Environment and Rural Development Committee, 02 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 2, 2005

Official Report 253KB pdf

---

Draft Crofting Reform Bill

For agenda item 2 on crofting I welcome the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development and her officials. The bill is the final piece of legislation that is envisaged in the Scottish Executive's land reform programme. It is the last piece of the jigsaw that is about to be put into place. This morning's session will enable us to consider the minister's proposals before they are introduced to Parliament.

We will scrutinise the proposed crofting reform bill when it is introduced to Parliament early next year. The Executive recently consulted on its draft bill, so much discussion about it is going on outside. The session will give the committee the opportunity to ask the Executive about issues that have arisen from the consultation in advance of formal scrutiny of the bill.

A couple of MSP colleagues from other committees are with us. I welcome John Farquhar Munro and Jamie Stone.

I ask the minister to introduce her officials and to make some opening remarks. We will then move to questions.

Thank you, convener. Beside me are Shane Rankin, the head of crofting policy at the Scottish Executive; Mark Richards, from the office of the solicitor to the Scottish Executive; and Sheila Scobie, the bill manager. I will keep my remarks brief so that we can maximise the time for questions.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today about the draft crofting reform bill. It is an important bill for the crofting communities and for people in Scotland. Crofting is a unique and valuable part of Scotland's culture. The Scottish Executive is committed to sustaining crofting and the communities of the crofting areas.

Crofting has sustained population and communities in some of Scotland's most remote rural areas for decades. In general, it is not just the relatively small income from crofting agriculture that has sustained people in those communities; access to a piece of land, the opportunities that that land presents, housing support and the security that crofting law and crofters' rights provide have sustained them.

The draft crofting reform bill builds on our vision for land reform, which aspires to more sustainable crofting communities; more local involvement in crofting administration; more active crofters; and more activity on croft land than just agriculture. Much of that agenda was delivered through the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, when crofting communities were given the right to take control of their land, but there are aspects of the land reform agenda that can be delivered only through the proposed bill.

Some commentators have dismissed the provisions in the bill as concerning technical issues that are of little relevance to anyone other than bureaucrats. I firmly believe that that is misguided. Crofting law is a complex subject, and crofters' rights and obligations very much interconnect and interact. If we get the detail wrong, we will facilitate rather than prevent the abuses of crofting that already concern many MSPs.

I firmly believe that the draft crofting reform bill is important for the people of Scotland. The Parliament must be able to legislate for all the people of Scotland, including the several thousand crofters who are spread across the most remote parts of the country. Crofting is not just a form of small-scale agriculture in far-flung Scotland; it can and must contribute to many aspects of life in those communities, and it must contribute to meeting the expectations of a wider society. It must contribute a critical mass of population that will sustain services; it must sustain a critical mass of agricultural activity to support key agricultural infrastructure; it must help to maintain land management that would otherwise be uneconomic; it must sustain an agriculture that supports many valuable and varied environments; it must prevent some landscapes from reverting to wilderness; it must support distinctive language, music and culture; and it must put people who live locally at an advantage over holiday-home and second-time buyers. It must, with its community dimension, sustain community cohesion where that might otherwise collapse.

Crofting can contribute much but, in many respects, it is in danger of being strangled by its own bureaucracy and by the rights and protections that exist. Crofters want simple and speedy regulation, as do the rest of the Scottish people, and that desire is at the heart of the draft bill.

The responses to the consultation on the draft bill have been interesting and varied. There has been support for many aspects of the bill and there has been opposition to others. The fact that only 150 or so responses were received might suggest that there is a degree of contentment with the provisions in the bill. I will publish our analysis of the consultation responses in the near future.

Since the consultation on the bill closed, there has been considerable media attention on crofting and, in my view, much of it has been ill-informed. I am delighted to be able to reassure the committee that many of the concerns expressed by the media or by MSPs are already being addressed by provisions in the bill or will be addressed by amendments.

In considering the options for changes to the bill before it is introduced, I have been assisted by a panel of crofting experts who have debated the options with me. Before I make my final decisions, I intend to visit several crofting areas and to speak directly to some key individuals and organisations. I expect to conclude on the changes to the bill during the next few weeks.

Thank you very much, minister.

We now turn to colleagues' questions. I have had four indications of interest already; it looks like the whole committee wants to get in. Alasdair Morrison will go first.

I have a number of points to raise with the minister but, before I do that, I should declare a relevant interest: I am a member of the Scottish Crofting Foundation.

I will begin with the perception and the reality of one of the major fault lines in the draft legislation that relates to a free market in tenancies. How can the minister convince me and the people I represent that the draft bill will not realise the singularly depressing situation of a free market in croft tenancies? When crofts start to change hands—as they do at the moment—how will the legislation ensure that the value placed on a croft takes into account permanent improvements, whether drainage, silage pits, barns or whatever? How do we prevent crofts from changing hands for £66,000 when they should be changing hands for £6,000?

There are different ways of addressing such issues. How to ensure that croft land is used appropriately is one thing that the bill addresses, and we continue to consider that. Concerns have been raised, for example about a well-publicised case in Taynuilt, where croft land passed into ownership for housing for large amounts of money. I am also aware that there are concerns in Skye about the sale of croft land and high prices on assignations.

We have not yet made any final decisions, but we are considering how we can ensure that croft land is managed appropriately, whether it is crofted by a tenant or owned by an owner-occupier. I have raised the issue with the reference group. I am aware that there are concerns about inappropriate use of croft land through neglect and allowing buildings to fall into disrepair. We are considering the possibility of changing the bill so that croft owner-occupiers and croft tenants are treated in the same way. I am conscious that, in the past, there has been a discrepancy between the way in which croft tenants and owner-occupiers are regulated.

At the moment, croft tenants are obliged to live on and work their crofts. I believe that there may be merit in placing the same clear obligation on owner-occupiers. The challenge for us is to ensure that ownership does not become a way in which people can avoid regulation and thereby potentially neglect the croft, treat it as a second home or sell it on as a holiday home to the highest bidder. Therefore, we are considering the possibility of changing the bill to enable the Crofters Commission to ensure that people who have bought their croft still come within the compass of regulation.

In addition to expanding crofting regulation to ensure that it covers owner-occupiers, another key way in which we can deal with this business of the sale of crofts is to affect the supply of crofts. One of the most exciting aspects of the bill is its ability to create new crofts. That has huge potential. I know that consideration is being given to creating hundreds of new crofts in Shetland and we also have opportunities through the Forestry Commission's on-going work—I know that Rob Gibson has asked questions about this before—on possible forest crofts. Crofts could also be created in Balmacara, where the National Trust for Scotland has already created new crofts. New crofts have also been created in Jura.

By providing the potential to create large numbers of new crofts, the bill could not only begin to make a significant difference to the way in which croft land is used but give an opportunity to the approximately 700 persons who are on the Crofters Commission's list of people who want to get into crofting.

Going back to my initial question, I want to know how the bill will prevent a free market in tenancies. If I understand the change that the minister is proposing, all croft tenants would be redefined as occupiers. However, if I may use the croft on which I live as an illustration, I am perfectly satisfied with my landowner, which is Stornoway Trust. How will redefining croft tenants as occupiers help to ensure that we do not witness the continued abuse of tenancies?

The proposed change would not change the status of croft tenants. I reassure Alasdair Morrison and his constituents who are involved in the Stornoway Trust that that is fundamentally not what we aim to do.

We want to ensure that people who own crofts come within crofting regulation and are not able to abuse that ownership. The change to the draft bill will ensure that such crofts are looked after properly and are not neglected. One way in which it might have an impact on the market is that people will need to think carefully before buying their croft because, as an owner of a croft, they will have to meet the same requirements and responsibilities as croft tenants.

If I appreciate fully what you are saying, the proposed change to the bill will act as a straightforward disincentive to anyone living within a publicly owned estate such as Stornoway Trust—thankfully, more communities are now moving in that direction—who might be thinking of privatising their croft. Are you saying that the change will dampen prices and act as a straightforward disincentive?

We want to ensure that, when someone is considering buying, they are clear about what being an owner of a croft involves and that they will be regulated. My view is that owners can get away with neglect at the moment, and we need to tackle that. The proposed change may be a way of ensuring that people who are considering buying a croft are clear that if they buy it, they will have to manage the croft land appropriately.

The crux of the issue is the value when the croft is bought.

The proposed approach would address the issue to which you refer in the sense that someone would not be able to secure a tenancy or to buy a croft if they did not intend to use it as a croft, to live on the land or to cultivate it—in other words, if they did not intend to be a crofter.

In many communities, the market pressure is a result of people wanting to move in and not do very much at all—they might want to retire or to have a holiday home. Much of that demand would be dampened by the approach that we are suggesting.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 makes provision for communities to buy their crofting estates and there has been much discussion of using an amendment to the draft crofting reform bill to address the problem of interposed leases, which has arisen from communities' concern that they could be deprived of the ability to use the land that they buy. In the past year, we have been told that the Executive will continue to take evidence on the matter and will tell us what it intends to do. In light of the legal opinion that Professor Paisley of the University of Aberdeen has offered, I hope that you can tell us today what you intend to do. Once you have enlightened us on current developments, I would like to ask a supplementary.

I am cognisant of the problem that interposed leases pose to the legislation on the right to buy. My officials have a meeting with Professor Paisley, of whose views I am aware, coming up very soon. I cannot give you a definitive view today, because I need to take advice following that meeting. There are options open to me, but I have not made the final decision about whether we should take legal action or tackle the issue in the bill. However, I am acutely aware of the problem of interposed leases and recognise its potential to stand in the way of our legislation on the right to buy. As soon as I make a decision, I will inform the committee.

I ask my question in the context of the regulations that the Crofters Commission can use. It appears that the reforms that are suggested in the draft bill will mean that any changes in the use of crofts will be more transparent, in that the Crofters Commission will notify local people about potential objections and so on and there will be open discussion of them.

The fact that interposed leases could exist and might have been private could well be dealt with by the new bill, but in the meantime can you offer the people who are involved in community buy-outs any guarantee that they will not have to wait 18 months for the problem to be solved?

I can guarantee that we will deal with the matter in an appropriate manner as soon as possible. We need to have a discussion with Professor Paisley. I assure you and the communities concerned that we take the issue seriously and will deal with it as soon as possible.

In the past, crofters could buy their crofts at 15 times the annual rental, but I understand that in the draft bill the croft value will be the market value. Why have we moved to that position? If an aged crofter moves into a home and has to assign the tenancy to a relative who wants to take over the croft, an assessment will be made and it appears that they might have to pay the market value. How will people in crofting communities be able to afford to keep on crofts that are in their family?

That ties in with the question that Alasdair Morrison asked earlier. The value accorded to croft assignations varies a lot in different places in Scotland. I am cognisant of the fact that in areas such as Skye there is huge pressure because a lot of people want to buy crofts but they are simply not available. That is coupled with the pressure of people who want housing. As we know, housing demand is critical on Skye. I remember that when I lived in the Highlands many people lived in caravans on Skye.

A series of factors have come together to produce a critical situation for parts of the crofting community. Market values have soared because of the demand for crofts. The situation is not the same in all parts of Scotland; in other parts of Scotland the market value of crofts is relatively low. As I said to Alasdair Morrison, we need to ensure that when someone considers buying a croft they are clear about the regulation and responsibilities that will accrue from ownership of it. We must also ensure that there are opportunities for local young people to come into crofting. The supply of crofts is important. The rules of succession are currently complex and bureaucratic. It is necessary to consider simplifying the rules and to investigate how we can enable crofts to be released. Some people are in crofts that are not being worked in the way that we want them to be worked. If we could reduce the amount of bureaucracy, we could facilitate the release of existing crofts.

You have talked about how the sale of crofts can be dampened down, but there also seems to be an open market in tenancies. I have seen croft tenancies on the Black Isle advertised at £50,000, £60,000 and £80,000. The perception is that there is perhaps not enough regulation or that the regulations are not being pursued as assiduously as they might be. Is there is room for improvement in the regulation of tenanted crofts to make sure that people do not buy crofting tenancies with a view to having a nice house—with what they regard as a big garden rather than a croft—within easy commuting distance of Inverness?

Also, have you have had discussions with the Minister for Communities about how best to deal with planning issues in crofting communities? In the Taynuilt case, it seems that the Crofters Commission is powerless because the local authority has designated the land for housing. Is there a case for the Crofters Commission having a role early in the planning process?

I agree that, whether someone is a tenant or an owner, there has to be an adequate framework that ensures that the land is used properly. Shane Rankin might want to say a little more about that before I move on to the Taynuilt case.

The provision in the draft bill that addresses Maureen Macmillan's point would give the Crofters Commission the power, in place of the landlord, to challenge neglect. A lot of people are concerned that croft land is not being used and that people are taking on crofts without intending actively to use them. The power exists to allow landlords to challenge the neglect of croft land, but landlords do not do that. The draft bill proposes that the Crofters Commission, in conjunction with the community, should be able to challenge neglect if the landlord gives consent—in most cases, they would. That will ensure that the land is used and that the tenancy commitments are met.

As I said, I am aware of the Taynuilt case and the issues that arise from it. I agree with Maureen Macmillan; one of the critical issues is the interface between the crofting regulations and planning legislation. In the Taynuilt case, planning legislation superseded the interests of the crofting community. That was subsequently borne out by the decision of the Scottish Land Court, although there are questions about the size of that crofting community.

Recently, I had a meeting with Malcolm Chisholm, because we are conscious of the fact that a major piece of planning legislation is about to be published and we wanted to think about how we can ensure that the needs of crofting communities are considered at an early stage in the planning process. It looks as if we might be able to include something in the crofting reform bill to ensure that the Crofters Commission engages with crofting communities to consider planning issues. One of the most contentious issues, of course, is the pressure on housing. The crofting community is concerned about good agricultural land being used for housing, which removes that land from other productive uses.

It is critical that the crofting community is engaged at an early stage. I envisage a clear role for the Crofters Commission in ensuring that there is discussion with the crofting community. If there is pressure and sons and daughters of crofters have no access to housing, I want the crofting community to work with the Crofters Commission and think about what is best for the community. Alasdair Morrison has experience of such work on Lewis and the Crofters Commission has been involved with communities in Knock and Swordale and in Lochalsh. The key point is to make sure that there are no surprises and that the needs and aspirations of crofting communities are fed into the planning system early.

You said that the bill is relevant to all the people of Scotland and that there are exciting opportunities to create new crofts on Forestry Commission land, for example. Given that much of the commission's estate lies outside the crofting counties, what is in the bill for people in Perthshire? That county has a big forestry resource on which there is a great deal of economic focus; it also has housing needs and its people desire to work the land. What is in the bill for them?

There is nothing in the bill to extend crofting to other parts of Scotland, although, in our consultations, we have heard strong views about a possible extension to Arran. It may be possible to consider opportunities for people who want to become landholders or tenants—not necessarily in crofting, but in other forms of land use and tenancy. I know that Jim Hunter is interested in that idea. However, at the moment there are no proposals to extend the crofting jurisdiction to any other part of Scotland except, perhaps, Arran.

Are crofting and crofting tenure inappropriate for places such as Perthshire or have we not properly considered the best form of land tenure in those areas?

More work has to be done on that. We must also look at the implications of extending crofting tenure to Arran. That was outwith what we were looking at, which was the reform of crofting legislation to ensure that crofting continues and becomes an even more sustainable form of land use that supports communities and culture in the crofting counties.

The question whether there is a need to look at the implications of using crofting as a device for rural development captures the point neatly. Although crofting has been successful at sustaining population in the crofting areas for decades, it is a burdensome approach to land use and tenure and it may not be the best way of tackling the issues that concern Mr Ruskell in north Perthshire. However, there is merit in exploring further whether crofting could be a device in facilitating what he is looking for.

Do you intend to work on that soon?

Considering forest crofts and opening up new crofting opportunities in the crofting counties will be interesting and we may be able to learn lessons from that.

One of the draft bill's problems appears to be a lack of clarity about the Executive's philosophy on the crofting system. Is crofting land held in custodianship or is it the property of an individual to do with as he or she decides? It seems that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development believes it to be the latter. He says that the Executive has no right to interfere in the free market of crofting land and that crofters should be allowed to cash in on their assets. Is that what the bill is about?

Absolutely and fundamentally not. Crofters have had the right to buy since 1961 and many have taken that up, although many prefer not to. A crofter could use the right to buy to gain working capital. However, many choose not to do that.

The first point that you made is key—custodianship is hugely important. Perhaps as we continue the dialogue on the subject, we should be more explicit about custodianship. I mentioned that in response to Alasdair Morrison's point and I have been having discussions about it with the expert panel that advises me, so I am actively considering the matter.

I have described the consideration that we are giving the matter to ensure that regulation is about croft land being used in an appropriate way, whether the land is owned or rented by a tenant. We can begin to address some of the issues that have dogged parts of the crofting counties, such as assignations or crofts changing hands for large amounts of money, with the worry that they will be used as second or holiday homes and not make the contribution to the crofting community that they could.

I do not want to nit-pick, but it seems paradoxical that, although you claim to want to cut through some of the red tape and regulation, the one amendment that you propose is to create yet further regulation to ensure that an owner-occupier is regulated in the same way as a tenant. If we are talking about having more regulation, should you not go the whole hog and say that the Crofters Commission requires its powers to be reinforced in the way that you described in relation to the Taynuilt situation?

We need much greater clarity in the regulation as it affects owners and we also need to be absolutely sure that the Crofters Commission has the power to enforce that regulation. I do not know whether you are suggesting that we should abandon the right to buy—perhaps that is Conservative party policy. Abandoning the crofter's right to buy, which has been in place since 1961, is not practicable, as the vast majority of people recognise. We need to ensure that there is proper custodianship of croft land and that there are opportunities in the crofting community for youngsters to take up, so that the land is appropriately used.

We certainly do not suggest abandoning the right to buy—you will not be surprised to hear that—but we are concerned about the apparent right to speculate, which seems to be current in parts of the Highlands.

As I said, we need to ensure that croft land is used appropriately and that speculation, the exchange of large amounts of money and the use of crofts and croft land for second homes are kept to a minimum. I am interested to hear you say that you do not want to do away with the right to buy. That right has existed since 1961, as I said, and the right to assign has existed since 1976. We need to ensure that however croft land is held—whether by a tenant or an owner—it is used appropriately.

Some of the discussion so far has helped to illustrate the old saying about a croft being a parcel of land surrounded by legislation. I know that you have said that you are excited about the possible creation of new crofts and you mentioned the importance of housing support—I presume that that would be part of your vision for a vibrant future for crofting. However, to realise that vision, we need to discuss housing on the croft rather than the other kind of housing that we have been talking about. The former grant scheme for providing houses—the crofters building grants and loans scheme—historically provided 250 to 300 houses annually in remote areas that had a shortage of housing. It was a successful scheme in that regard. I note that it has been changed to the croft house grants scheme. Is that grant scheme for tenant crofters, for owner-occupiers or for both? What is the grant at the moment? Is it upgraded—for example, is it index linked? Can you tell us a little bit about the grant? Also, is there a loan element, or has that been done away with?

I ask Shane Rankin to give you the detail.

The housing grant scheme was revised recently and the grant was substantially increased. In fact, the grant effectively doubled for some of the areas where it has been targeted, where it has risen from £11,000 to about £22,000. The largest grants are made available in the most remote locations. An exercise was undertaken to determine the eligible areas.

The scheme is on a par with Communities Scotland's rural home ownership grant scheme, but it is more generous in a number of respects. It is very much targeted at the crofting community and the croft tenants. Criticism has been made of the level of the grant relative to its value 10 or 15 years ago; nevertheless, it remains a substantial grant towards the construction of a house on a croft that is available solely for crofters. It is still a valuable aid to someone who has secured a croft tenancy.

The loan element was taken out of the scheme when the revisions were made on the basis that, although it was considered valuable by some people, it was relatively modest in its contribution. Although at one time the loan rate was 7 per cent, it was certainly not a soft loan rate any more. The advantages of the loan approach over someone taking out a commercial loan had disappeared, so that element of the scheme was not considered to be so desirable.

I am curious about the figure of £22,000, as my research shows that it would take about £50,000 to build a modest croft house with three bedrooms and one toilet. Could a tenant who is no longer part of a loans scheme get a commercial loan, even though they might not have any collateral for such a loan? How would they make up the difference between a grant of £22,000 and a cost of £50,000? Are there any extra grants to cover on-costs such as access roads, water supply, electricity installation, architects' fees, planning fees and building control fees? Is £22,000 the maximum that the crofters can access?

Essentially it is, although that figure can cover some of those other elements. It is important to remember where the scheme came from. It was created decades ago to make it feasible for crofters to build a house on their croft when they did not have absolute security over the piece of land on which they were going to build that house and when there were not the same opportunities for receiving support from other agencies.

What are those opportunities?

The other opportunity that exists is Communities Scotland's rural home ownership grant scheme, which some crofters take up because it provides certain advantages to them. The biggest change has been that to permit any crofter to remove their statutory house site from the croft so that it becomes, effectively, a feu; it becomes not subject to crofting regulation and, therefore, capable of being used as part of the equation with the bank to secure the loan. I think that that change was made about 30 years ago. It allowed crofters to approach the funding of their house in a different way and meant that there was not the same need for the Government and the public sector to provide the full financial assistance to build a house.

I remain quite concerned about some of this, convener. I wonder whether there are any plans to review the scheme, looking at the houses that used to be built and what the numbers are now. The fact that help was taken away—the grant was reduced for surveyors and clerks of works, who were often quite useful in guiding crofters through the process—has perhaps meant a reduction in crofters' confidence to try to build houses. I wonder whether there will be a review of the scheme, as £22,000 seems a low figure for the building of a croft.

May I make a suggestion? We have a briefing paper on crofting from the Scottish Parliament information centre, which names the grants that are available but does not go into depth about what they are. Perhaps we could commission more background research for members to look at after today's session.

If it would be helpful, we could produce some further information.

If you have that information readily available, rather than bandying figures around the table, it would be useful for members to be able to see what is available and what the interaction is between the different grant regimes.

Three colleagues have indicated that they wish to ask a question and another has not even indicated yet. I am trying to keep us moving. This is not our scrutiny of the bill; it is our pre-legislative scrutiny. Let us keep cracking on.

The minister may be aware that back in the 1880s there was a close vote in the House of Commons when the MP for Aberdeenshire moved that Aberdeenshire be included as a crofting county. If fewer than 20 of the hundreds of MPs who voted had voted differently, Aberdeenshire would be one of the crofting counties.

I am interested in exploring the theme of extending the crofting tenure outwith the existing crofting areas, which was pursued earlier by one of my colleagues. You said that you had investigated that to a degree. You also mentioned Arran. I think that you said that you consulted on Arran—perhaps that was just the way in which you phrased your words. Can you say a bit more about what you have done so far to ascertain whether there is demand for, or a case in favour of, extending crofting beyond the existing crofting counties? To what extent have you consulted specifically on Arran?

There was a public meeting on Arran at which there was considerable support for the extension of crofting to Arran. By far the largest single group of responses to the consultation came from people on Arran.

About a third of the responses to the consultation came from Arran. There was a huge reaction when the public meeting was announced. About 300 people came to 13 public meetings, and a third of those came to the meeting on Arran. There was very strong interest on Arran. Richard Lochhead mentioned Aberdeenshire, but there is a strong sense on Arran that the community there lost out at some stage because it was left out of the list of crofting areas. The challenge in exploring the proposal is in the legal implications of progressing with it and how those might be pursued. That is being considered by the office of the solicitor to the Executive to see whether it can practicably be done.

I was interested in the minister's statement that you would in the future like to consider in more detail which areas—if any—it would be appropriate to include. My concern is that we now have the opportunity to do that. The legislation will be before us shortly, so there is an ideal opportunity to include other areas, if that is the route that we decide to go down. There is a case for carrying out a feasibility study to find out whether there is demand in, or a case for, areas other than Arran.

We need to ensure that where crofting exists, it works to the benefit of the crofting communities. I know that there is concern among the crofting communities that extending crofting to other parts of Scotland could, in some way, dilute the support that those communities receive. The bill is probably not the place to consider extension of crofting to other parts of Scotland. The case for Arran appears to be a particular case that is based on the treatment that it received when the crofting legislation was originally enacted.

I acknowledge—people such as Jim Hunter are keen on this—that we need to look at opportunities for creating different new forms of landholding that can begin to support regeneration and the development of exciting and sustainable forms of land use in different parts of Scotland. At the moment, my view is that the bill is not the vehicle for consideration of that in the wider context, but that is not to say that my mind is closed to consideration of such issues in the future.

I am sure that the people of Arran believe that they will get a sympathetic hearing from the First Minister on the issue, and I hope that other areas can also get a sympathetic hearing if their case is made.

There is a reference to small landholders in the Government's paper, so you will be aware that there are still a number of small landholdings in Scotland that were created under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911. They missed out on the benefits that were given to crofters, and on those that accrued under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003. There are small landholders in places such as Banffshire, Aberdeenshire and elsewhere in Scotland who could be said to have been left in the lurch. To what extent have you given thought to addressing that situation?

In essence, I will not move on from the answer that I have given already. The strong view that has come through the consultation is from people in Arran. I am also aware that there is an issue in respect of small landholders. We need to be able to consider that issue in a broader context than the bill. I will be content to do that.

The other consideration is that smallholders in the areas outside Arran to which Richard Lochhead referred raised the issue partly because they felt that their concerns were not addressed during consideration of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill. However, there is a considerable debate among lawyers about whether that is the case. The issue is being explored to see whether it should be dealt with.

Will we get some form of briefing on that when the bill comes back to the committee?

You can be sure that you will get some information on that.

That would be helpful.

Two non-committee members have sat patiently through everyone else's questions. Jamie Stone indicated first that he wanted to ask a question. Would you like to follow up on any of the questions or add more?

I thank the convener and the committee members for allowing me to ask questions.

I have a follow-up to Alasdair Morrison's question. We in the Highlands are frightened of raw market forces prevailing in the sale of crofts. Minister, further to your answer to Mr Morrison, are you considering giving the Crofters Commission the absolute power to impose a new tenant when an owner-occupier is deemed not to be running a croft properly?

Secondly, are you considering giving the Crofters Commission a duty to inspect tenanted and owner-occupied crofts regularly?

We seek to give the Crofters Commission powers to impose a tenant or to remove a tenant and impose a new one. We are clear that we must be able to tackle situations in which land is not being adequately used.

For the avoidance of doubt, if an owner-occupier is not running a croft satisfactorily, the Crofters Commission would have the power to impose a new tenant on that owner-occupier.

The proposition is essentially to treat an owner-occupier in the same way as a tenant. If the owner did not comply with the statutory conditions in respect of living on or near the croft and working it, they would have a tenant imposed on them and would be treated as a landlord. As the minister said, the idea is not yet fully developed, but such an approach might address some of the concerns.

That is why I am hesitating. The idea is relatively new and has developed out of discussions. We need to discuss it more and work through the implications with solicitors. The intention is to ensure that owners are treated in the same way as tenants in relation to how a croft is being used. I am sorry that I cannot give you more detail, but members will appreciate that the idea has emerged relatively recently. It is potentially exciting, but we have not worked through with solicitors the detail of how it would work in practice; work continues.

Thank you for permitting me to speak at the meeting. I used to sit on the former Rural Development Committee, and rural development is still dear to my heart.

Like Mr Morrison, I declare an interest. I, too, am a member of the Scottish Crofting Foundation—at least I am as long as I paid my dues last year.

At the outset, you mentioned the response to the consultation, which I found interesting. I was always of the opinion that the consultation that was undertaken when the proposals were in their early stages was limited. What consultation is currently being undertaken with the crofting communities up and down the country? As far as I am aware, many communities and crofters were not aware that a bill was being proposed until very recently, when they became aware of comments in the press and on the radio. What is the current situation?

I will outline the consultation that has taken place. A series of public meetings were held in May and June to explain the purpose and content of the draft bill and to inform the consultation process. There were 13 such meetings, which were held throughout the crofting areas. You already know that a meeting took place on Arran. About 330 people attended the public meetings, of whom 100 attended the Arran meeting. We received 84 returned forms and 71 written responses. That is part of a process that has been going on since January 1999, when "Land Reform Policy Group Recommendations for Action" was published. Consultations and discussions have been going on since then.

When I came back into the environment and rural development portfolio, I became conscious that there were still real concerns about the bill within the crofting community and that some people felt that they would like more consultation. I have taken those concerns seriously. I have met the cross-party group on crofting at Mr Munro's invitation, and the Scottish Crofting Foundation. I have visited Tiree and will visit Shetland, the Western Isles and Assynt to discuss with crofters a range of issues, including the bill. I am listening; it is useful to hear comments that are made in the committee.

I have been working with the reference group of people who have an active interest and huge experience in crofting, whether as active crofters or as lawyers with experience of crofting legislation, and I have found it hugely helpful. My ears are open and I am still considering a range of issues—my mind is not yet made up. People will have opportunities to lodge amendments during the bill's passage.

It is also important to say that, if you contrast what has happened since the advent of the Scottish Parliament with what happened before, you will see a huge difference. There would be maybe one or two pieces of Scottish legislation going through Westminster every year. In the first session of the Scottish Parliament, there were more than 60 pieces of legislation. This latest bill is the final piece in the jigsaw of land reform legislation: it is an important bill for crofting and for crofting communities. The Scottish Parliament gives us opportunities for legislation in the future and things are moving on quickly. For example, the crofting community right to buy is radical legislation that is changing land ownership in radical ways. There could be issues in the future about the interface between crofting regulation and other issues in respect of where communities have bought croft land, so I do not see the bill as being absolutely the last word on the matter.

The bill is important and will ensure that people in crofting communities have increased opportunities. It will ensure that land in crofting communities is used appropriately and it will create a strong and central role for the Crofters Commission in ensuring that regulation takes place. It will also embed the commission into the planning process meaningfully. It is a hugely important bill, but that does not mean that there cannot be other crofting legislation in the future. It is a matter that the committee, Parliament and the Executive will have to watch closely.

I am encouraged by that. As you have pointed out, we did not have the opportunity in the past to debate, discuss and promote Scottish issues to the extent that is possible now. The bill is important for the crofting communities, so it is important that we get it right because legislation that has previously been passed is now creating problems for this bill.

Last night, several of us had a meeting with the ministerial team, and I was encouraged by the responses that we received. We are still of the opinion that crofting is agriculturally based and should remain that way—with some minor exceptions, of course—and that the Crofters Commission should be given the power to regulate, more thoroughly than in the past, both tenants and landlords.

Alasdair Morrison has a small supplementary question.

My question relates to planning. In your discussions with Malcolm Chisholm, are you moving towards the position that primacy will be given to crofting considerations in planning issues? Can you reaffirm that the newly defined Crofters Commission will indeed be interventionist and will actually do what it should have been doing in past years? With its new powers, will the commission be under a duty to use them?

Our views on planning are not finalised. There was a possibility that we would consider the Crofters Commission as a statutory consultee, but that would probably be overly cumbersome. Our views on the role of the Crofters Commission are not finalised, but it is essential that the Crofters Commission and communities be involved in planning, because the planning system is based on elected representatives. At the moment, because the planning system is based on planning legislation, the Scottish Land Court finds that crofting regulation is regarded as being less important than planning legislation. The key is for the Crofters Commission and crofting communities to be engaged and to have a role when plans are being drawn up.

What was your second question?

Will the Crofters Commission have a duty to use its new powers?

Absolutely. We need to ensure that the Crofters Commission has the power to intervene to make a difference. It is hugely important for the Crofters Commission to make a difference and to ensure that crofting be regulated in a way that crofting communities like, which has not always been the case. We need much greater clarity around regulation and the role of the Crofters Commission in ensuring that regulation is carried out.

I have had a request for a brief intervention from Rob Gibson. It must be fewer questions than Alasdair Morrison sneaked in.

There is just the one. I very much value Alasdair Morrison's point that agreements have been reached for housing developments in Lewis on common grazing land, not inby land. However, such agreements have not been reached in other parts of the Highlands and Islands. Will the bill ensure that if a local plan shows a need for housing, areas of common grazing in particular communities can be included where housing could be developed?

The key point is that we need a bill that will allow local responses to local needs because, as I said, the position in Skye is quite different from the position in Shetland, which is different from the position in Lewis, which is different from Tiree and so on. The key is that local crofting communities must work with the Crofters Commission to seek local solutions to local problems. The Crofters Commission has an important role in acting developmentally and being engaged with communities early—it already is in four or five areas—and in extending that role to other parts of the crofting communities.

I will wrap up the meeting—if I look at colleagues around the table I will get more requests to speak. I thank everybody for engaging in the debate. I know that it is a lively debate, and that there are many concerns about what the bill will look like, so I hope that the minister's clarification has been useful. It has been useful to me as a city centre MSP to be able to stand back and examine the principles of the debate. I look forward to seeing the bill.

The minister gave a couple of commitments on information about grants and their operation, levels of support and information on a legal update.

I hope that the discussion has been useful in flagging up issues to people round the table and in informing people outwith Parliament about the state of play. I thank the minister and her officials. We look forward to chasing up the issues about the nature of crofting, who can become a crofter, how the Crofters Commission operates, what powers it will have, the relationship with planning, and the relationship with agriculture and housing. We will have to get our teeth stuck into a lot of issues. As a committee, we will probably want to take some of our evidence outwith Edinburgh. There will be lots of issues for us to think about when the bill is introduced.

I thank everyone for a lively and in-depth discussion that will help to progress the bill.

Meeting closed at 12:39.