Official Report 812KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20388, in the name of Jim Fairlie, on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:00
I am pleased to open this debate on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill and all those who have given evidence during stage 1. Most importantly, I thank the crofting communities for their invaluable insights and contributions, including the people I spoke to during my visits to Lewis, Harris and Skye.
I look forward to working constructively with members from all parties as we progress this important piece of legislation, and I hope that, today, we can all agree to support its general principles, as the committee recommended in its stage 1 report.
The bill has two main parts, and I will begin by focusing on part 1, which is the crofting element.
Crofting is a part of who we are. It was and is a hard-earned living tradition that shapes our rural land and communities. Around 15,000 crofters care for around 750,000 hectares of Scotland’s land, and this Government backs them with more than £40 million every year because crofting matters—it matters to our past, our present and our future.
Crofting has much potential. It provides opportunities for new entrants and young people to make a life in the places that they know and love. We can assist that by supporting a range of approaches to crofting, including agritourism, local food networks, peatland restoration and livestock production, to name but a few.
The proposals that have been considered came from a variety of sources, including the crofting law sump and issues that were identified and raised by stakeholders over three years of close collaboration.
Over summer 2024, we carried out a consultation, and my officials ran 15 public events throughout the crofting counties, which were attended by 257 people. I take this opportunity to thank my officials for their hard work and their efforts to ensure that we have a solid bill that has wide stakeholder support.
The bill will deliver positive changes, building on previous reforms. Let me be clear: it represents another step on the journey that we are committed to continue as we work with our crofting communities to secure their future.
Crofting law is extremely complex, and even where there is consensus that something needs changing, it is often difficult to reach consensus on what the remedy should be. Developing proposals and identifying workable solutions requires time, and I think that crofting stakeholders are sympathetic to that.
However, the bill is more than just a technical bill; it is also an enabling bill, delivering a number of meaningful improvements to legislation. It will give crofters more options for how they use their land; allow around 700 people to apply to become a crofter; streamline the enforcement of duties and the family assignation process; prevent crofters who are in breach of their duties from profiteering and removing land from the crofting tenure; and prevent the accidental separation of a grazing share from an inby croft. In addition, landlords and subtenants will be able to report breaches of duty to the Crofting Commission, and crofters will be able to apply to the commission for boundary and registration changes.
That amounts to significant change, and the bill will make crofting regulation less onerous for active crofters and the commission, and flexible enough to grasp new opportunities and cope with future challenges.
As I set out in my written response to the committee, I am committed to ensuring that the views that were raised through the evidence sessions and on the bill are considered. We are therefore carefully considering a small number of possible amendments, which include strengthening the wording in the bill on the “environmental use” of crofts, providing flexibility to allow non-natural persons to take title of a croft, maintaining linkages between the crofting register and the land register when adjusting boundaries and, where applicable, maintaining a relationship between the grazing share and the inby croft.
This reform should not be viewed in isolation, but must be seen alongside the work that is being done by the Crofting Commission. It is important to note that the interplay between legislation and the commission’s policy plan is vital. The legislation provides the necessary framework, and the plan provides the detail of how the commission will administer and regulate.
The commission has the legislative tools, and it now also has the resources to carry out its functions. The changes in the bill will further support the commission’s work in processing regulatory applications and tackling breaches of duty. I will continue working with the commission to ensure that it creates more opportunities for new entrants and for young people to enter crofting.
The bill prepares the ground for what comes next. It will help to lay a stronger and healthier foundation for crofting, where we aim to have increased residency levels and more people using their crofts and common grazings. We will then be in a better place to carefully consider what reform is needed for the future.
I turn to part 2 of the bill, which provides for the merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. That is a measured and administrative reform; it is also one with practical importance for how land and property disputes are determined in Scotland. Work on the reforms was initiated back in 2015 by Lord Minginish, following his appointment as the chair of the Scottish Land Court and president of the Lands Tribunal, and it has continued under Lord Duthie, who is the current judicial head of both bodies.
The provisions in the bill will give legislative effect to the work and are grounded on three principles: simplicity, coherence and flexibility. Those principles remain central to part 2 of the bill that is before us today.
On simplicity, the bill replaces the two bodies operating in closely related areas of law and already sharing the same judicial leadership with a single unified court. That removes unnecessary structural complexity while preserving specialist jurisdictions.
On coherence, the committee heard evidence from the judicial stakeholders about the statutory overlap and procedural anomalies arising from the parallel operation of the court and the tribunal, particularly with regard to agricultural holdings and land reform registration. The merger resolves those issues and provides a clearer and more consistent framework.
On flexibility, the bill allows legal, agricultural and valuation expertise to be deployed more effectively across the court’s jurisdiction. The administrative integration that is already in place has demonstrated the benefits of a unified approach, and the bill builds on that experience.
In their consideration of the bill, members of the judiciary, including the chairman of the Land Court, Lord Duthie, raised important points about appeals and procedure, particularly for tribunal-type cases that are transferred into the court. I confirm that we will continue to engage with the judiciary and will introduce stage 2 amendments to ensure that those points are properly addressed.
Alongside the merger provisions, the bill also enables suitably qualified members of the merged court and—on a transitional basis—members of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to act in the Upper Tribunal. The intention of those provisions is to enhance the resilience of the Upper Tribunal by giving it access to a broader range of expertise when that is required.
The reform that is brought in by the bill modernises structures without diluting tradition. It creates a more integrated, coherent and flexible system for resolving land and property disputes for Scotland’s crofting and rural communities. I commend the bill to the chamber.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill.
Finlay Carson will open on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee.
16:06
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to present our stage 1 report. At the outset, I acknowledge the positive feedback from many stakeholders about the Scottish Government’s engagement on the bill—we do not often hear such praise, and it should be recognised.
The committee began its scrutiny in June with a call for views. We held five evidence sessions between September and November with stakeholders, including the Crofting Commission and the Scottish Government. We visited the Isle of Skye to meet crofters, and we held an online event with crofters across Scotland. I thank everyone who has contributed to our scrutiny and I thank the committee clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and, of course, the members of the committee for their hard work.
I turn to our consideration of part 1 of the bill. The committee recognises the vital contribution that crofting makes to Scotland’s rural population, economy, environment and cultural heritage. Two clear messages emerged from our evidence taking. First, there is strong support for the bill’s targeted approach of fixing specific issues rather than attempting fundamental reform. However, many stakeholders called for a wider, long-term review of crofting law. We agree, and we recommend that the next Scottish Government undertakes such a review and introduces comprehensive legislation as soon as practicable.
Secondly, we repeatedly heard concerns about the enforcement of crofters’ duties—that is, to live on or near the croft and to maintain and use it purposefully. Crofters want a clear, consistently applied regulatory framework. We welcome the Crofting Commission’s renewed focus on enforcement and the Scottish Government’s commitment to strengthen collaboration between the commission and the rural payments and inspections division. However, enforcement remains challenging. The committee believes that the current system for reporting and enforcing duties should be central to any future review of the crofting law, and we are pleased to hear that the Government shares that view.
Sections 1 to 27 of the bill make a series of specific, often technical, changes; I will focus on those that generated the most debate. In the sections on enabling the environmental uses of crofts and on common grazings, we welcome the extension of the definition of “purposeful use” to include “any environmental use”. Crofting land can deliver significant environmental benefits, and simplifying the route to environmental activities is sensible. However, we heard concerns about how absent or negligent crofters might cite “environmental use” in order to mask neglect. The bill includes some safeguards against that occurring, but we recognise that the strongest protection lies in robust enforcement. On that point, we welcome the minister’s commitment to strengthen the definition of “environmental use”, and it would be helpful if he would set that out in closing today.
On common grazings and environmental projects, the treatment and sharing of benefits—particularly carbon credits—requires clarification. We heard support for joint projects on common grazings, but questions remain over fair benefit sharing while ensuring that grazing remains available in the spirit of crofting. Further details from the minister on that during the debate would also be welcome.
On assignations—that is, the family transfer of crofts—the committee supports a fast-track process to reduce administrative pressures on the Crofting Commission so that resources can be redirected to enforcement. Some stakeholders queried the proposed three-croft limit for using the fast-track process, particularly for crofters with multiple interests. On balance, we accept the Government’s rationale and note that those with more than three crofts would continue to use the existing process. That is a fair and proportionate way to speed up family assignations without compromising oversight. We also heard concerns that prohibiting the transfer of owner-occupied crofts could inadvertently hinder community organisations from seeking croft land for crofting or housing. We welcome the Government’s intention to explore a stage 2 amendment to ensure that community aspirations are not frustrated.
On common grazings, we took strong evidence about problems when grazing shares become unintentionally separated from the inby croft or croft land, so we support and welcome provisions aimed at preventing such separations. Members differed on whether the bill should go further and prohibit separation entirely. We note the minister’s assurance that additional safeguards will be introduced at stage 2 to tighten practice while retaining flexibility where separation is genuinely desirable. We also welcome the consideration of a process to reattach shares that have been unintentionally separated, and we would appreciate an update on stakeholder discussions about workable solutions.
I turn to part 2, which is on the proposed merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. Although some stakeholders worried that the merger might be driven by cost cutting, the general view was that it was pragmatic. We were reassured by the minister’s confirmation that the aim is to streamline and improve operations, not to diminish access to justice or expertise. The committee’s report sets out detailed comments, including from the current president of the court and the chair of the tribunal. We welcome the Government’s intention to bring stage 2 amendments to tighten part 2 and clarify issues that we have raised, particularly by preserving specialist knowledge, ensuring appropriate routes of appeal and maintaining accountability for rural communities.
The committee supports the bill’s general principles. We endorse the targeted approach in part 1. We also make a clear call for a comprehensive future review of crofting law, with enforcement at its core. We support strengthening of provisions on environmental use, common grazings and assignations. I look forward to further details from the minister on definitions, benefit sharing, safeguarding for grazing shares and community-friendly routes for owner-occupied transfers. Overall, on part 2, we recognise the potential benefits of the merger—subject to stage 2 amendments—which will secure clarity, continuity of expertise and access to justice. I look forward to members’ contributions.
16:12
I could not make it down to Edinburgh last week because of the snow in the north. I was trapped at home with my three children, who could not get to school. I want to thank farmers and crofters—I have done so on Facebook, but I want to say it in the chamber even though many others have already—because teachers and doctors live on my road, my wife being one of them, and we could not have got out without their help. I do not blame anything on local authorities, which did their best last week to try to get people out and make the roads as safe as possible, but I thank the farmers and crofters across the Highlands and Islands and the north of Scotland.
The Scottish Conservatives will back stage 1 of the crofting bill today. When I first read the committee’s draft report, the major point that I wanted to ensure that it contained was a recognition that there is a clear and growing consensus on the need for a full-scale review of crofting legislation. That was picked up by Finlay Carson, and I believe that it was accepted by the minister in his response to the report. Crofters across the Highlands and Islands are looking for that important piece of work—one that properly reflects what crofting means in different places and how it operates in those very different local contexts. There is no doubt that the bill is a step forward, but it also underlines that a deeper and more comprehensive review is now needed.
I welcome the work that has gone into the bill and the constructive engagement between the Government stakeholders and the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Part 1 of the bill makes sensible technical improvements and addresses practical issues that have caused frustration for some time. That progress is important and should be recognised. However, as I have said, many crofters feel that the bill does not yet answer those bigger questions about the future of crofting. After so many years, and with crofting being so ingrained in the way of life of highlanders and islanders, I believe that the Scottish Parliament owes them that wider review in the next parliamentary session.
The issue of enforcement has come through strongly in the evidence. Weak enforcement of residency and cultivation duties has, to some degree, damaged trust in the system and, in some areas, the social fabric of crofting communities. Although the Crofting Commission’s recent efforts are very welcome, crofters want to see such efforts backed by long-term legislative safeguards and proper resourcing, so that duties are applied fairly and consistently.
Environmental use of crofts is another area in which balance is crucial. Environmental outcomes can sit alongside crofting, but they must be rooted in active use by real crofters. There is genuine concern that land could be neglected or effectively abandoned under the banner of environmental use, which must be addressed clearly in the legislation.
The bill also touches on owner-occupier crofts and common grazings, both of which matter deeply on the ground. There is real anxiety about crofts being priced beyond the reach of local people and new entrants, and about grazing shares becoming detached from the crofting system. Those are not abstract legal points; they go to the heart of whether crofting remains viable for future generations. We should all give that careful thought as we reach stage 2. One interesting area that came up and that has not been touched on a great deal in the bill is around the ownership of carbon rights and—potentially in the future—biodiversity rights. That also needs to be considered at stage 2 of the bill.
The bill is moving things in the right direction, but crofters are clear that it cannot be the final word. I welcome discussion with the minister as we head towards stage 2 and the next phase.
16:16
I, too, thank those who gave evidence, the bill team and the members of committee staff and SPICe who helped us in our consideration of the bill.
Scottish Labour supports the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill, which is a very necessary piece of legislation that puts right some of the mistakes that were made in the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. As well as helping to streamline processes, it will, I hope, allow practices to be modernised.
However, crofters are desperately disappointed that the bill does nothing to deal with the current threats to crofting, which include market pressures. That market does not relate to crofting itself; it is to do with the fact that there is a housing crisis, coupled with the ambition to own second homes or holiday lets. The bill does nothing to encourage land use or to recognise crofting as an intrinsically agricultural practice in which, in order to make a living, a person must also have other employment.
Because of that, diversification has been encouraged, which has meant that diversification such as the provision of holiday accommodation and the finding of other uses for the land has eclipsed the agricultural use of crofts. Some activities, such as growing vegetables, weaving and using the produce of the land, fit well with crofting, but others do not. Second homes and holiday lets are damaging crofting, and the bill does nothing about them.
The bill’s only innovation is to look at environmental management as part of crofting, which is a positive move, as long as it does not disguise dereliction and rewilding as environmental management. By its very nature, crofting is environmentally friendly. Crofters who carry out carbon audits find that they sequester carbon rather than produce it. It is also nature friendly in practice, so if we are serious about the environment, we must support some of the traditional aspects of crofting while recognising that it is an economic driver and that people have to be able to make a living to stay and work in our crofting communities.
The bill also does not make it clear that peat, trees, grass and other essential carbon stores belong to the tenant. Crofters have always had the right to cut peat and to grow and cut trees—indeed, we now have woodland crofts. The bill needs to provide clarity on that issue, because if it does not, we will face a block to peatland restoration.
One of the most complex issues in the bill is that of grazing shares, which have sometimes come adrift from the croft, as many members have mentioned. In most cases, that has been unintentional, because the croft was sold and the conveyancing had not included the grazing share with the croft. The bill will put in place a default to stop that happening in future, but it does not deal with existing cases, so action needs to be taken to ensure that the land is being used. The most straightforward way to do that would be to reunite the share with the original croft.
Part 2 of the bill, which concerns the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, is less contentious, but that might be because it was difficult to discuss the policy with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, which made it difficult for the committee to get a clearer view of the practical issues. Although we understand that there must be a clear separation between the judiciary and Parliament, Parliament must consider the impact of changes on the running of court services, so there must be an ability to scrutinise that.
I hope that the bill will cut bureaucracy, but it does nothing to reduce the complexity that exists or to put crofting on a secure footing for the future. Therefore, Parliament must return to the matter in the next session if crofting and its value in slowing depopulation are not to be lost for future generations.
16:20
I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee clerks, SPICe, the bill team and everyone else involved in the development and scrutiny of the bill.
Crofting is a vital part of Scotland’s cultural and social heritage, but it is not just a reflection of our nation’s past. It is a tradition and an institution that is living and breathing; it is crucial to both our present and our future. Crofting is a glue that holds rural and island communities together and supports their respective economies. It offers us a template for low-impact land management that—if it is adopted more widely across Scotland—can help us to meet the major challenges that are presented by the climate and biodiversity crises while providing fair access to land and food, as well as an antidote to rural depopulation.
While I am pleased that crofting’s contribution to Scotland has been acknowledged by the very existence of the bill and am glad that crofters and other stakeholders are largely happy with its contents, it must be said that the proposed legislation represents something of a missed opportunity. It has been in the pipeline for a decade, yet what we have before us today is more of a technical exercise—although I heard what the minister said about it being an enabling bill.
What was hoped for, and what crofters have been calling for, was a more ambitious document setting out a vision for what crofting is for. Key elements that are missing from the bill include tighter regulations around the market in tenancies, so that crofting can be more accessible; a scheme to create crofts on public land; and a Scotland-wide expansion of where crofting can take place. I would be interested to hear from the minister what work is being done on those much-needed policies. We must ensure, as far as possible, that the next Government launches a new crofting bill process to address those matters and others besides, ideally on a foundation of current work.
As for what we have before us in the here and now, there is very little in the bill that the Scottish Greens disagree with. It is good to see that crofters will be able to put their land to environmental use, and I hope that that will give the community the confidence to do its bit for Scotland’s nature and climate and help to achieve the landscape-scale change that is needed if we are to meet the major challenges of this century.
I understand that there has been some concern about whether the new power for crofters will lead to abandoned crofts but, with the right safeguards in place—which I am keen to explore at stage 2—that need not be a concern.
Turning to part 2 of the bill, the proposed merger of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and the Scottish Land Court seems to be a sensible idea, given the close proximity in which those two institutions work. It is good to know that the newly formed Scottish Land Court will have jurisdiction over access rights disputes. I trust that that will allow for better, fairer access to justice in this area.
We also have an opportunity to consider how to deliver better, fairer access to justice for those who bring environmental cases. In the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill, the Government states:
“It is ... intended that consideration will be given to the expanded Land Court taking on new functions in relation to Aarhus cases in time to come”.
Given that Scotland is currently in breach of its Aarhus obligations, especially under article 9 of the convention, which requires access to justice to be
“fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive”,
I put the case that we now have the ideal opportunity to consider how environmental cases could come to the Land Court in the future.
Overall, I look forward to working with the Government and colleagues from across the Parliament to deliver an even better crofting and land court system in Scotland.
16:24
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. I, too, thank the bill team, the committee’s clerks and the many organisations and individuals who gave evidence and sent briefings to support the stage 1 process.
Crofting is of vital importance in my Shetland Islands constituency and across the crofting counties of the Highlands and Islands. Cultural heritage, tradition, community and connection to the land are all important aspects of crofting, which delivers economic and environmental benefits in rural and island areas.
Specific legislation has governed crofting since 1886, when the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act of that year was passed under a Liberal Government. The Law Society of Scotland has described Scotland’s unique crofting law as having
“developed over time in a piecemeal fashion”,
and it is generally considered to be a complex and difficult area of the law that might be considered outdated in many respects.
Reform of the legal landscape has been slow to emerge. A consultation in 2017 led to the Scottish Government stating its intention to introduce a bill to correct known anomalies in crofting legislation, followed by further consideration of more fundamental changes. However, this first phase has taken years to come before the Scottish Parliament. Even allowing for the disruptions of Brexit and the pandemic, many people in the crofting communities have indicated frustration at the slow pace. A broader review of crofting policy and law to modernise the framework and reduce the intricate and confusing nature of crofting law remains outstanding. On that point, the committee recommends that, at the start of the next session, the new Scottish Government should confirm
“its intention to undertake this review and then bring forward legislation.”
Although it does not deliver the more fundamental overhaul that is still being called for, the streamlining effect of the bill is welcome. There was general support for the bill’s provisions among stakeholders during the stage 1 process, as well as positive feedback about engagement and the co-design process between stakeholders and the Scottish Government. It is important that those continue as the bill progresses.
Part 1 of the bill will make changes across various aspects of crofting law, including the enforcement of crofters’ duties, the powers of the Crofting Commission, and changes to common grazings and the crofting register. The bill will extend the definition of “purposeful use” of croft land to include environmental use. The committee heard concerns that that could be used as cover by an absentee or negligent crofter to neglect their croft, and NFU Scotland stressed that environmental use must be linked to active land management to mitigate that outcome. I note the minister’s commitment to strengthening the definition of environmental use, and I look forward to seeing what is brought forward. That issue should be included in any future review of crofting law.
The bill contains provisions to prevent the unintended separation of grazing shares. Stakeholders, including the Scottish Crofting Federation and the NFUS, called for more action to reduce the separation of grazing shares from their original parent crofts. It was noted during evidence sessions that, in Shetland, unlike in most other areas, grazing shares are attached at the point of purchase, forming a “part and pertinent” of the croft. It is useful to note those differences across the Highlands and Islands and consider where they might offer opportunities for learning.
I turn to part 2 of the bill, which will merge the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. The Scottish Government intends that approach to deliver a more coherent and efficient administration of the services that are currently offered. The committee noted that there were divided views in the consultation responses to the proposal and heard that some stakeholders are concerned that the move might be motivated by cost cutting. For the merger to be successful, the new Scottish Land Court must be properly resourced and access to justice must be maintained.
Not only does crofting require full reform; there needs to be an understanding of what modern crofting life will look like in the years ahead. Working with crofting communities is crucial, and it is important to value and protect that way of life.
Although there is more to be done to deliver the changes that are needed to modernise crofting law, I am pleased to support the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill at stage 1.
16:29
Crofting is a subject that is never far from my inbox—nor is the issue of crofting reform. It is clear that substantial change to 150 years’ worth of crofting legislation cannot be achieved in a single bill, but the bill that is before us is an important first step towards wider reform. It is my view that an additional bill will be needed in the next parliamentary session.
I thank the other members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, our officials and the witnesses for their input into our report. I particularly mention the visit that the committee’s convener Mr Carson and I were able to make to Skye. I believe that that visit was useful in informing the report and its conclusion that the committee should back the general principles of the bill. I also thank the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity for his direct engagement with me on the bill and, more importantly, for his engagement with the wider committee.
Part 1 of the bill focuses on nine key areas, including: expanding the powers of the Crofting Commission; streamlining the administration of crofting duties; amending the crofting register; and enabling more use of digital communication between crofters and the commission. It also introduces provisions for the environmental use of crofts and common grazings and sets out definitions of a “crofting community” and an “owner-occupier”. Part 2 of the bill merges the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and part 3 contains more general provisions.
As the committee report says, crofting does not function without effective regulation. There are still concerns about the number of crofts that are abandoned or where the crofter is a long-term absentee. Likewise, there are concerns about the need for enforcement action on that to allow new entrants easier access to crofting. The committee welcomes the emphasis on the environment that is evident throughout the bill, but it is also keen to see safeguards to prevent any wholesale abandonment of agricultural land in the name of environmental use.
It is outwith the scope of this bill, but in the future we must see legislation to tackle issues created by the marketisation of crofts that has happened in recent years. As the minister said in November last year, the current bill will prepare the ground for what comes next by helping to increase residency levels and active croft use to allow consideration of what will be needed thereafter to increase the number of new entrants into crofting and to sustain support for existing crofters.
As the Scottish Crofting Federation has noted, work on more fundamental reform must get under way during session 7 with a review of crofting policy and law. That must be followed by the introduction of further legislation and the continuation of the robust engagement with stakeholders that there has been to date in this complex area of law.
I have no doubt that, in the course of stage 2, I will be among the committee members seeking to lodge amendments to improve the bill that is before us. However, I believe that the bill is an important step forward for crofting reform and that stakeholders will want to see it pass. I am therefore happy to commend the committee’s report to members.
16:32
I am pleased to speak to the stage 1 report on the bill. I congratulate the committee and its clerks on progressing the bill and congratulate the minister on organising various meetings across the crofting community to discuss it. I attended one of those meetings, on a relatively bright summer night, and it was interesting.
However, there is a bit of déjà vu here. In 2017, during the previous parliamentary session, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee produced quite a lengthy report on the need to make changes to crofting law. In that report, the REC Committee made it quite clear that we needed a statement of crofting policy that would not only lay out the aims of crofting but cover keeping the associated language going and keeping the crofting population and culture in place across the Highlands.
The REC Committee found key issues. Some of those have already been addressed and others are dealt with in the current bill, but it is still apposite to remind the Parliament of them. They related to the election of crofting commissioners and the management of absenteeism. There was a call for a new entrants scheme, which does not seem to have gained any ground at all, and for definitions of different forms of croft ownership, including owner-occupation and various other forms. The committee also called for the mapping of crofts, which also seems to have stalled slightly, and raised the issue of so-called “slipper crofters” who have shares in grazings but do not actually own crofts.
The 2017 report was clear that sufficient time should be allowed to ensure that a new bill would be passed before the end of the session in 2021, but that did not happen. It is therefore surprising that we are discussing the current bill only as we come towards the end of the current session. I hope that we will have sufficient time to get all the amendments through.
I agree with the current committee that there needs to be a fundamental review of crofting in the next session of Parliament. The committee has raised issues relating to the Crofting Commission, mapping and, as I have just mentioned, what I have termed “slipper crofters”—that is, people with grazing shares but no crofts.
The bill represents the low-hanging fruit of crofting law reform. I would have liked to see more of a definition of the cultural, economic, social and environmental benefits of crofting.
I would also have liked to drill down into the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, the Crofters Commission (Delegation of Powers) Act 1888, the Crofters Common Grazings Regulation Act 1891, the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 and the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. When we look at crofting law, we have to have the text of all those acts open at the same time. For people like me, who are trying to help crofters, that makes it difficult to understand which act is apposite to the matter that is being dealt with. There needs to be proper reform of those acts. I would like them to be drawn together to help to make crofting vibrant, understandable and enforceable.
As regards the merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, I am aware of the expertise problem. The Government is pretty sanguine about it, but I would like to see some clarity when we come to stage 2.
I thank the Rural and Islands Committee for its work. I agree with the general principles of the bill, but I feel that opportunities have been missed here. I reiterate that a new bill will definitely be needed, which is what the REC Committee said back in 2017.
16:37
I put on the record my thanks to those who engaged with the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on the bill. We heard from a huge number of stakeholders, from organisations to individual crofters, and I am grateful to them for putting so much time and energy into the committee’s work on the bill.
Crofting is important to Scotland’s heritage and to our rural communities and economies today. It contributes a great deal to vibrant and thriving communities, with 30,000 people living in crofting households. Ensuring that crofting is well managed and that legislation allows crofts and the communities around them to thrive has knock-on positive effects. The Scottish Crofting Federation has set out that
“crofting has a proven track record of maintaining population and economic activity in remote rural areas.”
The proposed changes that are set out in the bill are widely supported, but it is important to ensure that they will work for crofters. As we heard in evidence, the activities of crofters and grazings committees are wide and varied, which is to be celebrated and supported. Enforcement of crofters’ duties was widely discussed, and I note that crofters want more effective enforcement. Previous legislation has created a complex system, and we heard from the Crofting Commission that much capacity is diverted to deal with the complications. Crofters shared concerns about a lack of enforcement.
The bill will go some way in streamlining and freeing up Crofting Commission capacity. Provisions in the bill set out greater flexibility for the commission, such as allowing it to make use of digital communication. Use of a wider variety of communication options is to be welcomed, although the committee notes that not all crofters have access to the internet or a reliable connection. Homes in rural Scotland are much more likely to rely on slower forms of internet such as digital subscriber lines. We expect that the commission will anticipate that and continue to offer effective physical communication, but it feels important to note that point.
Over the course of evidence taking, the commission also acknowledged the significant issues around its digital capacity and current website. I am interested in hearing how the commission will be supported to develop its digital capacity.
Although the changes that are set out in the bill are likely to streamline administration for both the commission and crofters, there is, as we have heard, a wide appetite for more fundamental change. I was glad to hear the minister confirm that this is the first step and foundation for wider change. I and many others would welcome more detail on what that might look like.
It is vital that crofting is fairly regulated and well enforced, without undue burdens on crofters. The committee supports the bill at stage 1 and looks forward to further changes in the future.
We move to closing speeches.
16:40
I will highlight several interesting contributions to the debate. Rhoda Grant talked about the need to support the traditional aspects of crofting. I add that we need to recognise things such as the machair and how crofters ensure that that treasured and important type of land is maintained.
Many colleagues raised concerns about the separation of grazing shares. Beatrice Wishart noted that the situation is nuanced, with circumstances in Shetland being different from those in other crofting counties.
Alasdair Allan talked about the importance of addressing the marketisation of crofting, on which I agree with him. Edward Mountain spoke of the need to reinvigorate the mapping of crofting, on which I also agree. It would be useful to understand how Scotland’s land is used. Given that crofting is extensive in parts of my region, it would be good to have a greater picture.
Evelyn Tweed raised an interesting point about the need to make sure that there are options for analogue as well as digital communication between crofters and the commission. It is important to recognise that not everybody has moved into the digital space.
As I said, the Scottish Greens support what the bill does. It ties up loose ends that are creating problems on the ground for crofters. However, I will wrap up by thinking about the future. Fixing the problems that crofters face now is all well and good; however, as with any other sector, we need to look beyond the present and into the future. We need to consider the multitude of challenges that are coming down the line—as I have heard about from crofters, including from one just last night—and to ensure that crofters feel supported to adapt to those.
For example, the 2045 net zero target is getting closer, and we also have the good food nation commitments to consider. In both instances, the Scottish Government’s job is to prepare the ground for crofters, positively encourage change and support those who already want to make that change.
As the Crofting Commission chair, Andrew Thin, told the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee,
“The proposed changes are helpful, but they are only steps on a journey ... A large chunk of land in our country is being used suboptimally and is suboptimally productive, which is not sensible.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 24 September 2025; c 25.]
He called on us to rethink existing systems of land use and management. At that point, I think, he was talking not specifically about crofting but about Scotland’s rural land in general. He called on us to consider, where appropriate, initiatives such as carbon sequestration, peatland restoration and woodland planting.
Elements of the bill will help crofters to begin the process of adaptation. For example, the part of the bill that deals with environmental uses, albeit that it is not perfect in its current form, moves us in the right direction. We need to ensure that everyone who wants to use a croft for environmental purposes has the confidence to do so and enough confidence in the regulation of that form of land use.
Part 2 of the bill offers the chance to adapt the justice system so that it can handle environmental cases in a better and fairer way. I think that all members would agree that fairness should be at the heart of any just transition towards a more environmentally friendly Scotland.
Key to ensuring fairness is having a legal system that is fully prepared to deal with environmental cases. As the climate and biodiversity crisis develops, it does not take too much to see that we will need the capacity and expertise to handle such cases. Building that system should start today, especially given our Aarhus convention commitments.
Scotland’s crofting system is unique. It is a culturally significant, low-impact land management model that maintains rural and island populations and their respective economies. The Scottish Greens believe that the bill will ensure that crofting will be slightly simpler, but once the legislation has passed, the next Government must move quickly to protect the future of crofting for generations to come.
16:45
There has been a lot of consensus in the debate, with members talking about what needs to happen with the bill and what changes need to be made. However, there is agreement on the direction of travel.
There was discussion about common grazings and how to reattach grazing shares that had inadvertently become detached. That is quite difficult, because it will take a backward look at how we track the ownership of those common grazing shares and how we retrospectively legislate to have them reattached to the crofts that they originally belonged to.
Some witnesses who gave evidence to the committee talked about not always having the grazing share attached to a croft, because they felt that some people might be using their inby land but not their grazing share because they were no longer rearing animals. However, a solution to that is already in place, in that people can sublet their grazing share if they are not rearing animals but one of their crofting neighbours is and could use that land. That would be a solution to that part of the argument.
It is important to emphasise that one of committee’s concerns was that, if the inby croft was separated from the grazing share, there could be the possibility of people speculating in that grazing share, given the value of carbon and biodiversity credits.
Yes, indeed, and the bill needs to do something about that. It needs to clarify that the carbon credits belong to the tenant, and that a grazing share belongs to the original croft. Beatrice Wishart talked about how that is not an issue in Shetland, because the way in which conveyancing was carried out, the grazing share always belonged to the croft. We need to make sure that that happens elsewhere.
Finlay Carson and others talked about the three-croft limit, which I think that the committee agreed to because it made sense. However, we also understood that the size of crofts varied hugely. There were some very large crofts, some very small crofts and some crofts that had been subdivided in the past. That was a historical issue. Some crofts were subdivided between family members to the point at which they were not really economic at all. As a rule of thumb, there should be a three-croft limit, but every application needs to be considered on its own merit, especially in relation to the size of the croft that is going to be transferred.
Alasdair Allan talked about abandonment and dereliction, and other members talked about environmental crofting and the crossover there. The minister has already agreed that he will strengthen the bill to make sure that environmental crofting cannot be used to disguise abandonment and dereliction. We also need to realise that there are already crofting laws in place that take a stand against abandonment and dereliction, and we must make sure that the Crofting Commission has the ability to do that.
We must also make sure that people can report that. Earlier crofting legislation made that a duty on the grazings clerk and we knew that that would not work. I am pleased that the bill will take that out, but the legislation should also widen who can report dereliction to make sure that it does not happen.
The future of crofting is important, and we need more comprehensive legislation. That legislation needs to understand that crofting has evolved differently in the different areas of the crofting counties. Beatrice Wishart talked about Shetland and the grazing share area, which shows that to be the case.
Ariane Burgess said that crofting is the “glue” that holds communities together, and that really is the case. We need to make sure that we protect it for future generations.
I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
16:49
I declare an interest as a partner in a farming partnership, a member of Scottish Land & Estates and a crofting landlord.
We have heard a great deal today about the history of crofting and, from all sides of the chamber, about the role that crofting still plays, particularly in some of our most remote and rural communities, many of which are in my Highlands and Islands region. However, the crofting of today is not the crofting of 1886, when, as we have heard, the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 went through Parliament, and nor is it even the crofting of 1993, when the most recent attempt was made to consolidate crofting legislation in a more coherent framework. There has been an on-going process of change, mirroring the process of change to other types of land tenure and to the agriculture sector. That is the right approach. If crofting is to maintain its relevance, it cannot remain frozen in time.
The Scottish Government has indicated that this bill is a foundation and one that, in the words of the minister, aims to prepare
“the ground for what comes next.”
That has been the subject of a great deal of discussion and reflection in the crofting communities. However, it is the hope of members, certainly on this side of the chamber, that the bill has measurable outcomes in its own right and that the Scottish Government can demonstrate progress if the bill is passed by the Parliament. That is not just about increasing occupancy and ensuring purposeful use, or reducing the occasions on which enforcement powers have to be used; it is about ensuring that the novel elements in the bill are closely examined and reviewed.
That is particularly important in relation to the environmental provisions, where we should hope to see credible outcomes. As the stage 1 report illustrated, plenty of organisations have outlined where those provisions may provide opportunities for neglect or adverse effects. Confidence will be increased not simply by pointing to the protections in the bill but by clear assurances that those possible outcomes will be actively monitored.
The bill will strengthen the powers of the Crofting Commission. However, it is essential that those powers are put to good use, that oversight is exercised sensibly and, ultimately, that the purposes and functions of the Crofting Commission are clear and unambiguous, with a solid mandate to act when that is necessary.
We will support the bill at stage 1. However, given the time that it has taken, in many ways, the bill falls short in addressing the many pressing issues in the crofting sector. My colleague Finlay Carson detailed some of the issues and the background to the bill. Speaking on behalf of the committee, he outlined some important parts of its report. As the report recognises, there is an appetite for deeper and more fundamental reforms to the sector. That will, of course, be an issue for the new session of Parliament following this year’s elections. It would be difficult to bring all the issues that the committee has raised into the scope of a short speech, but I am sure that we all hope that its recommendations are reflected in the Scottish Government’s future work.
Tim Eagle said that the bill is a step forward but that there is a need for a more comprehensive review that answers some of the bigger questions, as well as a need to ensure that people are not priced out of local crofting. He also highlighted the need for crofts to be in active use—an issue that was raised by Dr Allan and Edward Mountain and that was hinted at by Rhoda Grant when she highlighted the concerns around second homes and holiday accommodation, which the bill will not address.
Edward Mountain welcomed the committee’s report and spoke about its content, but he framed the bill clearly in terms of a missed opportunity. He also rightly noted the several outstanding issues that will now need to be tackled in the next session, as well as the indications that the Scottish Government gave that those issues would be recognised in this session, too.
There is a broad consensus in favour of reforming crofting law and ensuring that we have a framework that will work for the future. There is a collective will in the chamber to get the legislation right while looking forward to the future and perhaps more extensive reforms. It is my hope and belief that positive work can happen as the bill progresses if the Scottish Government is prepared to take on board a number of the issues that have been raised today. However, the bill and today’s debate still leave an important question unanswered: what is the Government’s and the Parliament’s vision for the long-term future of crofting?
16:54
I thank members across the chamber for the consensual way in which we have debated the bill today. That goes back to the point that I made in my opening statement, about the extensive amount of very good engagement that the bill team and my officials have done to ensure that we bring the crofting community along with us.
I will address a number of points that members have made—I am sorry, but I will not be able to associate names with all those points. A number of members said that there is not enough in the bill and that more wholesale legislative reform is needed. However, the bill was never intended to deliver fundamental reform—it is technical in nature, and it provides the improvements that we need while enabling crofters to take greater control of how they use their land.
Although reform will be necessary in the future, I would caution against rushing straight into it. We first need to establish what crofting policy should be in the future, and—to continue the approach that we took to this bill—we need stakeholders to consider that question, too. Although it is ultimately the Government’s responsibility to deliver that policy, that should not be done unless we have good evidence from stakeholders.
Will the minister give way?
Before I take the intervention, I should point out that such reform would also need to be cleared by any future Governments, Cabinets and Cabinet sub-committees.
I am surprised to hear the minister talk about not “rushing” into crofting reform when there has been talk, debate and consultation over future crofting policy for decades. Sadly, we hear the excuse about not rushing into reform from the SNP all too often. We accept that this bill is intended to address some of the technicalities, but the majority of crofters out there are calling for radical change, and that change needs to come sooner rather than later.
We almost got through a consensual debate without any dispute at all. We should not rush things but I take Mr Carson’s point that we need to move on to the next process, because today has shown the complexity of crofting law.
Anybody who is listening to the debate and is not absolutely embedded in crofting will not have a clue what most of us are talking about. When we go through the process of dealing with the current complex crofting law, therefore, we need to ensure that we have done the work and have engaged with stakeholders, and that we understand what it is that crofting is going to deliver for the people of Scotland and, more importantly, for the crofters. That is a vital piece of work that we will need to undertake in the next session of Parliament.
The bill provides crofters and landowners with a legislative framework to help them to address environmental issues. That has been mentioned by a number of members, and I will touch on it just now. We have to avoid a situation in which crofters are unable to access future funding schemes that incentivise certain environmental uses, and that is one of the issues that the bill picks up.
Members have talked about carbon credits. We do not yet fully understand who owns those carbon credits, and I think that it would be premature to state in crofting legislation whether those carbon rights sit with the landlord or with the crofter. In the meantime, I absolutely encourage crofters to go into joint ventures with their landowners and other crofters in order to bring mutual benefit.
I think that it is quite clear where those carbon credits sit. The crofter can dig peat and cut or plant trees on their croft, so the landowner could not claim the carbon credits. If they were to claim carbon credits for peatland restoration, say, and the crofter decided to start cutting a new peat bank, they could not do it—they have no control over the trees or the peat on their land. The credits must, therefore, lie with the crofter.
There we see the complexity of crofting law and who owns what. That is why we need to take our time and fully consider the proposals so that we get it right. The issue that Rhoda Grant highlights is one of the matters that should be considered in the next crofting bill.
At some point, an issue was raised—I do not know whether it was raised by a member in the chamber today—regarding the three-croft limit for family assignation and how that might disproportionately impact crofters who have multiple crofting interests. We want to reduce the burden of crofting regulation where it makes sense to do so. The Crofting Commission’s resources need to be freed up through the change that we are bringing forward, so that it will have more time available to deploy elsewhere—for example, in enforcement duties. I will come back to that in a moment.
We settled on a limit of three crofts because we felt that that struck the right balance between the policy intention, which is to improve the efficiency of the service that is provided to customers, and the concerns that it could result in croft collecting or land banking. I hope that that gives some comfort. If a crofter owns more than three crofts, they would have to go through the process, but that does not mean that they would not be able to take on other crofts—they would simply have to go through the same process as everybody else. The proposal in the bill is that family assignations should be done far more easily, and I think that that has been widely welcomed.
I absolutely agree that the commission needs sufficient resources and staff based locally to monitor and enforce compliance. I regularly meet the commission’s chief executive officer and chair to discuss the commission’s performance, and the commission is increasing its enforcement work. Last year, through taking some form of regulatory action, the commission commenced engagement with 215 crofters and resolved 134 breaches of duties.
I am well aware that, historically, there has been a lack of faith in the Crofting Commission across crofting communities and counties. However, under the current regime, Andrew Thin and Gary Campbell are absolutely determined that the board will make the right assessment of the duties and will ensure that crofters carry out those duties.
I would have liked to touch on many other points, but I am running out of time. Should members agree to support the general principles of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill, I commit to working with members right across the chamber to better the lot of our nation’s crofters and to deliver for our people and communities an effective bill that they can be rightly proud of.