contention between crofters and landowners, and even between crofters. I think that the commission needs to be properly resourced to take that on board.

If the minister would still like to intervene, I will take his intervention.

I thank the minister for that intervention, and I take on board all the points that he has made. I am heartened by the reassurance that there is increased funding for the commission—it would be good if we could ensure that that happened year on year.

I just want to underscore the point that mediation and conflict resolution across rural Scotland will be essential to how we move forward into the future. Our communities face a lot of change and challenge, and change can be extremely unsettling for people. Therefore, I believe that supporting communities in that process would be a compassionate approach.

On amendment 163, section 52(12) of the 1993 act allows the commission, on the application of a township, crofter, grazings committee or owner, to review an apportionment and to choose whether to vary it, revoke it or bring it to an end. This amendment seeks to accommodate those situations in which the purpose of an apportionment review application to the Crofting Commission is only to bring to an end a part of the apportionment, such as an access track or communal facility, that might inadvertently have included an original apportionment.

I am seeking clarity on how you are going to get clarity. We cannot predict what will happen after the election, but is that piece of work queued up to be taken on board?

I appreciate Tim Eagle’s intervention and the minister’s response. Minister, you talked about rushing, but, given that we have been busy looking at crofting for 10 years, which is a long time—I know that it is a complex situation—we need to get that commitment and some surety, so that the crofting community understands that it is genuinely being supported and that it will not be sidelined in the next parliamentary session.

Thanks. [Interruption.] I have no idea what that sound is. Excuse me, someone seems to be calling me on the laptop through Webex. Suddenly, I am very popular—in the middle of a committee meeting!

I have lost my train of thought. Oh, yes. To be clear, you are saying that you will potentially keep the per-person, per-night option and that it is for local authorities to do the consultation and find out what works. That is the flexibility piece.