Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will speak initially to amendments 133 to 136, which relate to section 3, on reporting breaches of duties.

During the committee’s evidence taking on the bill, we heard concerns about the reporting of breaches of duties. In the light of that, I have worked with Community Land Scotland on amendments 133 to 136. We feel that a duty on the commission to investigate possible breaches of duty on crofts only if they have been reported by those coming from the same township, as the bill currently states, will not lead to meaningful change, for the simple reason that crofters, and people in any other walk of life, are unlikely to report their neighbours for such breaches. Indeed, that view came through, and was reflected in, the discussions in our evidence sessions.

Amendment 134 seeks to rectify that by using the word “parish” instead of “township”. A parish encompasses a larger area, albeit one in which inhabitants are still likely to know almost every blade of grass. That would allow a wider community of those who could report suspected breaches of duty on a nearby croft—it would take that burden off the shoulders of nearby neighbours and share it amongst that wider community.

Likewise, as we have set out in amendments 133 and 135, we feel that it is important that prospective crofters, local community councils and Government agencies have the power to report breaches. That would further take pressure off the community, which, understandably, might wish to protect relationships and avoid conflict. Amendment 136 is consequential to amendments 133 to 135.

I think that Rhoda Grant’s amendment 173 offers a more limited version of what I have set out in amendments 133 to 135, adding only the Government to the list of those who can report a breach. Although I understand the intent of her amendment 174, which would allow complainants to remain anonymous, I am a little concerned that it restricts the airing of issues. I believe that we need to move to a culture in which the community has the confidence to discuss openly, and with support, the issues that it faces, as it could help crofting communities move to a better way of living together. Therefore, I am not minded to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 175 either.

However, I will support her amendment 166. I agree that tighter language is needed to ensure that we do not have crofters living well away from their crofts and crofting communities. Keeping crofting communities in place is key to halting rural depopulation and creating a thriving rural community, so that amendment has my support.

On amendment 137, which relates to section 4, common grazings account for more than 550,000 hectares of land in crofting tenure, and, to ensure their proper management and administration, grazings committees are encouraged to adopt appropriate regulations. Where someone breaches those regulations, it is important that the Crofting Commission has the necessary controls to encourage compliance. Amendment 137 therefore seeks to bring the treatment of such breaches in line with a suspected breach of duty when the commission is considering whether to process a regulatory application or to decline to do anything.

It was clear during the committee’s stage 1 discussions on the bill that there was a degree of dissatisfaction with, or confusion about, the way in which section 1 defines “environmental use”. Given the importance of putting land to environmental use, I feel that, if Scotland is to tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis, it is important that we address those concerns and put forward a watertight definition of the term.

My amendment 132, which has been drafted in collaboration with Community Land Scotland, seeks to underline that environmental use has to be

“intentionally designed and systematically managed”.

It also stipulates that such use must not

“be detrimental to the croft”

and must not

“undermine the public interest”.

That definition would give crofters, and the Crofting Commission, ample room to interpret the phrase “environmental use” as they see fit, while providing guardrails to ensure that such use must have a thought process, planning and implementation measures behind it, as well as a clear aim, in order to fit in with crofter duties.

I appreciate that Rhoda Grant’s amendments 4 to 6 stipulate that environmental use must involve active management and that is certainly tighter than the definition in the bill, but, crucially, it does not require the level of design and planning that I believe are important in this instance. As a Scottish Green, I want to see environmental usage that is properly executed and meaningful, especially in the face of the climate and nature crises. The version proposed by my amendment is stronger and would enable crofters and the Crofting Commission to operate with absolute certainty in respect of environmental use. Likewise, I am concerned that Tim Eagle’s amendments 167 and 169, which are alternatives to my amendments and those of Rhoda Grant, contain a vagueness that could operate as a backdoor to preventing environmental use.

Amendment 170, also in the name of Tim Eagle, stipulates that environmental use does not include energy generation, transmission or storage. I agree with that, but the last part of it, which puts “rewilding” out of bounds for environmental use, could make it difficult for crofters to carry out duties under section 1(3) of the bill.

My other amendments in this group—amendments 142, 146, 148, 196, 151, 152 and 198—relate to section 18, on common grazings used for environmental purposes. The bill takes a welcome step towards enabling crofters to use the land that they manage for environmental purposes, but there are issues with section 18 that need addressing if crofters who are part of common grazings are to be able to operate with confidence. For example, landowners will have too much power to stymie environmental initiatives, because the language in the bill is too loose. With support from Community Land Scotland and the Scottish Crofting Federation, I have proposed ways of bringing landowner rights into balance with those of crofters.

My amendment 142 would allow landowners to review their consent for environmental initiatives only if those initiatives would be detrimental to the community or the public interest. That would still give landowners a power to say no and allow them to make a reasonable case for doing so. I have heard that landowners are using their existing powers of refusal to block environmental initiatives or are accepting them only if crofters accept highly unfavourable terms. That is preventing good climate and nature-friendly work from taking place and it is damaging our nation’s progress towards legally binding targets. During the committee’s evidence taking on the bill, the Crofting Commission chair, Andrew Thin, told us that

“A large chunk of land in our country is being used suboptimally and is suboptimally productive, which is not sensible”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 24 September 2025; c 25.]

and he called on MSPs to rethink existing systems of land use and management so that they provide environmental good where appropriate. Amendment 142 seeks to drive that change by putting the needs of our nation above those of individual landowners.

In the event that that amendment is not agreed to, I want to provide a bit of clarity on when an intended resumption can take place. As a result, amendment 146 states that any resumption would have to be for a “reasonable purpose” that would benefit crofters, local communities and the public interest. It would mean that landowners could not claim that they would carry out a resumption at some obscure point in the future, as the current wording allows, and it also seeks to ensure that, if they genuinely intend to go through with a resumption, it will be of benefit to others. Again, landowners would have ample power to say no, but that alternative to amendment 142 would at least remove some of the ambiguities in the bill as introduced.

We must also consider how to clear up uncertainties around carbon rights and how those are shared between crofters and landlords. That has been an on-going conversation since the beginning of the session, when I began attending the cross-party group on crofting. It would be unacceptable for crofters to put all the work into environmental use only for the landowner to collect the financial benefit of that work.

Amendment 148 would provide that revenues from carbon and ecosystem services would belong to the active user of a common grazing. As a Scottish Green, I fundamentally do not agree with the idea of natural capital markets, but they are here, so we need to address justice and fairness in that respect.

Amendment 196 offers a slightly different path to achieving the same goal by copying the same language from new section 50(6) of the 1993 act into new section 50(7). That would mean that crofters would receive the economic benefit that comes with restoring peatland ecosystems, improving water management or preserving and enhancing the environment in another way.

Meanwhile, amendment 198 offers another way into that reform by entitling the grazings committees to financial benefits arising out of active environmental use. Passive landowners should not be allowed to extract wealth that has been generated by active crofting—wealth that would support rural communities. It is a hangover from the archaic system that we lived under in Scotland for far too long, and it is one that benefits the few at the expense of the many. I strongly encourage the Government to commit to wider work on the issue, perhaps through a carbon rights bill, as we touched on in discussions prior to this meeting.

My other amendments in the group, amendments 151 and 152, are crucial to encourage crofters to adopt environmental practices or use common grazings for forestry. They would be particularly helpful if members do not vote for amendments 148, 196 and 198. Amendment 151 would require ministers to ensure that agricultural support payments and other public grants are set up to also support environmental initiatives or forestry on common grazings. We need to use the levers of state to encourage positive behaviour, all the more so if—as the bill currently has it—there is going to be little other incentive to do so.

Amendment 152 would require ministers to set up an advisory capacity for grazings committees on the use of common grazings for forestry or environmental purposes. I believe that that is key, particularly given that the use of land for those purposes is still relatively novel. That advisory function would help to build expertise and ensure that crofters can get the best out of land when it comes to environmental uses.

As I said at the start, the bill makes a genuinely positive step forward in opening the doors to environmental use of crofting land, and these amendments are intended to build on that positive foundation by supporting crofters to walk through that door.

Given the minister’s assurances that the Government has taken on board the issues with regard to crofters accessing the funding that they need, I am minded not to press amendment 140.

Amendment 140, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 191 and 192 not moved.

Before section 15

One of the bill’s missed opportunities is that it does not extend the crofting model to other parts of Scotland. We all know that crofting is a cultural institution and a unique way of life in the crofting counties that must be preserved. We can all agree that it binds communities together and supports rural communities. It gives more people a stake in the land and, by its very nature, is a low-impact way of managing the land. I firmly believe that that makes crofting a good model for reinvigorating communities and halting depopulation in rural parts of Scotland. Furthermore, it makes crofting an ideal method by which to produce locally accessible food in a sustainable and regenerative way, which is a path that we legislated for in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 and the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022.

Amendment 154, which was prepared in collaboration with the Scottish Crofting Federation, requires ministers to commit to and report on creating new crofts on public land. That would apply within existing crofting counties and beyond them. It would help to put Scotland on track to meet its climate, nature and community wealth building goals while allowing more new entrants to get involved.

Amendment 201 offers another path for public land to be moved into crofting, which could work in tandem with amendment 154. It would give ministers a duty to consider putting public land up for crofting use if a community body requests it. That would be useful, because it would allow local communities that sit close to public land to tackle issues such as the lack of available crofts in their vicinity.

Amendment 200 is similar, although it allows any person to request a crofting designation for land outside the established crofting communities. Ministers would be able to amend that stipulation if necessary.

It is really important that we listen to the calls to expand crofting to the rest of Scotland, and I urge members to vote for the amendments so that we can take that vital step. I will, however, listen to what the minister has to say.

I move amendment 154.

As I said during the stage 1 debate, I consider the bill to be something of a missed opportunity. It has been in the works for a decade, and, although it tidies up crofting legislation, it is not quite what crofters had hoped for. There are a number of key asks from crofters that have not been addressed in the first draft of the bill, such as tighter regulation of the market and tenancies so that crofting can be more accessible; a scheme to create crofts on public land; and a Scotland-wide expansion of where crofting can take place. I have attempted to address that with several of my amendments.

I agree with the Scottish Crofting Federation that work on more comprehensive reform must start immediately after the upcoming election. The minister can make guarantees about that today, but, given that none of us knows whether we will be here come May, let alone who will be in Government, it is vital that we codify a commitment to further action in the legislation. Amendment 213 and its consequential amendment 215 would bind ministers in the next parliamentary session to introducing another crofting bill.

12:15

Amendment 212 would give ministers a duty to review crofting legislation within the next five years. That process would make them consider whether further legislation is required, set out the reasons why and consult stakeholders.

I listened carefully to what Tim Eagle said and I appreciate his point about getting the process under way faster. I am therefore minded to support his amendment 211 in the first instance. If it falls, I will move my amendments.

I have a number of amendments in the group. I will speak initially to amendments 180, 181, 182 and 138, which relate to section 9, on owner-occupiers. One of the disappointments of the bill is that it does not do much in the way of cooling the marketisation of crofts. That situation is locking out people who are longing to take on a croft and put it to use, and it also threatens to hollow out townships. We need to move away from treating crofts as another land asset to be bought and sold. With a minor tweak to section 9, we can do something to at least remedy some of those issues while also saving the commission and the crofting community time by avoiding the need for long-winded breach of duty procedures.

Amendment 180, which I worked on with Community Land Scotland, would add a fourth condition to the owner-occupier definition as it is set out in the 1993 act. It would mean that someone applying for owner-occupier status would need to provide satisfactory evidence up front that they would live on the croft and put it to permitted use. Those are the same requirements that tenant crofters face, and there is no good reason for owner-occupiers to be treated any differently.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 179 has a very similar intent to my amendment, so, from my perspective, it is clear that we need to do something about it.

Amendments 181 and 182 would give the Scottish ministers the power to determine what evidence would be permissible to allow someone to meet the additional condition that would be required to receive owner-occupier status. Those amendments would go some way towards addressing the intent of the 2010 act, which sough to get parity in status between owner-occupiers and tenants.

Before I speak to amendments 185 and 186, which relate to section 10, on the transfer of crofts to people who are not individuals, I would just like to say that I whole-heartedly agree with the intent behind this section. Too often in society, we see ownership hidden behind obscure corporate or legal structures that prevent scrutiny, and the Scottish Greens will support any move to bring ownership out into the open.

My two amendments to section 10 seek to add a bit of nuance that I think is needed for a very specific purpose. They would provide for an exemption for local community groups and non-profit organisations, which is necessary because section 10, as it stands, could have unintended consequences for rural housing bodies and community organisations that wish to buy croft land for housing and to attach a rural housing burden.

My amendments, which were drafted with the support of Community Land Scotland and have the backing of the Scottish Crofting Federation, would ensure that crofts can be used to meet pressing local needs, such as the need for housing, and I believe that such an approach will support the cross-party effort to slow rural depopulation and maintain thriving communities across crofting counties. For that reason, I cannot back amendments 29 and 31 to 33, in the name of Beatrice Wishart. In my view, they do not recognise that there are some instances in which non-natural persons should hold a croft.

My amendment 138 would require ministers to set out the number of crofts that one crofter could own and what should happen if that threshold were to be passed. There is evidence that some crofters are collecting multiple crofts, which is not in the spirit of crofting and is damaging the crofting community. The situation is especially galling for the almost 800 people who are actively looking to take on a croft via the land matching service. As long as we leave the market for crofts unregulated, those with the deepest pockets will be able to hoover them up, and amendment 138 would help to mitigate that. I acknowledge the conversation that was had with the Government prior to stage 2 about local people wanting to gather crofts for families, but I think that there needs to be some balance in the process.

I am just trying to understand your points with regard to those amendments, so that I can consider whether I should change my approach and potentially support them.

It is good to hear your recognition that this is a contentious issue and that something needs to be done about it. I am minded not to move amendment 138 if I can have some assurance that, as the minister has said, the Government is willing to take forward some level of consultation and get to the bottom of the matter. It is a problem in communities if there is an imbalance, although I recognise that there is history to take into account, as well as familial relationships with places.

However, it is an issue that we need to consider. As I said earlier, there are around 800 people who really want to croft, but they cannot access one. We absolutely need to have more people on the land. As Andrew Thin said, we must transform the way in which we use our land and move from the current suboptimal approach to one that ensures that our land flourishes and thrives.

That is something that I wanted to get a better sense of. Perhaps there is a communication issue here if there are measures in place that people can access, but it is good to hear that you are looking at revising CAGS to make it more accessible for crofters to do the things that they want to do, especially given the big push for the ecological restoration that needs to be taking place across our land. I will keep track of these developments and what you are looking at with regard to CAGS.

Expanding the practice of crofting into other counties in Scotland has been talked about for quite a long time. Can the minister give any assurances about what work might be done in that area? It would be nice to get to a point at which we are not just talking about it but doing some work on the ground.