Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Official Report 647KB pdf

---

Crofting Legislation Reform

Item 2 is crofting legislation reform. I invite members to declare relevant interests. I think that we ought to include farming as well as crofting, so I declare that I have an interest in a farming partnership.

On that basis, I, too, declare that I am involved in a farming business.

I have a very small registered agricultural holding. It would be a croft if it was in the crofting counties, but it is not.

Thank you. In this evidence session we will explore the Scottish Government’s proposals. I welcome, from the Scottish Government: Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity; Michael O’Neill, the crofting bill team leader; Gordon Jackson, the head of agricultural development and crofting; and Ian Davidson, the head of the agricultural policy division. I invite the cabinet secretary to make some brief opening remarks.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, everyone.

Most people agree that current crofting legislation is complex and lacks transparency, having been developed on a piecemeal basis over 130 years. A consultation was launched last August, in which we sought stakeholders’ views on the Scottish Government’s crofting policy, the potential form that new crofting legislation could take and priorities for legislative change. During the three-month consultation period, my officials held a series of 21 meetings with the public and interested stakeholder groups. They heard directly from more than 300 individuals across the crofting counties.

The consultation closed in late November, having received 122 responses from individuals and organisations. The responses were independently analysed and a report on the analysis was published in mid-March. A wide and diverse range of views was expressed, which highlighted the scale of the challenge ahead. The analysis highlighted that there is support for new crofting legislation and support for making changes to existing legislation and restating or consolidating law in almost equal proportions. Consequently, there does not appear to be a consensus that would allow me to decide on specific pieces of legislative reform.

Following the publication of the analysis report, I met the cross-party group on crofting to outline how I want to take matters forward and to hear the views of group members and members of the Scottish Parliament. I explained that I am proposing a two-phase approach to legislative reform, with the first phase, in the shorter term, leading to a bill in this parliamentary session.

The first phase will focus on delivering changes that carry widespread support and will result in practical, everyday improvements to the lives of crofters and the legislative procedures that they follow. I am keen to involve and engage MSPs—particularly those with crofting interests—to ensure that their ideas and proposals can be considered and taken forward in legislation.

The second phase is longer-term work. I have asked my officials to continue to give consideration to a fundamental review of crofting legislation with the aim of providing a solution to some of the more complex and challenging issues that crofting faces and determining what they mean for how legislation will be developed in the future. The work will begin now but will be for a future Parliament to deliver.

I am pleased to say that that work is under way. A crofting bill group has been established, which will involve stakeholder organisations in the development of proposals for a bill and consideration of the longer-term issues. I understand that the group’s first meeting has taken place and was positive and constructive.

I am also keen to use further non-legislative means to make changes to further improve the sustainability of crofting and encourage new entrants. Those changes will include a national development plan for crofting and a new entrants scheme that will directly benefit crofters without their needing to wait for legislative change.

It is not just within crofting that I see opportunities to enhance provision. I am keen to encourage more woodland crofts through the national forest estate and to ensure that crofting communities benefit from our ambitions for a low-carbon economy and our commitment to provide all homes and businesses with access to superfast broadband. The approach is pragmatic and is focused on delivering a future for crofting in 21st century Scotland.

I hope that those opening remarks are helpful.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. The first questions will come from the deputy convener, Gail Ross.

Cabinet secretary, you talked about the consultation. Of the 122 responses that were submitted, 74 per cent were from individuals. Do you feel that the responses were satisfactory? Do you think that those most affected by the changes had a chance to adequately feed into the consultation? Of course, that includes the 21 face-to-face meetings that you held.

I think that I do. A lot of work was put into the consultation. The information was sent to a wide range of those who have an interest—I have the list here. I will not read it out, for the sake of saving time, but I can share it with the committee.

The bill team held a series of 21 public and private meetings. Mr O’Neill might be able to share the benefit of his experience, because I think that he attended 19 out of the 21 meetings. There have been previous consultations, of course. I think that it was a wide consultation. It allowed us to get a wide range of views and to establish that there does not appear to be a majority view for any particular approach.

We went round the country, and over 300 people attended the meetings with interested stakeholder groups across the crofting areas. Those meetings covered a wide range of interests, involving both individual crofters and stakeholder representatives. We made sure that we had copies of the information there for them to take away. Indeed, in certain places, we left copies of the consultation document and the response forms so that people could get back to us with responses to the consultation questions. We got wide coverage of the people we wanted to hear from.

What was the response from the cross-party group on crofting when you put the proposals to it?

I do not know that it would be fair to say that the group as such provided a particular response, but it was good to engage with that group. Indeed, many of the committee members were there.

Since my appearance before the stakeholder groups, there have been a number of reactions from the key people involved, and, as far as I am aware, they have been broadly positive. For example, NFU Scotland has backed our approach and has issued a statement to that effect. The Scottish Crofting Federation has said:

“We are pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has announced a positive way forward ... This is ... good news for crofting.”

Brian Inkster—a lawyer who specialises in this area—has said that the approach

“seems ... eminently sensible”

and that the Scottish Government has

“recognised the complexities involved and that all that needs to be sorted probably can’t be easily sorted in just one parliamentary term.”

I appreciate that Governments can always be criticised from various perspectives—for not being bold enough or for being too bold—but the broad response from the key people involved seems to be supportive.

I am keen to maintain a consensual approach with stakeholders and, indeed, to work closely with individual MSPs as we pursue our plan. I think that a two-phase approach on legislation has attracted some support. There is also the non-legislative approach, with the national development plan, the young entrants scheme and the work that we have already been doing on grants, for example, which I can share with committee members if that is of interest. We will continue with that non-legislative approach, because, after all, law is just words on a page; it does not, of itself, transform people’s lives.

I have a brief question about the respondents to the consultation, 74 per cent of whom you said were individual members of the public. Were most of them active crofters, or were they representing other interests?

I cannot give you a precise figure for the number of responses that we received from crofters, but it was clear from the responses that a number of people were crofters and that a number of them had an interest in crofting without necessarily being crofters. I would say that the bulk of the people who attended the public meetings were crofters and had a direct interest in the issue.

Mr O’Neill is to be commended for well and truly getting out of St Andrew’s house and attending 19 of the 21 meetings that took place around the crofting counties. That is a shining example to his colleagues.

I am sure that a delightful trip around the crofting counties would be welcomed by all.

The cabinet secretary has just used the phrase “crofting counties”. In the original legislation, the area that I represent was excluded—by a single vote—from being a crofting county. Was any evidence put forward by people who were consulted about what the proper boundaries for crofting should be? I should say that I have had no such approaches. Was it suggested that crofting should cover the whole of Scotland, because it is an activity rather than something that one would think is naturally defined simply by geographical boundaries? Did the consultation make it easy for that view to emerge? It is all very well going round the crofting counties, but there might be views to that effect elsewhere. It is clear that that would not be an issue for the phase 1 bill that the cabinet secretary has described, but it might be an issue for the later phase.

If my memory serves me correctly, the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 extended to eight crofting counties. As always, I am indebted to Mr Stevenson for his historical knowledge: I did not know that his area was excluded by one vote—although, given his declaration of interests, he is very nearly a crofter. Perhaps Mr O’Neill can enlighten us on Mr Stevenson’s question.

The consultation responses contained little in the way of requests that the boundaries be extended. However, at one of the meetings—it was in Inverness—someone said that crofting should be extended across the whole of Scotland. There might have been one response that said something similar—it could well have come from the same person; I do not know.

In the consultation document, although we did not ask a specific question on that issue, we made it very clear that, if people wanted to add any comments in relation to any of the questions that were asked or, indeed, any other question, they were more than welcome to do so, and we did not receive much in the way of additional information on the issue.

It is perhaps a bit late to extend the crofting counties beyond the eight. I imagine that that would give rise to legal issues, not least under the European convention on human rights, but it is a very interesting question.

I, too, thank the bill team for getting out of Edinburgh. I am sure that you enjoyed the 19 meetings.

For the record, were there any respondents to the consultation who did not want there to be any change?

Yes, although it depends on how you define “no change”. Eight per cent of the respondents said that they favoured option 1—to consolidate the existing legislation—and there was at least one individual who said that it was not necessary to change the legislation. Relatively few of the 122 respondents held such views. There were others who said, “We don’t need crofting legislation—we should just have agricultural legislation, with appropriate secondary legislation.” It was only a small number of people, not a majority, who wanted no change.

I am not sure that I heard you correctly, cabinet secretary. Did you say 18 per cent?

Eight per cent of respondents favoured option 1.

I am glad that you clarified that.

09:15  

Good morning, cabinet secretary and the rest of the panel.

As you have said, cabinet secretary, there have been several reforms and amendments to the crofting acts since 1886. The crofting law sump group was established in October 2013, and its final report was published in November 2014. The sump report identified 57 issues with crofting law that should be taken forward in a crofting bill. Of those, the group identifies 17 high-priority propositions. What issues are likely to be addressed in the proposed bill?

The crofting bill group has been formed, has already met and has considered the matter. We recognise the value of the Shucksmith report, and we recognise the huge amount of work that has gone into delivering the crofting law sump report. That is an unfairly derogatory term, as it is a valuable document that identifies a series of measures, although, in itself, it does not amount to a series of prescriptive policy solutions. Some of its 50 or 60 points identify issues rather than provide solutions.

In the first phase, we want to identify items of potential improvement in legislation—for example, removal of the somewhat rigid requirement of newspaper advertisement, which brings with it unnecessary expense. Also, some of the prescriptive deadlines to which the Crofting Commission must adhere cause practical difficulties in connection with its work. We want to identify those measures that could improve processes and identify errors and omissions that cause practical difficulties. I am mindful of the fact that the committee asked us to do exactly that in one of its recommendations.

Phase 1 would deal with various simpler issues and should not try to address some of the more complex issues—for example, succession and assignation. It would be helpful for the group to identify not only those issues that the bill should deal with but those that it should not really deal with, which it would be better to deal with in phase 2. That is my personal view. I am, of course, interested in what committee members have to say.

I invite Michael O’Neill to add anything about what we will try to deal with in phase 1.

I will add something briefly, as this might answer a later question. We have established a crofting bill group to start examining issues for phase 1. We have a list that is based predominantly on the sump report, because that is where many of the issues on crofting legislation were to be found, although we have augmented it with other things from the consultation. We will put that list on the internet and make it public in order to show how we are coming to our decisions on what is included in phase 1.

There was a very good first meeting on 25 April. In the discussion, the stakeholders very much engaged on what should or should not be in phase 1. Hopefully, that will ensure that we get buy-in to the process as we proceed with the proposed legislation.

Before I hand over to another committee member to ask you about other matters, I compliment you on the steady approach that you are considering. Phase 1 will take place during this session of Parliament. When will phase 2 take place?

Our intention is to introduce a bill before the end of this parliamentary session. Phase 2 will be a legacy issue for the Parliament in the next session. It is important to stress that I intend to ask my officials to do the work now so that we can provide a legacy for members in the next session instead of having a blank canvas.

John, would you like to push a little bit harder on that issue?

Good morning, cabinet secretary and the panel. Just to go a bit further on that, cabinet secretary, can you confirm what consultation there will be on the specific work that you are doing now? For instance, will you publish a draft bill?

I am attracted by the idea of publishing a draft bill. No decision has yet been made; these decisions have to be taken by the Cabinet in the context of our other legislative priorities. The approach that I am taking would benefit from having as much clarity as possible in phase 1. Therefore, the publication of a draft bill would have considerable merits. We will give that further thought and discuss it with the crofting bill group and, of course, we will keep the committee closely advised.

Mr Lyle referred to the timeframe. What sort of timeframe are we talking about?

I do not wish to put a firm timescale on matters at the moment. After all, it took 140 years from the battle of Culloden to secure crofting reform. We shall, however, bring forward our proposals with the firm intention to legislate on phase 1 before the end of this parliamentary session.

Thank you very much.

One of the committee’s recommendations in its report into its inquiry on crofting was that there should be sufficient time to allow the Parliament to consider the legislation and that any new crofting bill should not be one of those bills that appear just before the end of the session. Are you saying that there will be time to consider the legislation? I believe that the committee accepts that it is important to get this right. It was telegraphed before the election that there would be crofting legislation in this session. Will there be proper consultation and a proper timescale? I want to push you a wee bit on when you foresee a bill coming forward. There should be time for all the Parliament to consider it.

The decision on the timing of the bill will obviously be taken by the Cabinet in the context of the Scottish Government’s other legislative priorities. A firmer timescale will become clearer as the work progresses. The important thing with legislation is that we take sufficient time to get it right. Mr Inkster, who I quoted earlier, said:

“splitting reform over two parliamentary terms should allow a comprehensive and considered approach to crofting reform, unlike the rushed approach that led to the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. That rushed approach created many of the problems requiring to be resolved today.”

We have a bill team manager here, which indicates some level of commitment. Is that the correct title?

I am the bill team leader.

You have a bill team manager only once you have a bill. The bill comes first and the manager second.

I beg your pardon. I just wanted to establish that we have put someone in charge of a prospective bill. When was that appointment made?

No. I have asked Mr O’Neill to lead on this work, which is what he is doing. We have not yet reached the formal business of the appointment of bill team managers.

Okay.

I am not sure that we will get much further on that, so I will push forward with the next question, which is from Mike Rumbles.

In your opening statement, you gave a comprehensive outline of what has been happening from your perspective. There were 122 responses to your consultation, there have been 21 public meetings, and you mentioned the cross-party group. However, you did not mention the fact that this committee has undertaken an inquiry into crofting on which we produced a report. One of our major recommendations, on which we all agreed, was that there should be a

“move away from the piecemeal process”

of developing crofting legislation, and that the crofting bill should be “comprehensive.”

We undertook our inquiry to identify the issues, to increase our knowledge and to feed into the Government and influence the way that it might approach the bill. I have not had time to discuss this with the rest of my colleagues, but it strikes me that you are doing the opposite: you are producing a bill that will not be comprehensive. You talked about phase 1, from which I assume that there is a phase 2, which is a legacy for a future Government and a future Parliament. It seems to me from your responses that you are doing the opposite of what the committee recommended. What are your thoughts on that?

I agree that a piecemeal approach is not desirable, but I disagree that the approach that I have set out could be characterised in that way. It is a strategic approach. The quotes that I have read out from Mr Inkster, the Scottish Crofting Federation and the NFUS seem to recognise that we are taking a strategic approach to deal with things in stages that are likely to be efficacious.

Of course I respect the work that the committee did and, precisely because the committee asked me to, and because of our manifesto commitment, I proceeded with the work. I was keen to reach out to the people of Scotland to get their views and I think that I have demonstrated—although Mr O’Neill did most of the legwork—that we reached out to the people and they spoke. They said that they did not want to take a fundamental reform approach. There was no clear majority.

We listen to the people. I stumbled across the slogan of the Highland Land League and it amply sums up the point. It is:

“The people are mightier than a lord.”

I am sure that there is a lot to commend that slogan, even today. The people spoke through the consultation and we are simply being guided by the people.

We also had a consultation and we were guided by the people in the same way, but it seems to me that we came to a completely opposite conclusion. How have you taken any of our other recommendations forward at all?

There are several recommendations, so it might be more fruitful for me to deal with each of them in turn, if the committee so wishes. I have paid due to regard to all the recommendations, such as the recommendation to make practical improvements in the daily life of crofters. That is why, since 2007, we have devoted £16 million to extending 800 grants to secure the future of 800 families on crofts. The £12 million crofting agricultural grant scheme has received 4,000 applications, and the cattle improvement scheme has received £3 million from us. In terms of helping people in their daily lives with practical issues, which was one of the committee’s recommendations, we are not falling short.

Convener, I will leave it to you.

I just want to clarify that 43 per cent of the responders to the consultation said that they want a clean slate, and that is a majority of people, given the choice of options. If you add together all the responses to the other options, the result is more than 43 per cent. Cabinet secretary, 43 per cent said that they want a clean slate, and the impression that the committee got was that there is a feeling that a clean slate and not a piecemeal approach is the way forward. Why are you not taking the response of the 43 per cent? Why are you adding all the other responses together and saying that you do not have a clear majority? A majority of respondents to a simple question want a clean slate. I need to understand that because I am struggling with it.

I said that there was no clear majority for a particular approach. With respect, 43 per cent is not a majority and, by definition, 57 per cent did not support that approach.

I appreciate that there are many different approaches, and I have already said that. Convener, you can tell me if I miss anybody out, but the key people involved at the stakeholder group and, subsequently, the stakeholders have commended the approach that we are taking. I am heartened by that.

Debate and discussion is always appreciated, but I am heartened by the initial response to our approach. Mr Finnie’s suggestion of continuing to consult and introducing a draft bill would be consistent with that approach and allow us to continue to demonstrate that what we propose to do has the broad consent of the people, not just a minority.

09:30  

The convener stole my thunder a bit, because I was going to quote the 43 per cent. Although that does not make for a majority, the clean sheet approach was the most favoured way forward of those who were consulted. I made clear at the time that I favoured that approach. I accept that not everyone on the committee had the same opinion, but the committee said that it did not want a piecemeal approach.

I am disappointed, because it looks a wee bit like another attempt to tinker around the edges, and such tinkering is exactly why there is such a complex set of laws governing crofting rights. We have tinkered around the edges so many times that we have ended up with a set of laws that nobody understands—they can hardly be understood by lawyers, let alone the average crofter. We should have been much more robust. What form will the bill take?

The bill will take the form of any parliamentary bill; it will set out legislative proposals. With respect, I do not agree with the criticism that has been made. Our approach seems to command a fair amount of support. However, I am keen that we give a full answer to the committee, so maybe Mr O’Neill can add his comments, because he has been closely involved with every part of it.

When we looked at the way forward, we had the options that were set out in the consultation document, from a consolidation at one end of the spectrum through to a clean sheet at the other end. Although options 2 and 3 were different, they were closer together on the spectrum of the legislative approaches that we could take and involved very similar changes to existing legislation. Option 2 involved changing existing legislation and having a second bill thereafter, whereas option 3 was to reduce the number of pieces of legislation and change existing legislation at the same time. However, they would do very similar things and it is obvious that they would not be a clean sheet.

Taking those two together, 42 per cent of respondents said “change existing legislation if you can”, whereas 43 per cent said “let us have a clean sheet”. The decision was a very fine one. Some consultation responses that were in favour of option 4—the clean sheet option—would still make it difficult and time consuming to reach consensus on a new bill, which might affect the ability to deliver in this parliamentary session. Equally, other responses that supported option 3—to tidy up legislation—would make changes that would not necessarily resolve all outstanding issues, so that there could be a call for further legislation in the future.

To a certain extent, it was difficult to get a way out other than trying to solve some of the key issues that we can solve now, for which there is widespread support, and then looking at the more difficult issues about which it is hard to achieve consensus. The evidence from the consultation is that there may be opposing and contradictory opinions in certain cases that need to be bottomed out before more fundamental change could be made. Otherwise, we could end up back where we started, with some people unhappy with the legislation. That is some background about why we have—

I get all that. I understand why a clean sheet would be a difficult and huge piece of work. However, do you accept my premise that one reason why we are in such a complex situation is precisely because that is what we have done in the past? We have tinkered around the edges, made small changes and built law on top of law until we have got to a situation in which nobody can understand crofting law unless they have a degree in law—and even then, they are struggling.

In phase 1, we are trying to look at changes that will make crofters’ lives on the ground more straightforward as soon as we can, rather than going for—

That is what everybody has said in the past. The changes were designed to make life a bit more straightforward, but we have ended up with a much more complex set of rules. I understand that you are well meaning in what you have said, but everybody who has had a go at this in the past would also say that they were well meaning. It has ended up an absolute dog’s breakfast that nobody can find a way through.

You seem to be making an unduly negative prognosis. We have had a welcome from the Scottish Crofting Federation and NFU Scotland, and from distinguished lawyer Brian Inkster, who I think has no difficulty in understanding and interpreting crofting law and advising clients thereon.

We should be a bit more positive about this. There is a desire to go ahead with phase 1—in principle, at least—and I, for one, want to build on that positivity and take things forward.

My colleagues will talk about phase 2, but before we move on to that, I want to make the point that phase 2 is outside the parameters of this committee, this Parliament and this Government, and there are many great unknowns about what might happen under future Parliaments and Governments. I am interested in what this committee, this Parliament and this Government do, so I want to focus on the bill in phase 1, because I feel that I am moving into a discussion about phase 2 no further forward in knowing what the bill will contain and what it will achieve. If that is not a piecemeal approach, what is it?

The bill will contain a series of measures, some of which I have mentioned. I assume that you were listening earlier when I gave Mr Lyle some examples. The measures are those that can be implemented relatively easily and are less controversial, and the work in that regard is being taken forward by a group of experts in the crofting bill group. Perhaps Mr O’Neill can supplement the answer that I gave to Mr Lyle about the content of phase 1. Members should be mindful that we must prepare and then perhaps consult on the measures, as Mr Finnie suggested.

We keep hearing about phase 1 and phase 2. There is no phase 2; what we are talking about is only phase 1.

My point, which links to Jamie Greene’s point, is that this week we are 40 per cent through this parliamentary session. We have had two years and we have only three years left, and we do not have a bill before us. It strikes me that unless a bill is introduced fairly quickly, we will not have time to deal with it comprehensively. Is this a piecemeal approach, as Jamie Greene said?

No. I do not agree. It is a strategic approach, and nothing prevents this committee from expressing its views on future law reform. It would be helpful if Mr O’Neill could supplement the answer that I gave Mr Lyle, when I mentioned a couple of specific items that will be in the proposed bill.

I ask Michael O’Neill to give a list of areas into which you plan to delve, rather than go into each one in great detail, because I fear that we are short of time.

Perhaps I can provide the committee with that after the meeting; I have a list here—

I think that you should read it out now, if possible.

The convener wants to know what they are.

Okay. One of the issues that we are looking at is joint tenancies, which is an issue that came out of the “Women in Farming and the Agriculture Sector” report. At the moment it seems that, under crofting legislation, a tenancy can be in only one name, which does not seem to stakeholders to be right, in these times. We can look at changing the legislation in that regard, to bring crofting into line with other tenancies and agreements.

There is something called minor reorganisation of the croft, which would give the Crofting Commission powers to sort out quite tricky situations in which part-owners of crofts who want to do something will not allow neighbours to do something else with their parts of the croft. It is about allowing crofters greater freedom over the land that they are managing. There are four or five issues that relate to that.

We are also looking at the meaning of “owner-occupier”. A number of owner-occupiers bought their crofts prior to 1955, when there was no crofting legislation, but under the current legislation they find themselves to be landlords of vacant crofts, because they were never installed as a crofter. There are about 975 such cases. We can resolve issues for those crofters if we can change the legislation.

The cabinet secretary mentioned the registration requirement to advertise and the process of first registering a croft. There are enforced duties when a croft is sublet, but should those duties be placed on the tenant, the owner-occupier or the tenant who let out the croft?

There is a requirement that crofters provide annual notices. That process is resource intensive for the Crofting Commission and takes up crofters’ time. We can look at whether those notices have to be provided every year.

Another issue is the grazings committee’s duty to report, about which this committee made a recommendation in its report. The grazings committee reports on neighbouring crofts, which has proven to be a difficult issue for its clerks to deal with. That issue was raised a number of times during the consultation period. We can look to see how the relevant legislation might be refined to ease that burden.

We can look at deemed crofts. The committee heard evidence from the Crofting Commission on deemed crofts, which are created when common grazing shares become detached from the tenanted croft. That creates a number of problems. We think that there may be a way to stop creating deemed crofts by making changes to existing legislation, but trying to relink grazing shares and crofts would be complex, and a revised system would require a lot of thought and discussion with stakeholders and crofters to work out what the effects of doing that would be. That is possibly a phase 2 issue, but we can certainly look at how not to create any more deemed crofts in phase 1.

There is also issue of whether the Crofting Commission’s decisions have to be adjudicated by the Scottish Land Court or whether the commission can be more independent and take decisions that do not require resources to be spent, because using the judicial resources of the Scottish Land Court can be expensive.

That is a very helpful list, thank you. However, in order to save time, perhaps—

There are 35-plus issues on the list.

That was just a taste.

I just wanted the headlines, so perhaps you could submit the list to the clerks and the committee will look at that afterwards.

Will the 17 high-priority recommendations of the sump report be addressed in the phase 1 bill, or will some of those elements be addressed later?

The sump report recognised that some of the high-priority issues will not be easy to deliver on. Therefore, when we were drawing up the list for phase 1, we tried to match up those issues that are high priority and those that we can sensibly deliver. However, issues that may be contentious or would require a lot of work because the legislation is so complicated might need to be dealt with in phase 2. The starting point was to include as many of the high-priority issues in the list as we could.

That is the short answer, and I hope that Mr Greene is happy with it.

Throughout the bill process, we will be putting papers and information, including the contact details for the bill team, on a web page. We can provide the address to committee members. Suggestions about what should be included can be made. Indeed, the list is not fully set in stone and stakeholders are considering it to see whether anything should be added. There are a number of things that we can work on—and that is what the bill team is doing.

This question will be on phase 2, with apologies to Jamie Greene. What is the current status of the Scottish Government’s work on the national development plan for crofting, which was included in the programme for government at the start of this parliamentary year?

09:45  

The programme for government suggested that work should begin on a national development plan. Since then, we have been advancing that work. It will form a critical part of the support that the Scottish Government will offer crofters and crofting communities because it is important that crofts are used in the best possible way to contribute to the rural economy and sustainable communities.

The stakeholder engagement began in 2016. It included the Scottish Crofting Federation, the NFUS, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Crofting Commission and Scottish Land & Estates. They have been giving consideration to what recommendations they wish to make to the Scottish Government for inclusion in the plan. That has resulted in a number of draft priority papers, including a development paper, that we will work on and look to bring forward in due course.

The plan will contain such things as an updated, clear crofting policy; details of a new entrants scheme; a further development promotional role for the Crofting Commission, which will incorporate better signposting of what support is available for crofters; a crofting pack for new entrants; and common grazings guidance—indeed, the commission is working on a template for that controversial issue.

We are committed to drafting the crofting development plan and to consulting key stakeholders thereafter. It is important work, but I stress that it is not stopping us helping crofters with CAGS support and the bull stud scheme.

One of the biggest complaints that I hear in my constituency is about the lack of clarity and the fact that there are often sources of support that crofters are unaware of. Will the development plan identify sources of support and have some strategic targets for improving our support for crofters?

Yes, it will aim to do that. As Kate Forbes knows well, Highlands and Islands Enterprise is distinctive in that it has a social obligation in its remit. It takes that seriously but, of course, the business gateway deals with advice at the level of individual small businesses. The Crofting Commission has the general duty to promote crofting and have regard to the interests of crofters, but the national development plan will provide further clarity about who can provide support to crofters in respect of particular ways in which they may wish to develop their crofts. I am also cognisant of the fact that our reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme will provide improved connectivity, with access to high-speed broadband at 30 megabits per second, and our mobile infill programme seeks to address not-spots, especially in the rural and island communities.

Cabinet secretary, people in the crofting counties are practical. A real issue, as ever, is housing. Will that feature in the development plan? It is core. You mentioned the sump report, which has been welcomed, but if we are not only to build but to sustain communities, we will need more housing.

Mr Finnie is absolutely correct and I endorse what he says. We are addressing housing in a number of ways. My colleague Kevin Stewart, who deals with housing, has taken a close interest in special provisions and policies for the Highlands. I had a fruitful meeting in Inverness a few weeks back with the Highlands Small Communities Housing Trust, which does excellent work. I referred to woodland crofts, and I have asked the housing trust to continue to play a part in that.

I feel proud of the fact that the croft house grant scheme has assisted 800 families over the past 11 years. In my brief period at the helm, there have been 70 grant offers at a cost of £2.4 million, which means that 70 families have had the opportunity to build or improve a house in their part of Scotland, secure their future and help to secure the sustainability of communities and the school rolls that depend on young people coming in. That is a practical and cost-effective scheme that provides a bit of extra support for people to build or improve a house. For various reasons that Mr Finnie will know and understand, the costs of building or improving a house are often higher in the Highlands or remote communities.

I have a final question on phase 2. In a previous letter to the committee, the cabinet secretary wrote:

“This second phase should work towards clarity for those issues which are complex in nature and sometimes provoke contradictory views.”

Without necessarily asking for a list of what is in phase 2, I would like to know how phase 2 will meet those objectives.

Phase 2 is intended to consider issues that, as Kate Forbes said, are more complex or have the potential to divide opinion. It is likely to focus on all crofting issues, not simply the ones that Mr O’Neill alluded to in his description of some of the potential phase 1 items. Phase 2 is likely to focus on thorny issues such as assignation and succession, common grazings and owner-occupier crofts, each of which is recognised as being a highly complex area.

I have come to the conclusion that the difficulty that is faced by those who wish for fundamental reform and those who do not is the desire to retain the security that the 1886 act conferred and a matching desire to develop and further sustain communities into the future by enabling and facilitating things to be done. If there is a way to combine the security of the past with sustainability for the future, that would perhaps signpost the work that we need to do in phase 2.

There are a couple more questions, cabinet secretary. We would like to get through them all, and I am mindful of the time.

In the consultation analysis report, a number of non-legislative measures were identified, such as promoting crofters’ rights, housing-related support—John Finnie touched on that—and support for new entrants into crofting, which you touched on in your opening comments. Will you elaborate on the non-legislative changes that you are considering? When and how will they be implemented?

That is a very fair question. One that I mentioned is the development plan and another is the new entrants scheme. The Government remains committed to introducing a new entrants scheme for crofting and we welcome the work that has already been done on that topic by the stakeholder forum. It is of critical importance to encourage people into crofting to ensure its long-term sustainability and that of our crofting communities.

For members’ interest, I say that stakeholders have been drafting a priority paper on new entrants and I understand that that is close to being finalised. A lot of work has been done in the background, as Mr O’Neill demonstrated in his earlier resumé of the proposed contents of phase 1. In particular, a lot of work has been done by stakeholders and the Crofting Commission to address controversies arising from individual cases about grazing committees and their operation. A template for guidance is being developed by the Crofting Commission thereanent, which, I believe, is close to completion.

A whole raft of non-legislative work is being done by the Government, our partners and stakeholders.

Is there a timescale for when the new entrants scheme is likely to be rolled out?

Eight hundred potential new entrants have arisen through the crofting grant scheme, which is a practical way to enable people to stay on or move to the land, in crofting terms. We will work closely with the stakeholders in our engagement process, because their work is close to being finalised. The scheme will be further developed over the next six months or so.

Obviously, the implementation will be budget dependent. I do not want to veer into Brexit issues but, plainly, pillar 2 is not the subject of clear assurances from the UK Government. However, as you know, convener, I do not want to be negative today, so I will not dwell on that. I will just say that we are keen to build on the good work that we have done on new entrants and the work with stakeholders to bring forward a practical and sensible scheme that will help to bring yet more people back into the crofting counties or to ensure that they remain there.

I want to briefly touch on the responsibility for initiatives. In 2009, the Government transferred responsibility for crofting development from the then Crofters Commission to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have received feedback that, since then, HIE has not done a great deal to provide support and pathways for young people and new entrants. Has consideration been given to transferring back that responsibility to the Crofting Commission, as it seems to have direct authority on crofting, whereas HIE tends to look more at wider crofting community support rather than direct schemes such as new entrants schemes?

I know from my personal knowledge of the board members and employees of HIE that they take a very close interest in these matters. To be fair to them, it is really the business gateway and not HIE that has the role of providing direct assistance to small business—that is just a fact. However, it is in the DNA of HIE to consider and promote work and economic endeavour in the Highlands and Islands. Also, there is an express reference in the legislation to the commission’s promotional role. We can further build on that part of its role, and I look forward to discussing that with the commission when I meet it again.

You have mentioned the stakeholders’ views of the proposals, which you said were quite positive. The Scottish Crofting Federation has talked about

“a bill in this parliamentary session which corrects the major anomalies”.

There is agreement that that should happen, but is there also agreement as to what the major anomalies are? We have a list of suggestions, but are they all broadly agreed or is there disagreement on that?

The stakeholders are working through that list. We had a meeting last week and there is another one planned this month. The anomalies that we can fix in phase 1 will be subject to those discussions. Clearly, if the stakeholders think that the anomalies are potentially sufficiently complicated and contentious that they wish them to be dealt with in phase 2, that is what we will do. The list of things that I read from earlier is being worked through, and we have a similar list for the other issues that do not look like they will be for phase 1.

The Scottish Crofting Federation went on to say that the process will

“pave the way to a consolidation bill in the next session.”

Some people think that a consolidation bill means just pulling together existing legislation and not making changes. Is the federation just using the wrong word or misunderstanding? I do not get the impression from you that it will be a consolidation bill.

In the response that the Scottish Crofting Federation provided, its preferred option was option 2, which was to change now and consolidate legislation afterwards. You are correct that the consolidation will not make any material changes to legislation but will just bring it all together. Obviously, we have had discussions in the stakeholder group, which includes the Scottish Crofting Federation. The federation understands the process that we have outlined and is supportive of that route, even though it may not lead to the consolidation and may lead to something else. We have to discuss that as part of the phase 2 work to consider where the legislation should end up and where would be the most sensible end point for it.

10:00  

How far can you go in this parliamentary session? I accept the point, which Jamie Greene made, that another session is completely new, but the suggestion is that some preparation will be done before that. I hope that, if there was cross-party agreement, whoever formed the next Government would be up and running, because quite a lot of work would have been done. How much work can be done before 2021?

A fair amount of work can be done. The purpose is to leave a legacy to an incoming Administration. That legacy could well inform the manifestos of various parties at the next election.

Let us see how much work can be done. There is a fair wind behind the approach that we have taken. In response to Kate Forbes’s questioning, I identified some areas that are far more complex. I have also identified the principle that underlies the approach that would encourage the majority of people to support more fundamental reform.

To answer John Mason’s question, I am keen for us to do a solid amount of work in the hope and belief that it will benefit an incoming Administration.

The stakeholder group on the proposed bill is keen not to lose sight of phase 2, which it wants to start looking at. We will probably discuss that at a meeting in June, because we are trying to get to the early part of sorting out the phase 1 list. The group does not want us to lose sight of phase 2 and we will not lose sight of it—we will continue that work alongside phase 1.

As I said, that was the penultimate group of questions. I will tie that section together.

The cabinet secretary will have read the recommendations that were in our report. Paragraphs 101 to 103 of our report contained recommendations on crofting policy. The principle is that, before legislative reform takes place, the Government should issue a statement of overarching crofting policy. If that was discussed in the Parliament, would it mean that any work that was done before the end of the parliamentary session was more likely to take into account the Parliament’s views, as well as the Government’s views?

With your agreement, convener, Mr Jackson is keen to have a shot at that question.

I welcome Gordon Jackson—this is his first and last chance to speak.

The consultation exercise that was linked to the proposed bill picked up on the Scottish Government’s overarching policy statement. It asked respondents whether they agreed with that and why they disagreed or agreed. Of the respondents, 49 per cent agreed and 51 per cent disagreed. Those who disagreed did so for an array of reasons—some thought that the statement was too complex; some thought that it was too simple.

We are perfectly willing to engage with crofting stakeholders to work up and refine the statement. The statement encapsulates all the important aspects of crofting, such as maintaining populations in remote rural locations and contributing to the sustainability of communities. However, it appears that the form of words needs to be looked at and that we need to take stakeholders with us.

There was no clear majority in favour of the Government’s crofting policy statement so, once the Government has reviewed the statement, it would be useful and a welcome addition for the Parliament to have a chance to discuss it and work out the way forward. The cabinet secretary might want to think about that, but I would be happy to take a yes or no answer at this stage.

I will take the point to avizandum.

I thank the cabinet secretary, Michael O’Neill and Gordon Jackson—and I do not forget Ian Davidson, although he did not say anything—for their attendance.

I suspend the meeting briefly for a changeover of witnesses.

10:04 Meeting suspended.  

10:08 On resuming—