Crofting
The next item of business is a debate on the Shucksmith report and the future of crofting in Scotland.
It gives me great pleasure to open the first of many debates and discussions that will take place as we begin work to put in place a firm foundation for the future of crofting in Scotland.
The Government made a commitment in its programme for government to reform crofting following the work of the committee of inquiry on crofting. That was consistent with our drive to promote a wealthier and fairer Scotland, a safer and stronger Scotland and a greener Scotland. On Monday, I formally received the committee's final report at an event in Stornoway. I took the opportunity then and I do so again to thank all members of the committee and particularly the chairman, Mark Shucksmith, for the public service that they have done. I am sure that the whole Parliament extends its thanks. I also thank everyone who contributed to the production of the report through their participation in the committee's public meetings earlier in the year or through their submissions in response to the call for evidence.
On Tuesday morning, I was pleased to read the universally positive coverage of the report. I was particularly struck by a comment from Patrick Krause, the chief executive of the Scottish Crofting Foundation, which was quoted in The Herald. He said:
"There is no doubt the authentic voice of Scottish crofters is in this report."
That is true. The report is a testament to the consultation that was undertaken when the report was being produced.
Since then, I have been struck by the intelligent and positive coverage of the detailed recommendations in the report. For example, in today's Press and Journal, the National Trust for Scotland indicates its support for many elements in the report, although it asks questions that should be asked. I have also been impressed by the response from NFU Scotland, which also asked questions. I am sorry that John Farquhar Munro is not in his usual place in the chamber, because he has been positive about the report, although he defends the Crofters Commission in this morning's Press and Journal. I, too, defend the Crofters Commission. However, the report is not about the future of the Crofters Commission; it is about the future of crofting.
The committee of inquiry was established by the previous Administration in September 2006, to consider the future of crofting. Mark Shucksmith was appointed in December 2006 and the other members of the committee were appointed in April 2007. The committee was asked—I pay tribute to the previous Administration for this—to identify
"a vision for the future of crofting"
and to make recommendations designed to secure specific goals: to sustain and enhance the population; to improve economic vitality; to safeguard landscape and biodiversity; and to sustain cultural diversity.
When I became Minister for Environment a year ago, I encouraged the committee to be radical, because radical change is needed to reverse years of decline in crofting. I share the committee's view that there is a clear and present danger to the future of crofting and radical action is required.
Radical recommendations are the culmination of the committee's work, which is the most significant investigation into crofting since the report of the Taylor commission in 1954. Indeed, in future, a history of crofting—I will not attempt such a thing—will regard the work of the Napier commission, the Taylor commission and the Shucksmith committee as three pillars in the building of the crofting system. Of course, members of the Shucksmith committee did not have to be shipwrecked twice, as happened to members of the Napier commission, in order to come to their conclusions.
The report makes bold recommendations on the land and environment, the rural economy, housing, governance, crofting regulation and enforcement, and the crucial issue of attracting new entrants into crofting.
On land and environment, the report makes recommendations on the single farm payment, the less favoured area support scheme, the Scotland rural development programme and the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme.
On the rural economy, it makes recommendations on development investment, on the relationship between the work of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and local authorities, and on in-migration, return migration and population retention.
On housing, it makes proposals for the croft house grant scheme and on the provision of housing for non-crofters.
On governance arrangements, it recommends winding up the Crofters Commission and separating the functions that the commission currently undertakes. Regulation and enforcement would be discharged by a new structure. Development would become the responsibility of a crofting and community development body, possibly within HIE. The report recommends that responsibility for the register of crofts be taken over by Registers of Scotland and that grazings committees be modernised and given an expanded role.
On regulation and enforcement, the report recommends that the rights that were laid down in the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, in relation to security of tenure, succession, fair rents and the value of improvements, be enjoyed only
"by those resident on or near their croft and using the land beneficially."
It is strange that such a recommendation might be regarded as controversial, because it is axiomatic that the benefits of crofting should accrue to crofters themselves.
The report recommends that croft houses be tied to occupancy through a real burden, which would take effect when the croft was next assigned or purchased and would run for ever. Decrofting the house site or purchasing the landlord's interest would not extinguish the burden.
The report argues that the combination of those recommendations and other proposals on regulation would create more opportunities for young people and attract new entrants to crofting.
The committee's vision of a growing, prosperous, inclusive and sustainable crofting community is one that I whole-heartedly share. Crofting delivers social, economic and environmental benefits and is part of the cultural landscape of the Highlands and Islands, which is famous throughout the world. It should be advanced to secure more of those public benefits, not simply to preserve tradition, although that is good in itself. No one can understate its role. Crofting should be preserved because crofting per se is worth pursuing in the modern age.
The principles of localism and communality are central to the report's recommendations and, like the committee of inquiry, I believe that they are at the heart of crofting. The Government believes strongly in empowering communities to take control of their own destinies and in enabling people to make the plans and take the decisions that affect them and their communities. Through direct participation in those processes and decisions, individuals can see the benefits of that approach and communities can generate new life.
Crofters are not bereft of
"reserves of knowledge, experience and leadership",
as the Taylor committee suggested 54 years ago. The Taylor committee suggested then that
"initiative must come from without".
Now, it can come from within. The greatest chance for success will come if crofters feel that they have ownership and control of their future. On Monday, I saw a wonderful example of that in the Lewis township of Coll, where a new grazings committee has come together and is working within the community to bring new life to it. Crofting needs to serve Scotland well in the 21st century, and the report can help that to happen.
I turn to the recommendations and the Government's response to them. I shall consider the report carefully over the summer and announce a detailed response at the end of the summer. The recommended changes to the governance arrangements for crofting need a great deal of consideration. As in any such report—particularly a radical one—the devil will be in the detail, but I hope that the whole Parliament will find ways of participating in that discussion and debate, the outcome of which I expect to be legislation although, obviously, I cannot confirm that today. For example, we need to ensure that any new governance structure facilitates local input but does not create a bureaucracy that is at odds with our agenda of simplifying the public body landscape.
I accept strongly that Registers of Scotland, which has expertise in the registration of property, should take over responsibility for the register of crofts, although I recognise that there is considerable work to be done before that can happen. I need to consider how to take it forward and finance it.
I accept recommendation 3.15.9, which is that
"The Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act 1857 should be amended to make a crofting lease registrable and hence eligible for standard securities."
That is one of a range of recommendations that will be easy to accept. Accepting that recommendation will make it easier for crofters to access commercially available loans so that they may build or improve their homes without having to decroft.
I keep open the option of implementing the recommendation on what the report refers to as real burdens that would require occupancy of croft houses. On Monday, I made it clear that the Government may introduce retrospective legislation if it recommends to the Parliament that that proposal be adopted. That would be necessary to reduce the risk of a rush to decroft and avoid the provisions of any future legislation.
I suspect that all the parties and the individual members present, some of whom are highly knowledgeable about crofting, will conclude that reform of crofting cannot be undertaken instantly. Today, we are at the end of 122 years of complex legislation, and perhaps the most difficult task will be to simplify that legislation in the way that the committee envisages, which I support.
However, we continue to make changes, even while we consider the next steps. Last winter, we consulted on powers under the existing crofting legislation to designate new areas where crofting tenure could apply. The consultation proposed that Arran, Bute, Great Cumbrae Island and Little Cumbrae Island, as well as areas within Moray Council and Highland Council that are not already within the crofting counties—an historical anomaly that many people felt should have been resolved a century ago—be so designated.
Responses to the consultation, which closed in March—although we took account of late comments—broadly support the proposal for an alignment with the HIE boundaries. Accordingly, I am minded to designate those areas for crofting tenure, and I expect to move to implement that measure in the coming year. Obviously, I wish to ensure a level playing field for all crofting areas, so I will take forward the future of financial support for them in light of Shucksmith's recommendations.
We will now give careful consideration to the report of the committee of inquiry on crofting and decide how best to take forward its recommendations. We will start work on producing our detailed response to the report and look for the earliest opportunity to introduce consequential legislative change.
I greatly look forward to hearing members' views today and on future occasions. The inquiry was conducted independently, and I hope that its independence will command the respect that allows us to come together and build consensus on the way forward. One thing above all should motivate us and leave us in no doubt that we must act: crofting is in a perilous state and we have an obligation to ensure that it carries on into future generations. Mark Shucksmith and his colleagues have done a great service in helping us to ensure that it does. The decisions will now have to be taken, and we will have to take responsibility for the actions.
I very much agree with Michael Russell's expression of thanks to the committee of inquiry for the work that it has carried out over the past few months.
In its consideration of the Crofting Reform etc Bill in the previous parliamentary session, the Environment and Rural Development Committee came to the conclusion that the bill as introduced was simply too complex. We wanted to ensure that the Parliament got crofting right, but the bill did not provide for a consolidation of the legal framework. We were not convinced that the measures to sort out the market in crofts would work and we wanted to get the right controls and assignations to ensure that crofting was retained.
However, we did not want to jeopardise the chance of a crofting bill being passed at that time because we wanted to ensure that the recommendations on new crofts that Michael Russell is implementing were provided for. We thought that there should be a new set of discussions on crofting and the possibility of new legislation in this parliamentary session.
Therefore, I warmly welcome the work that the committee of inquiry on crofting has done—in particular, Mark Shucksmith's work in pulling it together and the excellent analysis in the report. The process has been inclusive and the report is all the stronger for that. However, I admit that, although I enjoyed reading it, I have not yet fully digested all its recommendations. Along with the minister, I certainly want the time to reflect on them all; they are radical and far reaching. We now need to have a positive debate on what we agree with but we must also take the time to consult more before we come back to the Parliament to set out our stalls in detail.
I am keen that this debate be the start of the Parliament's consideration of how the vision for crofting in the 21st century that is set out in the report should be implemented. That is why I welcome the minister's commitment to come back with a response to the debate before we legislate again. It is important to learn the lessons of the previous crofting bill to ensure that we do not address matters only through legislation or pile everything into consideration of proposed legislation but instead examine all the issues.
The report's analysis is spot on, but we need to think through the detail of the recommendations and talk to the crofting communities about how we implement it. As the minister says, we must look through the detail, which is where the difficulties will come. We need to ensure that there is widespread consultation and consideration, and I note the NFUS's request for a detailed discussion at a later date.
There are two ways in which the report can be implemented. The first is to consider matters that do not require legislation and on which the minister and his colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment can act now; the second is to consider the potential legislative issues that arise from the report.
We need to address the urgent housing and agricultural support issues that can be acted on now. The minister should simply set out what he thinks in detail. I welcome his initial response, but I want to see the Government's response to all those recommendations to determine what can be acted on swiftly.
We also need a response on the issues that clearly require legislation. However, we need agreement on the Government's overall policy stance before we get to the detailed drafting, because the significant changes that were made halfway through the previous bill's passage made it difficult for the Environment and Rural Development Committee to do its job.
The headline recommendation in the Shucksmith report to abolish the Crofters Commission needs a great deal of thought. The recommendation that regulation would remain at a Scottish level but implementation would rest at a local level needs further debate. The scope is set out for local crofting boards to regulate, but that raises the questions to what extent we would still have a common system of crofting and what level of discretion each board would have. We need to think all that through in detail. Another issue that we must consider in detail is the status of the boards and whether they will be quangos.
Given the recent downsizing of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the budget cuts that it has experienced, it is ironic for the Scottish Government that HIE is the organisation of choice for the location of the proposed crofting community development body.
There is a clear message in the report that economic factors must be central if crofting is to survive. We support the objective to bring together economic development and community and social objectives. The report notes that crofting activities account for only a third of crofters' incomes, so support for wider economic activity is crucial, including support for entrepreneurial skills and other skills that are required to run small businesses. Crofters have a host of economic opportunities in construction, renewables, wildlife interpretation, crafts and tourism, and they need skills and support in all those areas.
A critical issue is the minister's willingness to fund in full the system that he chooses to recommend to us. His choice requires a lot more thought, and I do not expect him to make it after two days' reflection on the report. Whatever decision is made, however, there is a key challenge for the minister to ensure that he supports the staff of the Crofters Commission. I ask him to make a commitment to think carefully about the rights of the staff. We considered the matter when we considered the Crofting Reform etc Bill. I hope that the minister will meet the staff, listen to their concerns and representations and ensure that he talks through the issues in detail, including the future status of the organisation and where staff will be located in order for them to be effective. Those issues, and the rights of the staff, must be considered in detail.
Where do we go next? I will focus briefly on two areas in which the minister can act now to support crofters: housing and agriculture. Housing grants are urgently needed to enable crofters to build new houses. Our discussions have been dominated by the debate on the market in crofts and the lack of sufficient rural housing for crofters and others who want to remain in our crofting areas. The issues are not easy. Sometimes the problem is the lack of land for development and sometimes it is finance.
A key issue that comes out loud and clear in the report is affordability. Rural wages are insufficient to cover the cost of building new houses and the cost of mortgages. The report is clear. It says:
"the Crofters Building Grants and Loans Scheme … was the single most effective means of support for maintaining the population of crofting communities. The current Croft House Grant Scheme … is pitched at too low a level to assist crofters".
That cannot be right. It must be acted on. We know from the Government's paper on housing that in rural areas, particularly the Highlands, house prices are rising rapidly and affordability is worsening. Some 96 per cent of those who were surveyed by the Crofters Commission last year said that young crofters are the most important aspect of a thriving crofting community, but 88 per cent said that housing is unaffordable for young people in crofting areas. We need urgent action to make rural crofts available, to let crofters build and to provide more land for crofters. I hope that the minister will consider the raft of recommendations on the matter. Labour highlights the proposal to enable crofters to obtain loans without having to decroft. The evidence shows that the lack of such an option is a huge pressure that leads to decrofting. I welcome the minister's clear support for the recommendation today, and I hope that he will take the matter forward swiftly.
Support is also urgently needed to guide crofters through the new rural development programme, which is overbureaucratic and lacks transparency. We fear that our most fragile rural areas will lose out unless ministers give clear signals now. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds puts the case for public benefit extremely well, and it is clear that NFU Scotland wants to engage in the debate too.
We must support active crofting and ensure that we have appropriate land management. We need to deliver environmental objectives and, crucially, support crofters' ability to manage their land. We also need support for infrastructure to support jobs in marts and slaughterhouses. The Crofters Commission, rightly, lobbied us on that in the past few months.
We believe that we need to refocus agricultural support. We agree with the recommendation that the Scottish Government should change the rural development programme now to bring that about. The report contains many detailed recommendations, but many can be acted on now, including the challenge to encourage new entrants. The report's recommendations focus on the need for new crofters so that existing crofters can retire with income and with dignity.
The report contains a fantastic vision of the future, but we need to look at the key things that can be done now. We must then debate the detailed recommendations on the future architecture for the support of crofting. The report contains many good recommendations, and we must take our time to get things right. Funding is crucial. We need to know that, whatever system we support, the Government will fund it fully so that the recommendations can be implemented. We need an inclusive approach that includes the Parliament and all the communities that made recommendations recently and during the previous session. I note the minister's willingness to have that inclusive discussion and I hope that it will happen.
We need, first, to consider the recommendations that can be acted on now and, secondly, to have detailed discussions on the major recommendations so that we get things right this time. We need to consolidate the legislation in order to bring our crofters together and ensure that they have a viable and sustainable future. We must support them in those objectives.
I, too, welcome Professor Shucksmith's report and the vindication that it contains of the Scottish Conservatives' position and views on the previous Government's Crofting Reform etc Bill, which was passed in January 2007. Regrettably, that bill failed to address many of the problems that face crofting in the 21st century. Sarah Boyack generously recognised that in her thoughtful and positive speech.
Ted Brocklebank and the Environment and Rural Development Committee were rightly condemnatory of the Crofting Reform etc Bill. The report that we are discussing today should have been available to influence and drive the legislation in 2006 but, sadly, it was not. However, we are where we are. It has often been said that a croft is an island surrounded by a sea of legislation, and the more one looks into it, the more that becomes apparent. At the very least, simplification and rationalisation of the legislation are long overdue. Professor Shucksmith's report is a welcome precursor to that, although, like others, I have yet to fully absorb the report.
Many of the recommendations in the report are to be welcomed. In particular, the Scottish Conservatives welcome the determination to address the absenteeism and neglect that have sadly affected much crofting land in the past. To that end, we welcome the idea of the election of local crofting boards. If such boards can work together in a federation and be given powers to suspend the right to buy when that serves the best interests of the community, that will be progress. For example, good inby land should not be built on, especially as food security rises up the political agenda daily.
The transfer of powers from the Crofting Commission to HIE is a positive suggestion. I appreciate that not everyone in the chamber takes that view, but the idea is worthy of further consideration. I note the report's suggestion that the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme should be retained. I support that, and I know that the issue is dear to the heart of Norman Leask, who is in the gallery today. The suggestions to give extra support to young entrants and to support diversification through the CCAGS are measures for which I have long campaigned. My track record of support for CCAGS goes back to the early 1990s, when I was convener of NFU Scotland's hill farming committee.
I am less enthusiastic about moving towards an area basis for the single farm payment or reclassifying the less favoured area support scheme to introduce a mountain classification, but that is a Scotland-wide issue and is perhaps a debate for another day.
I do, however, want to consider carefully and positively the idea of reintroducing national envelopes and the possibility of reintroducing bull and ram hire schemes for crofting areas. That is essential if neglected land is to be returned to agricultural production. My colleague Jamie McGrigor will expand on that.
In the context of good agricultural practice, I welcome the suggestion that, if crofting land is sold, it must be retained in agricultural use. Our general thrust is that of following good agricultural practice and sustaining and enhancing the environment as we do so. The simplification of dispute resolution is another welcome recommendation. I wish whoever will be responsible for doing that more success than some of the grazings committees enjoyed in the past.
What is particularly positive about the debate is the fact that the Scottish Crofting Foundation has welcomed the report too—including the proposal to tie all croft houses to residency. The proposal to backdate a residency burden to 12 May 2008, which would tie a new owner to occupancy and working the land, is also to be welcomed.
The introduction of an enhanced croft house grant and loan scheme, which would allow for house building without the need to decroft, is very welcome too. It will help in encouraging population retention and migration into the crofting counties. Proposals to support the development of affordable housing are essential in sustaining fragile communities. Those proposals should be looked at in a positive light.
In the governance of crofting, it makes sense to separate the function of crofting regulation and enforcement from the function of crofting development. The maintenance of a register of crofts, to be administered by the Registers of Scotland, also seems to be a sensible idea.
However, I sound a cautionary note. There is a danger of too many cooks spoiling the broth if Highlands and Islands Enterprise is to be responsible for a new crofting and community development body, local crofting boards are to be tied into a federation of crofting boards, and grazings committees are to be transformed into crofting township development committees. I acknowledge the need for separation of functions from a governance point of view, but there is still a danger that all those proposed structures—all with their own ideas, input and secretariats—will make the situation just as complicated as it was before. The need for all those administrative functions has to be very well discussed before legislation is introduced.
Scottish Conservatives very much welcome this hugely comprehensive and solution-driven report. We have still to digest much of it, but it is obvious that it provides a springboard for the creation of new legislation. If the minister decides to introduce a bill, we hope that it will rationalise and simplify the various pieces of legislation that go back into the mists of time. I hope that one piece of legislation will be able to cope with the enormousness and complexity of such a task. If the minister decides to proceed on the basis of the report, Conservatives will work positively with the Government.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Shucksmith report, and we acknowledge the work that Ross Finnie, Sarah Boyack and Mike Russell have done to bring it to fruition. As a Liberal Democrat, I recognise that no election address is complete without a reference to Gladstone; many of us still get elected on that basis. We agree with Shucksmith's broad thrust, and we welcome the debate that the report continues. For many people this summer, the report will be a useful starting point for discussions over the farm gate and around the cattle pens and showgrounds. I associate myself and my party with the gratitude that has been expressed this morning to all involved. Across my constituency of Shetland, I plan to have a series of meetings with crofters on the recommendations of the committee of inquiry on crofting.
Mark Shucksmith and his colleagues finished their report after a year when the local, national and global issues affecting crofting have changed dramatically. The minister acknowledged that in his opening remarks. Food price inflation and food security are the talk not just of crofters but of the governor of the Bank of England. My starting point is therefore that reform must be about securing food production, cattle and sheep in the crofting counties. Livestock means families; families mean schools; and schools mean a future for the islands, glens and high hills of Scotland. Paragraph 1.5.9 of the report stresses food security, and I agree with what it says.
This Liberal Democrat wants the debate to be about the measures to support livestock production and enable crofters to get on with what they are best at—producing the quality stock that underpins agricultural trade and supply lines throughout the country. Yes, crofting is a way of life, income comes from many sources, and the environment plays a large part in the management of crofting land, but crofting, certainly in my community, is about production. It is about growing crops, filling the freezer and bringing quality livestock to market.
The minister said that crofting is in a perilous state. I have two suggestions for him, the first of which concerns the Scotland rural development programme. It is the fault of no minister, current or previous, but events of the past 12 months mean that the programme is now out of date. Paragraph 1.6.2 of the report recommends changes in the programme. I would advocate that the Government should go further, because there is no more important test for any Government than that it can react to global changes affecting local people.
Food security and food production have to be the cornerstone of crofting and agricultural policy. I ask the Government to make changing the SRDP an immediate priority. I will be happy to support and work with ministers if they commit to that course of action.
I come now to my second suggestion. Crofters have been calling for the reintroduction of the suckler cow premium and even the sheep annual premium. France has retained such support for cattle. Shucksmith argues for measures where there is market failure, but I would go further. The review of the common agricultural policy is under way, so now is the time to assist go-ahead crofters to invest in their cattle. Do we want to stop the remorseless loss of cattle and sheep from crofting areas? If the answer to that is yes—as it is for me—the Government needs to find ways of achieving that.
As we digest the full details of the report over the coming months—as Sarah Boyack and John Scott have rightly said that we should—we will have many questions. The report is stark in pointing to differing views on regulation; a simple way of putting it might be that the west wants more, but the north does not. As I am sure the minister would accept, no one-size-fits-all approach will work. That can be consistent with the recommendations for regulatory change, but we need to be clear that local decision making needs to avoid a system that pits one crofting neighbour against another. I certainly would not favour any regulatory approach that led to that.
I am unsure whether the recommendation to give HIE development functions is consistent with the devolution of decision making for crofting regulation. In paragraph 3.11.11, the report says:
"It is essential that this is additional to HIE's own resources, and not used to mask cuts in the resources allocated to HIE's normal business."
Indeed. The report speaks loudly on that point.
The recommendation to leave budgets with Government does not appear to be consistent with devolving responsibility. I note the committee's support for the rural stewardship scheme, and its even greater support for the environmentally sensitive areas scheme—a better scheme in my view—but SRDP budgets are the direct responsibility not of local decision makers but of ministers. Ministers will have to decide what their policy is. If they advocate devolved budgets and decision making, I will absolutely support them. However, there is a deal of work to be done in joining up all the dots.
The minister may wish to dwell on this final point. What can he do now? Ministerial powers to direct are clear—they have been in place for a considerable time—and recommendations on budgets can be taken forward in that way. As the minister considers the report and as he considers what he wants to bring back to Parliament, he must be clear on what can be done and on what really needs legislation. Parliament will want to scrutinise that. Sarah Boyack put those considerations in the context of the work of the committee.
My party and I will work with a Government that is determined to take crofting forward. Mr Russell should be in no doubt about that. However, my test is on the immediate issues that ministers can confront with all-party support and agreement—issues that can make a practical difference.
I will conclude with the wise words of a good friend of mine, Norman Leask, who is the former chairman of the Scottish Crofting Foundation. Norman's work has always been about the people, because without people in the community there would be nothing. As he says, crofters need
"affordable housing, decent jobs and fair treatment from governments in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. The report is a firm foundation for building all these requirements."
I agree.
We now move to the open debate.
At the outset, I should make a brief declaration of interests. In my former life as an advocate, I acted in a number of crofting cases. If I have time, I will mention one of them.
One or two people have already said that crofting is more than just a unique form of land tenure: its very distinctiveness makes it a vital part of Scotland's cultural heritage. For that reason alone, no one would want it to disappear into history; for that reason alone, it is worth cherishing. It is ironic, given the scale of some of the problems that we now face—Tavish Scott mentioned some of them—that a very old form of tenure may turn out to be well adapted to the modern era.
I have quickly read through the Shucksmith report, and I thank the committee of inquiry on crofting for delivering a report that will help to mark out a new future for crofting in Scotland. The recommendations on a new form of governance are interesting, and almost mirror what has been happening in some parts of Scotland as a result of crofters collectively exercising their right to buy under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. It may be accidental, but it looks as if successful community buy-outs have helped to define a path that we can now follow. I wonder whether the minister will comment on that observation when he closes the debate.
Winding up the Crofters Commission may be controversial in some quarters, but the intention is to return control to more locally based groups. My one caveat is that I am not sure how that sits with the plan to vastly reduce the number of quangos. I am not sure whether each of the new crofting boards will be a quango, but the local democracy issue that is embedded in the proposals is interesting. Other parts of rural Scotland may begin to look with envy on that local democracy.
The governance section of the report mentions setting up a crofting and community development body, ideally within Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have no argument with that in theory, but it rather begs another question about the future: could crofting tenure be made available in a much bigger area of Scotland? The minister has initiated a consultation on proposals to extend crofting areas beyond the currently designated crofting counties, but it seems tied to the Highlands and Islands. Would there be some merit in making crofting tenure available even further afield? Why should not other parts of rural Scotland benefit from crofting tenure? Indeed, why should Perthshire be excluded? Tying the new development body too tightly to HIE would seem to preclude such an extension from the outset.
Crofting has a huge impact on two big areas of concern—housing and food production. I am pleased that the report acknowledges that absentee crofters have the same impact on the availability of local housing as any other second home owners. I am pleased that the report acknowledges that. Last week, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, of which I am convener, visited Kinloch Rannoch, Blair Atholl, Ballinluig and other places in northern Perthshire in furtherance of its inquiry into affordable rural housing. The issue of extending crofting tenancy areas was raised then, so my earlier comments may find some support in wider areas than people might immediately imagine. We met the managers of Atholl Estates, which by most standards is a well-run estate and does a great deal to help create affordable local housing, but not all estates are as enlightened. It would be helpful to find ways of encouraging those other estates to become so. Extending crofting tenancy areas would greatly encourage that.
I am particularly interested in the impact of the right to buy on the availability of croft housing. The problem is that, too often, the right to buy is exercised by those who are not interested in working the croft. When it is swiftly followed by an application to decroft, it means that yet another house is lost, as is the use of the land.
I have to make a confession. There is a widely discussed judgment in crofting circles called the Kinlochewe judgment, in which a loophole was spotted in the crofting legislation and lawyers proceeded to push that door wide open. I was the advocate who argued in favour of the judgment, so I am partly responsible for the exploitation of the loophole. There is some irony now in my arguing for that loophole to be closed.
I echo Sarah Boyack's note of caution about legislating with time and care, because if we legislate and leave loopholes, lawyers will spot them and exploit them. However, I am heartened that the problem is recognised in the report, with the recommendation that the local crofting board should have the power to suspend a tenant's right to buy in certain circumstances. That is controversial, but it is important that we discuss it.
Crofting is germane to all debates that we have on food policy and food security, so it would be helpful to have some way of designating croft-produced food so that those of us who would seek it out and choose it have the opportunity to do so. On that point, I am particularly struck by how much crofting fits in with the cittaslow ideals, of which I am a great proponent, as is the minister. Cittaslow could have been designed to include crofting townships. I hope that in future it will.
Like other members, I pay tribute to all who worked on the Shucksmith report. It is well evidenced and argued, and it is easy to read and understand. The issues that the Shucksmith committee flags up are not surprising—the problems have been well rehearsed for some time—but finding solutions has always been challenging. While it is heartening that the report has been widely welcomed, many of the proposed solutions are complex, and more time to study them prior to the debate would have been appreciated. The minister needs to be clear that when he has considered the full implications of the report he will come back to Parliament to give his thoughts in another subject debate, and allow members to do the same.
Crofting is important. It has ensured the survival of many communities, and the future of many more is dependent on the action that we take. Some of the report's recommendations need legislation; others do not. Some elements of the report can be acted on quickly and are within the minister's gift.
I will concentrate my comments on the parts of the report that deal with housing, starting with what can be easily implemented. The croft house grant scheme can easily be replaced by the scheme outlined in the report. That would not need legislation. The report is clear that the current scheme is pitched too low. Those who use the scheme have difficulty in securing top-up finance to make it workable, which means that house sites are decrofted to provide security for mortgages from commercial lenders. Those who can afford to get finance for a house are able to proceed, while those who cannot do not get a house because the grant is insufficient.
The report states that the enhanced scheme would assist crofters to meet their housing needs without decrofting. The committee suggests a means-tested grant scheme, topped up by a loan. Those who did not meet the requirement for the means-tested grant would still be able to access the loan element. That loan would be sufficient to meet the costs of building or renovating a property. The report suggest that under the scheme, 200 more houses could be built and renovated, which would have a huge impact on the housing shortages in the Highlands and Islands. No legislation is required to implement the recommendation—that could be done now.
The report acknowledges the problems of croft houses becoming second and holiday homes, and makes an interesting suggestion that all croft houses should have occupancy burdens attached to them. It proposes two types of burden: first, an "enhanced burden", in which the house and the croft still form part of the same unit, which would ensure that the owner had to occupy the house and work the land; and a second burden, when the house is decrofted, termed a "real burden" of occupancy.
I am keen to hear the minister's comments on those burdens. Do they fit with the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 or would the act have to be amended? How would a real burden and an enhanced burden be transferred between properties where there is a second house on the croft? In section 3.8.3, the report touches on the circumstances in which a second house could be built. The approach is pragmatic, and would allow the croft to be passed down through generations. Allowing a second home to be built enables a crofter to pass on the croft to family or an assignee without having to leave their family home. However, more thought needs to go into the recommendation, taking into account the burdens placed on both homes. Would the burden to work the land pass to the new house? When would it transfer? What would happen to the original home when the occupant died or wished to move to suitable accommodation? Consideration should be given to situations in which a crofter wishes to retire and assign the croft but remain in their own home.
The report recommends backdating those burdens to stop a rush to decroft. The minister has indicated that if he accepts the report and the burdens, he will also accept the recommendation to backdate. Will the minister put in place arrangements to protect people who cannot proceed with house sales because he has indicated that there may be backdated burdens? Backdating burdens would mean people being unable to give clear title. Until he legislates, they will be unable to pass on the true implications of the burdens. Some people will face losses. Will he underwrite those losses? Will there be a cut-off date that affects those who have not started the process in any form? It is often late in the process of selling a croft house before it is discovered that the land has not been decrofted, because a lot of people confuse buying a feu with decrofting. What action will the minister take to assist those who are caught up in the change? People will be selling crofts and croft houses, and may be in the process of decrofting them now. What can be done to protect them? The change could lead to financial hardship or ruin, for instance for people who have bought another property or have already moved but who are prohibited from selling because of the burdens. That situation is affecting people as we speak, and the minister needs to take steps to deal with it now.
I welcome the minister's indication that he will accept a register of crofts. That is a step in the right direction and will help people to get finance to grow their business and renovate or build houses. I also welcome his extending the crofting counties.
I have raised genuine questions that are intended to be helpful, but we need to find solutions. I look forward to the opportunity to debate them in more detail, possibly when there is more clarity on some of the issues.
Today's debate marks an important moment for a sector whose success is crucial to the economic and social wellbeing of large parts of my region, the Highlands and Islands. Crofting knits together the socioeconomic fabric of many communities, links town with country, and unites purpose.
Like others, I put on record my thanks to Professor Shucksmith and his eminent team for their comprehensive report, which contains many positive ideas. I was pleased to take part in one of the stakeholder discussion sessions in Argyll last summer. I found it useful, and I am encouraged by the numbers of people who took the opportunity to have a say in the future of crofting.
The previous Executive announced the committee of inquiry in 2006, but it remains my strong view that we should have had the inquiry and its report before we dealt with the Crofting Reform etc Act 2007. Had that been the case, we might have had better legislation. It is notable and, sadly, not surprising that despite all the parliamentary time that was spent on the 2007 act, the report concludes that
"new legislation is needed to replace, simplify and clarify the accumulated laws which set the framework for crofting today."
That said, we need to move on, and perhaps implement many of the report's suggestions, which have been formed from the practical experience of crofters and are crucial to the future viability of crofting.
I agree with the report that access to affordable housing is essential for population retention in crofting communities. The crofters building grants and loans scheme was a genuine success story, and ministers need to answer the question in section 3.7.2 of the report:
"if the CBGLS was so effective in population retention why was it replaced with a much less generous scheme?"
We look to ministers to deliver, without delay, the new enhanced scheme that is recommended. That is one of the most important issues for crofting people.
Ministers will be aware that I have repeatedly stated the importance of the bull hire scheme. Its importance is highlighted in the report. Can ministers assure me that they will continue with an effective version of the scheme, possibly using extended national reserve provisions, as is suggested? I have already instigated one members' business debate on the issue, which was comprehensive. Surely we do not need to have another one on the same subject. The bull hire scheme promotes quality cattle, which, in turn, promote better prices for crofters.
Scottish Conservatives share whole-heartedly the report's strong focus on the importance of getting young people into crofting. The report is right to argue that measures to assist new entrants should be emphasised in allocating future funding. I am interested to hear what the minister thinks about the suggestion that, in future, new crofters might be able to access single farm payments through the national reserve provisions—which, incidentally, Scotland's deer farmers are also campaigning for. Regrettably, I do not think that there is much in the kitty. Can the minister confirm how much is in the national reserve? I think that it is a pretty paltry figure.
On the subject of agricultural support payments, I was impressed to see that the report suggests that future options for crofters within the Scotland rural development programme should be
"easy to access (not web based nor restricted to electronic applications)".
That is clearly embarrassing to ministers, who currently are forcing crofters and farmers to apply online for support under the SRDP, which is angering many of my constituents, especially, I am told, because the rural priorities scheme is intensely complicated. Many farmers I know are just beginning to use mobile phones—many have yet to try, let alone own, a computer. Ministers should reconsider the matter in light of the common sense contained in the report. Why should a farmer or crofter who is not skilled in information technology, but very skilled in what he does, not be allowed to make a paper application? Does the Google and Yahoo! mentality rule everything nowadays?
Given the complexity of some of the schemes, it would be impossible to use paper applications. The member is overstating the representations that have been received and the level of complication that is involved. We are helping people. He should calm down a little bit.
In that case, I suggest that the minister make the applications less complex.
I am worried by rumours of a black market in crofting reassignments, which can lead to developers, rather than good crofters, taking over crofts. Crofting land is special land. If it is made just like any other land, crofting will disappear, and the considerable benefits of a tried system will be lost.
I am encouraged by a great deal of what the Shucksmith report contains. The Scottish Conservatives want Government to act as an enabler to allow crofting to flourish and to help sustain some of the most marginal communities in Europe. Crofters are facing short-term problems—not least the horrific cost of fuel, which is hitting them particularly hard—long-term challenges and extremely low prices. As Norman Leask, the former chairman of the Scottish Crofting Foundation said:
"In 1886, people needed crofting. Today, crofting needs crofters."
With the correct implementation of the Shucksmith report, especially those recommendations relating to housing and jobs, I believe that crofting will be secured for generations to come. We look forward to the minister responding constructively to the report.
I welcome this debate, bearing, as I do, many scars from debates on the subject in the Environment and Rural Development Committee, and because I am, as I state in my entry in the register of members' interests, a member of the Scottish Crofting Foundation.
The Shucksmith report has offered crofting the keys for a sustainable system of small landholding in the 21st century. It is the best report that has been written about crofting that I have ever seen—and I have read them all. It is obvious that we have now found a good reason to say that crofting is an essential part of the future of the Highlands and Islands.
However, I take on board my colleague Roseanna Cunningham's remarks that many other parts of Scotland could benefit from the proposals. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has examined figures from around Scotland to determine the balance between young people and older people, and has concluded that, if the economy in the Highlands and Islands were balanced, there would be 22,500 more young people between the ages of 16 and 29 in the region. The same can be said of many parts of Scotland, such as Galloway, Perthshire and Aberdeenshire. If crofting is one way in which people can be provided with a home and a means to sustain themselves, it might be a key to reversing that terrible trend. Of course young people want to go to the cities, but they also want to come back. However, they will not be able to come back unless they have a guaranteed home to come to.
In case anyone is confused by remarks that were printed in my name in Monday's Scotsman, I should say that I am delighted about the proposal to scrap the Crofters Commission. That is the first step towards the creation of a real local democracy that will involve people taking decisions at a local level in elected crofting boards.
In adult countries such as Norway, people constantly use local democratic structures to take decisions that affect their neighbours. I am delighted that we are at last moving in that direction. Indeed, if John Farquhar Munro were here, I would compliment him on his earlier proposal to set up an elected crofting commission, which I and the rest of the SNP supported. The proposal that we are discussing today goes even further in that direction, and puts in place elected power over planning in the crofting areas.
Part of that planning will be involved with ensuring the retention of inby land by stopping its erosion for house building. There are two important aspects to that work. First, it must dovetail in a way that ensures that planning in all of the crofting areas supports the retention of inby land. Too many local plans identify inby land for house building, which has got to stop. The elected crofting boards will have a strong voice in seeking to change planning law.
Secondly, the work must ensure the end of the reduction in the numbers of cattle and sheep in crofting areas. There was a 5 per cent drop in the number of breeding ewes last year and a 3 per cent drop in the number of breeding beef cattle. There is a world food shortage, but that breeding reduction is happening in places in which the job of providing food can be done best.
On the day that we are talking about the Shucksmith committee trying to find ways to increase agricultural production, it is worrying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London is suggesting an end to the European Union common agricultural policy, in order to import much more cheap food from abroad. Trying to increase agricultural production while importing food cannot sit together. It is essential that we support home production, and crofting gives us the means to do that.
Creating township development committees to replace grazings committees would engage all residents in planning developments and would not impede innovation, as has happened so often in the grazings committees that I have dealt with for certain cases. Township development committees will have a liberating effect. However, as well as doing something about the grazings committees, we must ask what we will do about crofting landlords. The minister is one of the biggest ones. Not only that, he has a lot of land that should be in the hands of local people. We must find ways to encourage local people to take control of that land. If the Shucksmith process discusses the idea of elected local boards, I hope that some of that will rub off on the tenants of the public estates.
The role of the private landlord now comes into focus. My colleague Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the Kinlochewe judgment, which was correct in its day, because otherwise landlords would have had half the development interests on decrofted sites. The judgment provided a backstop for the Assynt crofters in those days, if they needed to file to take over their crofts. It was of its time and was a loophole in the law, but it can be changed now with the certainty that the new crofting law will enable people to stay on croft land in perpetuity while ensuring that they should be resident there to do so.
We must ensure that the agricultural support system for crofting provides flat-rate payments for particular areas—which the NFUS disagrees with—has a mountainous category and takes into account a remote island category as well. We should argue for pillars 1 and 2 to be modified so that they can adapt to such approaches.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, not at the moment. I do not have time, because I am just finishing.
If the member wishes, I can be helpful. Time is on his side.
Then please do.
I wonder whether the crofters on the islands that do not qualify for road equivalent tariff would get better payments than the ones who do qualify for RET.
I think the answer is that there will be the RET pilot and we will see what happens. However, the point is that transport, planning, European policy and many other matters affect how crofters live, and the Shucksmith report is important because of how it has reflected those aspects. The Government should welcome the report. I welcome it very much, and regard it as key to crofting in the future. I also regard crofting as key to retaining people in our Highlands and Islands.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the extra few seconds.
Like others, I not only welcome the debate but think that there is an awful lot more in this complex and well-written report that I must take time to digest. Crofting, as others have said, has served the Highlands and Islands extraordinarily well over the past 100 years and more. It has kept people in some of the most remote communities and is part of the social fabric of those communities. It has produced high-quality food in the way that Tavish Scott described, and it should continue to do so. It has maintained the environment in a way that is hugely valuable to modern society. I want to ensure that crofting is just as strong for future generations for the same reasons that it has been strong in the past.
The Shucksmith report has a great deal to commend it, and it is clear that the committee of inquiry listened to the crofting communities. The report has excellent analyses and many good ideas. Like previous commissions—Mike Russell referred to the Napier and Taylor commissions—the Shucksmith committee has provided an excellent statement about the condition of crofting and the challenges that it faces. Sarah Boyack can take pride in having commissioned the report and appointed the people who sat on the committee. The report demonstrates clearly that further change is sought by crofting communities and that such change is necessary. It will follow on from changes that have taken place down the generations. The history of the crofting system shows that it has constantly evolved.
The emphasis in the report is on support for the system of crofting. I stress that it is a system of crofting because Shucksmith is clear that it is, indeed, a system. The report concludes that the governance of the system requires significant change, stressing the themes of local empowerment, greater devolution of authority and an element of greater democratic accountability. The report sets those out as clear principles.
My colleagues have focused on various areas of the report, but I want to focus on governance. As the minister said—sadly, he has left his place for a few moments, but that is what comes with being a man of that age, and I am sure that he will be back shortly—the devil is in the detail of the report. There are three core proposals for governance: a federation of local crofting boards; the local boards themselves; and an enhanced role for the grazings committees, which Rob Gibson emphasised and which I will start with.
The ideas on grazings committees are interesting indeed and have considerable merit. I have believed for some time that issues that have affected crofting communities in the recent past around the use of land in townships, to which Rob Gibson alluded, are critical for the future of the townships. There has not been enough engagement of communities in helping to define local plans for their townships, which affect councils' local plans and are therefore carried into the ambit of planning law. What Shucksmith proposes could considerably strengthen the hand of local communities and consequently help the local planning process and future decision making. I suspect that that could be achieved under existing powers and that it would not require new legislation.
If the Government accepts that concept and the role of grazings committees, it must respond by setting out its view of how the proposed arrangements would work. Given the important new role of the grazings committees, the election process would have to be robust and fair. The Government would have to set out how the interests outwith crofting that Shucksmith envisages being involved would actually be involved.
Turning to local boards and the federation of boards, Shucksmith makes clear his desire for having much more local decision making as part of the governance structure, and greater—but, interestingly, not complete—democratic accountability. That significant change could introduce a new dynamic into crofting. If the Government favours that approach, its response to the report must give considerable detail about its view of how that might proceed. That is vital to ensuring that crofters can fully consider the implications.
I will illustrate some of the issues. First, it would be unusual in our society to elect regulators; indeed, I think to do so would be unprecedented. That would not make it wrong, but we must think about the implications. As someone who has steered 15 acts through Parliament, I can see, as I am sure the minister can, that complex questions arise from the report about the exact relationship—I stress the word "exact"—between the boards, the federation and the Scottish Land Court. It is clear that Shucksmith's intention is that considerable autonomy should go to the local board level. The term "federation" implies a joining of broadly autonomous bodies and a sharing of certain services. However, the proposals refer to the federation as a "single organisation" of local boards. What will be the legal entity? Will it be the federation or the local boards, or, indeed, both? That material question must be addressed.
At one level, the Shucksmith report implies that the local board will be the legal entity because it refers to appeals to the Scottish Land Court arising from decisions of the local board. However, the report also talks of the federation being one body that is responsible for regulation that is devolved to boards, with guidance from the chief executive of the federation. It is important to clarify all that precisely. Would Scottish Land Court decisions that set legal precedent apply equally to all boards? I suspect that they would. However, if not, would we have seven to 10 crofting systems in Scotland after a few years, rather than the system of crofting that Shucksmith seeks? What would be the implications of that for all crofting policy? If the Scottish Land Court decisions applied to all boards, how much autonomy from regulation would the local boards have over time? Would autonomy be more illusory than real? In any event, what is the scope for significant local autonomy if there is a single system of crofting, a single body of law and a body of regulation?
I am not saying that the issues are insurmountable, but they clearly require clarity from the Government to allow crofters to think through the implications. I wonder whether, as alluded to by Roseanna Cunningham and the minister, the proposals meet the Government's own test of simplification under the public sector reform agenda. If it is right to have 12 more quangos, the minister should not worry about creating them. However, the Government's policy means that tests need to be applied.
The proposed boards would be powerful, with new powers to balance community interests against individual rights and interests. That would rub against the European convention on human rights. The ECHR, for all its sophistication, is far less sophisticated than crofting. It tends not to recognise the community interest in crofting and instead protects individual human rights. However, it is law in this country. If there was a single body of law but local decision making specifically to allow variation at local level, the ECHR would add real complexity. The Government will need to be clear that it can meet all Shucksmith's desired objectives—which many members share—and deal with Scottish Land Court decisions and the ECHR, all at the same time. That is a colossal task, and I think from the minister's earlier remarks that he understands that.
I will move quickly on to the question of empowerment. It is not clear to me why, if we are to empower communities, we do not pass down the development function to them. That would be real empowerment, beyond what regulation might mean. I hope that the minister will consider that.
The report presents ministers with both huge opportunities and huge challenges. I hope that they will consider what they can do quickly without the need for changes in law—they can do a great deal. We can then consider legislative proposals in detail. There is much to commend in the report, including a great emphasis on greater empowerment. We can move in that direction, but there is significant complexity to deal with on the way.
I declare an interest, although not a financial one, in that I am an associate member of both Storas Uibhist and Harris Development Ltd.
Anyone who, like me, attended the launch on Monday in Stornoway of Professor Shucksmith's report into crofting cannot fail to have been impressed by both the breadth of the committee's research and its willingness to offer us radical solutions. More than anything else, they will have been impressed by the warmth of the welcome that the report received from crofting organisations and several individual crofters whom the minister and I visited after the event.
It is important to emphasise, as other members have, why crofting matters. In case anyone in Parliament is wondering, perhaps understandably, why crofting needs to be so regulated, it is no exaggeration to say that if crofting were not regulated, it would probably not now exist. Indeed, had the crofting acts from 1886 onwards not been passed, it is seriously questionable whether constituencies such as mine would now have any viable populations at all.
Is crofting still necessary? Does it demand our attention and our parliamentary time? The answer to both those questions is definitely yes. As Mark Shucksmith emphasises, although crofting is in a fairly fragile—let us be honest, precarious—position at present, its continued existence in some form is essential. It is essential if we are to maintain any population working on the land in the Highlands and Islands, if we are to maintain Gaelic-speaking communities and if we are to promote the social and economic development of rural Scotland.
There are undoubted environmental benefits to crofting as well. To take one example, the unique landscape of the Uists and the varied bird life that it sustains would not exist if it was not grazed and unless hay was made there in something like the traditional way. The minister will be waiting for me to make my customary plea for the greylag goose population in Uist to be controlled to achieve those ends. I hope that I have not disappointed him.
Many have used the word "radical" to describe the report—and justifiably so. In recommending the abolition of the Crofters Commission the report recognises that crofters want and need a much greater sense of ownership over the structures that regulate their way of life. I hope that we will take the opportunity to introduce a much-needed element of democracy into the process. As others have said, the separation of regulation from the development functions will be useful in that respect. The strengthening of common grazings committees will also be welcomed in the crofting community.
Perhaps the most immediate impact would come from the implementation of the recommendation that the rights given to individuals in the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 should extend only to those living reasonably locally and using the land beneficially. That recommendation has the potential to go a long way towards tackling multiple problems. If we do it right and implement the recommendation sympathetically, we could cut back on the number of derelict or unworked crofts, making things easier for new entrants, and we could end the speculation in croft land for house building.
Shucksmith's proposals to enhance the croft house grant scheme and to permit house building by crofters without the need to decroft are extremely useful. Those proposals will be appreciated, not least in areas where there is on-going friction between the need to provide houses—affordable ones, I hope—and the temptation to build on the most viable crofting land. I hope that communities will seek imaginative ways out of that tension by promoting building, where possible, on common grazings rather than croft land.
Above all else, Professor Shucksmith is to be congratulated on seeking to bring some simplicity to a massively complicated area of Scots law. It is an area so complicated that only a handful of lawyers in private practice now specialise enough to know their way through it entirely. The old adage that a croft is a small piece of land surrounded by legislation is quoted to death, but it is nonetheless true. A century and more of laws have been allowed to build up like the layers of paint on the Forth rail bridge. Add to that the byzantine complexities of European Union agricultural regulation and throw in a few bits of ancient Norse law, and we have a massive disincentive for any potential new crofter.
I hope that we will be bold enough, however we legislate, to simplify rather than complicate as we respond as a Parliament to the report. Elements of important detail will certainly give rise to debates. For instance, the future of the Government's bull hire scheme, which others have mentioned, continues to concern many in my constituency, and there are genuine questions about the viability and availability of commercial alternatives in many areas.
It is also important that we avoid further cluttering our—at first sight—uncluttered Highland landscape. That will mean entering into genuine discussions to ensure that any new structures do not duplicate the functions of community landlords, many of which rightly see development as a key part of their role. There is also the issue of community land buyouts. In the past, buyouts involving private landlords perhaps proved simpler than buyouts involving the man who was recently described as the biggest landlord in Scotland—the minister. I do not think I am testing parliamentary privilege to the utmost if I mention that one landlord who was rightly bought out in a community land buyout is now languishing in an Australian jail for a serious crime. It would appear that greater complications are involved in buying out Mike Russell—I hope that the representatives from the west side of Harris who are here today and who will meet the minister will be able to make progress on that.
The crofting community is clearly enthused by what it has heard from Professor Shucksmith. The Parliament has passed far-sighted legislation on crofting and land reform in the past and, as one or two members have mentioned, it has also wisely avoided bad legislation. Crofters are clearly looking to us as a Parliament to respond, as legislation is undoubtedly now required. I hope that the ideas in the Shucksmith report, which was commissioned by the previous Executive but presented to the new Government, can command cross-party support. Crofters certainly deserve that.
A lot of people are very happy with the proposals, which are a breath of fresh air compared with the abandoned proposals of 2006, but I think that we need to go back 18 months, to the establishment of the Shucksmith committee of inquiry in September 2006, to understand where we are now.
The inquiry came about because of the rejection of proposals for a free-for-all in the sale of croft land. As members will know, the main advantage of crofting tenure is that it provides security of tenure. There was a time when landlords could easily get rid of tenants, who could be summarily evicted, but that all changed with the 1886 act. The act allowed landlords to remain landlords and collect rent, but it gave crofters security of tenure and meant that crofters could pass their crofts on to their children in perpetuity. That approach had the advantage of allowing crofters to develop land safe in the knowledge that they and their descendants would reap the benefits. Such an approach is all the more important nowadays, when we need to encourage people to stay on and work the land. The free-for-all that was proposed in the Crofting Reform etc Bill would have changed all that and killed crofting stone dead in a generation.
To explain further the situation that led to the formation of the Shucksmith committee, I can do no better than quote the West Highland Free Press, which is not a Scottish National Party broadsheet and not a paper that contains opinions with which I usually agree, although I have done so more often recently—I think that it is mellowing. On 29 September 2006, the paper's editorial stated:
"The formal surrender by the Scottish Executive over the Crofting reform Bill was both welcome and inevitable. Indeed, it is to the credit of more senior Ministers than those responsible for the Bill that the terms of the retreat were so comprehensive.
It is our understanding that the Ministers who had created the mess by persisting with the legislation's core aspects in the face of all reasonable advice—Ross Finnie and Rhona Brankin—continued until the last ditch to argue for their preservation. This merely strengthens the argument for them having nothing further to do with the issues at stake since they are simply not to be trusted."
It is not surprising that neither Ross Finnie nor Rhona Brankin is here today.
Perhaps the process that the member has outlined shows the strength of the Parliament and its committees, when members can take decisions that are against the wishes of their own Government. We look forward to SNP members doing more of that in the years to come.
Surely the member can let me have a little bit of fun with the West Highland Free Press and the Labour Party.
It has taken just 18 months for the Shucksmith committee to report, and it has come up with radical proposals, which I welcome. Chief among those are the proposals to abolish the Crofters Commission, which would be replaced by locally elected bodies, and to simplify the legislation.
I want to highlight an issue that Shucksmith identified as a major concern for crofting communities and a root cause of their current difficulties: the availability, or lack of it, of affordable housing in crofting areas. Several members have already mentioned that issue, and it looks like we might get cross-party support in dealing with it. The housing problem is highlighted by the estimate that has been made that property prices in crofting communities increased by up to 85 per cent between 2001 and 2005—a period of just four years. That increase is much higher than increases in the rest of the country. Some 88 per cent of people who were surveyed for the report regarded housing in their area as unaffordable.
The report seeks to address that fundamental problem, primarily by enhancing the croft house grant scheme to create a new croft house grant and loan scheme. That approach appears eminently sensible, as the minister acknowledged. The proposed croft house grant and loan scheme would be made up of a combination of a means-tested grant of up to £30,000—up from the current maximum of £22,000—and the reintroduction of non-means-tested loans at commercial rates that would be guaranteed by the Scottish Government or in some other way. Crucially, such a move is designed to permit house building without decrofting, as the enhanced croft house grant and loan scheme should not be available to those who decroft. The aim is to allow houses to be built or renovated without land being removed from crofting.
The report highlights the lack of logic in the current croft house grant scheme, which is pitched at too low a level to assist crofters, unless they decroft. That defeats the purpose of assisting crofters to build houses, as they have to cease being crofters to be eligible. As Jamie McGrigor said, the previous crofters building grants and loans scheme was regarded as one of the cornerstones of crofting support; indeed, an evaluation by DTZ Pieda Consulting in 1994 concluded that without the scheme, there would have been a substantial fall in crofting numbers. One must therefore wonder why it was subsequently replaced by an inferior scheme that has had a much poorer take-up. Let us hope that that was done for financial reasons. If so, it succeeded, because the croft house grant scheme now costs £800,000 net annually, compared with the initial budget of £3.6 million, which has recently been reduced to £2.6 million because of a lack of take-up.
However, that is history. We must get behind the Shucksmith report and help to create a greener, fairer, smarter, safer, stronger, healthier and wealthier future for our crofting communities.
We now come to the winding-up speeches.
In the short time since the Shucksmith report was published, it is clear that it has been positively received in the crofting counties. There is much to be greatly welcomed in it; it bears all the hallmarks of being a workmanlike attempt to understand the complexities of crofting. I should, as I think every member has done, give credit to Professor Shucksmith and his team for the report. I think that it will go down in history as an important report on which we can build the future of crofting.
I want to comment briefly on some of the speeches that have been made—doing so is in the nature of winding-up speeches—and to consider my constituency in relation to the report.
The Minister for Environment, Mike Russell, set the scene. Sarah Boyack asked what can be done now with current ministerial powers, without having to wait over the summer, and John Scott talked about housing, which is important. There has been much mention of the fact that good inby land should not be built on unless absolutely necessary.
Rob Gibson made an interesting point about planning. I ask the minister at least to consider over the summer whether township development committees might be statutory planning consultees in the way that community councils are. That might bolt them on to the planning process in a way that has never been done before. Perhaps they could replace some other statutory consultee. I do not know whether that could happen, but the minister could consider the matter.
Peter Peacock made the hugely important point that defining exactly the relationships and how things will work under the Scottish Land Court is incredibly important. Things must be got completely right, otherwise we will end up with the kind of loopholes that Roseanna Cunningham mentioned—or worse.
My colleague Tavish Scott rightly talked about food price inflation. Paragraph 1.5.9 of the report deals with food security. Tavish Scott and Peter Peacock made the point that it would be best if the development function could be devolved as far down as possible, although money would have to be attached to that process. When the development function is devolved down to the lowest level, that results in people having genuine local control, but it also means that people who operate the system can bolt on more money from other sources. We can see how communities can do that. That is an important point.
I welcome the report and admire its breadth and fluency, but must necessarily, as a constituency representative, consider it in the light of issues in my constituency. I would like to touch briefly on some of those issues in the time that is available to me. During the weeks and months ahead, I will weigh the report against constituency issues and discuss concerns with crofters.
In the north-eastern part of Sutherland there is a vibrant crofting township in Strath Halladale, which is associated with Dounreay. As Dounreay, which fundamentally underpins the crofting way of life in the area, runs down, replacement employment is a huge issue. That is an example of where crofting crosses the border into the territory of another ministerial portfolio. There is connectivity.
I am sure that every member who represents a crofting county will have come across the inevitable squabbles in grazings committees over where money has gone or whether an approach was right or wrong. If something replaces grazings committees, transparency and accountability—financial accountability in particular—will be of great importance, because it is best that all people in crofting townships have absolute confidence in what is happening. We know that there have been question marks in the past, but it would not be right to go into detail about them now.
I turn to the comments of John Farquhar Munro, who is not here today. I have a copy of his proposed speech, which I will circulate to members later. He would have said a great deal about the fact that he does not agree with the idea of scrapping the Crofters Commission. He is entitled to his opinion. Over the summer, we must have a discussion about whether the commission or its proposed replacement is the best way forward. The Shucksmith report has been honest enough to come up with a concrete proposal, but the jury is out on that one.
John Farquhar Munro, others members and I had trouble with the Crofting Reform etc Bill over the prevalence of raw market forces in the sale of crofts. I said at the time that that was a dagger pointed straight at the heart of crofting. The report goes some way towards addressing the housing issue. However, I have read it several times and it is not absolutely clear to me how those raw market forces will be curbed by what Professor Shucksmith proposes. If we do not curb them, local young people will not be able to afford to get into housing or into crofting, although it is hugely important that they do. That is one issue against which we must weigh the recommendations of the report.
The crofters in Rogart in Sutherland have received a letter from the land agent telling them that they must vacate some 91 acres, the let for which they were given by the Duke of Sutherland in 1886. That is not crofting land, but the duke, out of his goodness, gave it to them. At the stroke of a pen, the crofters have been told that they must get out and get their cattle off the land. That will undermine their crofting. As we consider the Shucksmith report, we must also consider the relevance of bits of land that are not under crofting tenure but which are still vital to crofters' operations. I will give the papers that I have on the matter to the minister later. It is scandalous that that is happening in this day and age. I did not think that I would see it in the 21st century.
We have had a useful debate, following the publication on Monday of the Shucksmith report on crofting, which was commissioned by the previous Executive in September 2006 after brutal criticism of the bill that was introduced by Ross Finnie in that year. The report was eagerly awaited and is very welcome. However, given the complexities of the issues that it addresses, I would have liked rather more than three days to absorb its contents before debating it in the chamber. Several members have made that point. Thankfully, no decisions on the report's recommendations will be made today, and before the Government decides where it wants to go with crofting we should have ample time to give detailed consideration to a comprehensive report that appears to have the backing of the majority of people who live in the crofting communities.
The Crofting Reform etc Bill, which was passed by the Parliament in January last year, was very different from what was introduced by the Scottish Executive in March 2006, but it was less than radical and it did not deal adequately with the deep-seated problems surrounding crofting, the most notable of which was probably the sale of crofting land. As most members have said, Professor Shucksmith and his colleagues are to be commended for taking on board the concerns of all the stakeholders in the crofting communities in producing the radical proposals that are contained in the report. It is up to the Government to decide whether it, too, will listen to the crofting communities and follow through with the report's recommendations. It is unfortunate that the previous Executive did not engage effectively with those communities and other interests before proceeding with legislation. However, we now—at last—have a vision for crofting, which had not been developed when the flawed bill was introduced.
Various aspects of the report have been commented on by members across the chamber. I will not mention them in detail, but I think that they have given weight to what the minister said when he was presented with the report on Monday and what he emphasised again today. He said—I think that I am quoting him more or less accurately—that rural communities must be supported and developed as a priority; that crofting makes a unique and significant contribution to remote and rural areas; that it delivers environmental benefits and has a pivotal role in the cultural landscape of the Highlands and Islands, which is famous worldwide; that it does not exist in global isolation; and that it must be capable of offering a viable and fulfilling way of life for future generations. We agree with those comments by the minister and, by and large, we agree with the report's recommendations, although we must give careful consideration to the detail of them.
We think that it is right that no change should be made to the rights that were given to individual crofters in the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886—security of tenure, fair rents and the value of their improvements, as the minister said earlier. We also agree that those rights should be enjoyed only by those who have a commitment to crofting and who live on or near their croft, using the land beneficially as the report suggests. We agree with the proposal that croft houses should be tied to residency and we will, therefore, give serious consideration to the suggestion that the 1,700-plus absentee crofters who are scattered throughout the world should be made to forfeit the rights that were handed down to them by the original act. To prevent a rush to avoid the provisions of any forthcoming legislation, we support the suggestion that the introduction of a real burden to all assignations and purchases be backdated to the date of the report's publication—12 May this year.
Simplification of the accumulated legislation governing crofting is long overdue, and Shucksmith's proposals provide the opportunity to bring that about. It seems sensible to split the regulatory and enforcement role of the Crofters Commission from the development side of crofting, so we accept that careful consideration should be given to the possible replacement of the commission with the proposed federation of crofting boards, whose component local crofting boards would have the power to suspend the right to buy if that appeared to be in the wider interests of the community. That would help to overcome the undoubted abuse of the legitimate right to buy in crofting areas, which was the main reason why the Scottish Conservatives opposed the extension of crofting outwith the original crofting counties unless the right to buy was suspended in those areas. The proposal to give responsibility for the development side of crofting to a new crofting and community development body within Highlands and Islands Enterprise is interesting and could be a sensible way forward. It is certainly worth considering.
We welcome measures that will encourage new entrants to crofting and discourage decrofting. In the interests of some of the most beautiful and best-loved parts of Scotland's landscape, it is vital to support local communities and encourage them to develop but also to continue with the activities that, over many years, have sustained a way of life that has preserved some of our environmental treasures, which would otherwise be at serious risk.
The member mentioned the proposed role of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Does she share my concern that, while HIE has a reduced budget, we should think carefully about that proposal?
We need to consider the matter carefully before any decisions are made.
I speak more from what I have read than from the personal experience and detailed knowledge of members from the Highlands and Islands; nevertheless, I know that crofting is extremely important for significant parts of remote and rural Scotland. It must be put on a sustainable footing, and I think that the Shucksmith report points the way forward to securing its future. I look forward to the Government's detailed response to the report, in due course, and I hope that ministers will bite the bullet on behalf of the crofting communities and follow through with the report's recommendations, producing appropriate legislation to secure the sustainability of crofting in Scotland for many years to come.
The debate has been interesting. There is a general consensus that the report is to be welcomed but that more time needs to be given to consideration of the full impact of its recommendations. If the process for the Crofting Reform etc Bill taught us anything, it taught us about the complexity of the issue and how one area of policy can have a huge impact on others that are interlinked. We need to think through each of the proposed policies and their unintended consequences. Labour's main objective when the process is finally concluded is to secure crofting as a thriving industry that contributes strongly to the economies of the traditional crofting communities and to those of the new areas that the minister outlined today.
I will focus on the land and environmental issues that are identified in the report. In that area, more than in others, there is scope for quick action by the Government if the will for that exists. The report identifies the impact that various agricultural and environmental support and funding schemes have had on crofting. The relationship with the land lies at the very heart of crofting, and the crofting community has shown that effective stewardship of the land involves far more than simply agricultural activity. The report concludes that, on average, crofters generate only about 20 per cent of their net income from agriculture; however, working the land is at the heart of what it means to be a crofter.
Without doubt, agricultural practices and land use in crofting areas have changed and will continue to change. In that regard, the report makes for stark reading, as the significant trends show a shift away from cropped land. The report states:
"on holdings of less than 30 hectares in the crofting counties, the cropped area of land fell by 49%. The area of oats fell by 83%; potatoes by 79% ...
In the HIE area, the number of ewes dropped by 18% … between 2001 and 2006, representing 86% of the decline in overall Scottish ewe numbers and indicating a significant regional factor."
That drop in ewe numbers accelerated by a further 6 per cent in 2006-07. The report expresses concern that, with the increasing number of crofters working full time off croft, changes to sheep management might lead to overgrazing in some parts and undergrazing in other parts, which could have obvious detrimental environmental impacts.
It is imperative, therefore, that we consider how agricultural and environmental support might be used to better effect. Labour members believe that the common agricultural policy health check offers an opportunity to do just that by revisiting how public funding to agriculture is distributed at Scottish level. We have sympathy for a move to greater modulation to allow progressively more expenditure under pillar 2. We support the recommendations on the bull hire scheme and—this point was also made by Tavish Scott—the report's recommendation to the Government that
"use should be made of any possible increases in flexibility under section 69 … to address disadvantages for farmers in certain regions specialising in the dairy, beef and sheep … sectors".
We must find ways in which we can retain more livestock in our fragile areas, given the evidence on the need for such a change. We hope that the Government will act quickly on those issues.
We are struck by the case that has been made to use the review of the LFASS as an opportunity for crofting. However, that issue perhaps best demonstrates the complexities of any change. We appreciate that the review will have consequences for other areas of Scotland and will need to be thought through thoroughly so that any unintended consequences are identified and resolved.
Perhaps the starkest theme in the report is the clear emphasis on the need to encourage new people into crofting. Simply allowing people to buy crofts that they will not then work is not a way of encouraging new entrants, which will always be a challenge. In that regard, Rhoda Grant and Dave Thompson made a strong case for increasing the level of grants that are available under the croft house grant scheme and for reintroducing the loan element of the scheme without the need to decroft. Given the clear cross-party support for such measures, which can be introduced without further legislation, we hope that that recommendation will be implemented swiftly by the Government. We will do whatever we can to ensure that that happens.
The report's recommendations will encourage new crofters by providing not just the housing support that I have outlined but further agricultural support. We agree with the recommendation that the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme should be retained and that there should be a 10 per cent uplift in support for new entrants. Again, such a measure can be implemented without legislation if the will exists to do so.
Outwith agricultural land use, given the increasing number of crofters working off croft, another issue is the need to generate greater economic support for such crofters to ensure the long-term viability of our rural communities. Perhaps the minister can provide more information after the summer on how microbusiness, community businesses and social enterprises can be supported and developed in the crofting communities. We need to ensure that people are able not just to work the land, but to train and develop new skills to support their income in other ways.
Where do we go from here? The minister will surely be mulling over that question very fully in his mind. He has learned the lesson from the previous parliamentary session that to rush or to move quickly is perhaps folly—a folly that we would correct—so I welcome his commitment to return at the end of the summer with a detailed response to the report. That is the right approach. Members have agreed that the overarching principles and general thrust of the report appear to go in the right direction, but the devil will doubtless be in the detail. That was perhaps best exemplified in the speech of my colleague Peter Peacock, who detailed the complexities that are involved in some of the recommendations and the challenges that the minister will face as he considers how the report can be taken forward in terms of the Government's response and in subsequent legislation. A detailed response from the Government is essential. The crofting communities deserve no less, so that they can see for themselves what the consequences of legislation will be and whether it is worth taking that forward.
The minister has many options open to him, both legislative and non-legislative, as he looks forward. I hope that he will act quickly on the non-legislative elements, which could be progressed through discussions with his Cabinet colleagues. With regard to legislation, he might need to consider introducing two bills: a consolidation bill to simplify the existing legislation, which would be relatively non-controversial, and another bill to introduce any new measures that the Government needs to introduce.
If the process has taught us anything, it is that there is a real paradox—everyone wants simplification of the law, but the process of achieving such simplification is not straightforward. There will always be contradictions and complications. Labour members will work with the Government and all stakeholders to achieve that aim. In doing so, we will work to secure the future of our crofting communities for years to come and for many future generations.
For the most part, the debate has been overwhelmingly positive and fruitful. I guarantee at the outset that today's debate will be reflected upon and will help to inform thinking as we prepare the Government's response to the committee of inquiry's recommendations.
I am grateful, as ever, for Karen Gillon's support. The fact that she commends me for proceeding slowly is welcome, but I assure her that we will have a sense of urgency. When we come back to the Parliament, I hope that we will do so with clear recommendations. Several members made the crucial point about the difference between legislative and administrative action. There are issues in the report that can respond to administrative action. We will do our best to identify those issues and to take them forward.
One issue that has been identified is the need for changes to the croft house grant scheme. I accept that it is illogical to have a system in which people can get a grant for a croft house only if it is no longer a croft house. I have indicated that I am supportive of a change to the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act 1857, which would make a difference to that. However, the question whether the scheme should provide loans as well as grants is more complex. The previous Administration—I am sure that Sarah Boyack will not mind my saying so—discontinued the loan element that was available under the former crofters building grants and loans scheme, so before reintroducing that element we should carefully consider the reasons for its discontinuation.
In the current parliamentary session, I think that we have the opportunity to go back and look at previous actions of Government. If we feel that they have not delivered the intended outcome, we can state that. In a sense, the former Environment and Rural Development Committee concluded that, if we are to move forward on crofting, we need to ensure that our proposals are right. That is why we are happy to work with the Government in a constructive manner.
Absolutely. I will make no analogy about more pleasure being taken in the sinner who repents. We will take the issue forward together.
I pay further tribute to the people who were involved in the report, including the members of the committee of inquiry. As well as Mark Shucksmith, who is in the public gallery—he will have enjoyed hearing the debate—I want to name the other committee members: Jane Brown, from Shetland; Fred Edwards, who is also in the public gallery; Professor Jim Hunter, who resigned from the committee during the process but was present in Stornoway to welcome the publication of the report and to make some important comments on it; Susan Lamont; Norman MacDonald; Professor Donald MacRae; Agnes Rennie; and Becky Shaw. I also thank the committee's secretariat, especially Fiona Spencer and Jim Wildgoose, who helped with the launch of the report.
However, the report is not about in with the new and out with the old. The present and previous members of the Crofters Commission have done sterling work for crofting, as have their staff. I can clarify for Sarah Boyack that, at the same time as the report was launched on Monday, the commission's staff were involved in a meeting with Scottish Government officials to discuss the issues. The guarantee of no redundancy holds and I would indeed be happy to take forward the discussion and to have further discussions with the staff. Later this month, I will meet the whole commission to discuss how we might move forward with the report. I pay tribute to the present commission members: Drew Ratter, its convener; Sarah Allen, who is in the public gallery; Davie MacLeod; Murdo MacLennan; Robin Currie; Robin Callander, who has, alas, recently resigned from the commission; Ronnie Eunson; Angus McHattie; and, of course, Nick Reiter, who is the chief executive. As I said in my opening speech, the report is not about the end of the Crofters Commission but about the future of crofting and it should be understood in that way.
Of course, crofting also has a much wider constituency. The iconic Norman Leask has already been referred to by two front-bench spokespeople, so I will mention him, too. People such as Neil MacLeod—the new chair of the Scottish Crofting Foundation—and a range of others have been passionately involved in debating the future of crofting. It has been good to hear informed debate in the chamber, too.
I will refer briefly to some of the points that have been raised and provide some answers. On access to the SRDP, things are going well. Applications are coming in and the pre-application process is under way. Every help is being given to people to apply using the computer system. Alas, the allocation system has to be complex, because of European regulation, rather than our regulation. However, last year we decided to provide an additional £100,000 per year to enable the Crofters Commission to help crofting communities access the SRDP. [Interruption.] There appears to be a marching band in the chamber, but I will try to carry on. I have never referred to Christine Grahame as a marching band before and I suspect that I will not be allowed to do so again.
I will help the minister by moving the debate from Christine Grahame back to crofting. Does the minister accept that one of the aspects of the SRDP that is of concern to crofters, and to anyone who wants the programme to work, is that the world has simply moved on? John Scott made that point in this debate and in a debate that we had the other week. We would work with the Government if it were prepared to consider what could be done to the SRDP to make it fit for purpose now, compared with how it was last year.
It would be utterly wrong to say that the SRDP of £1.6 billion is not fit for purpose. That would be a case of, to quote Robert Frost's poem, "New Hampshire", "looking down on mountains." We can change the SRDP according to the circumstance; Tavish Scott knows that it is possible to do that on an annual basis. We want to do that, so we will bring forward changes on that basis as necessary.
Presiding Officer, I am sure that you would expect me to make specific points on the bull and ram hire schemes, which have been referred to several times in the debate. I want to be sure that there is no misrepresentation of what Mark Shucksmith said. I asked him to include the subject in his report during the process. Paragraph 3.2.19 of the report states:
"The bull scheme appears expensive, relative to private hire where this is available … Only 2% of townships now participate in this scheme … Our view is that support for bull hire should only be made available in those areas where ownership of a bull is impractical and commercial opportunities for bull hire are lacking—ie. where market failure exists."
The paragraph goes on to propose that there should not be a centralised facility.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I must make progress.
I am not making an announcement, or accepting or rejecting that recommendation, but pointing out the facts of it. A capital appraisal is going on, which is led by the Crofters Commission.
Roseanna Cunningham raised the issue of support for the crofting brand. The Crofters Commission is, as ever, in advance of the market, because it is looking at how to launch the crofters mark—it hopes to do so in October and I hope to be part of that. Roseanna Cunningham also suggested that crofting was very much aligned to the cittaslow movement. I am grateful to Dr Alasdair Allan, who is my guru on all things Gaelic, for pointing out that the cittaslow movement must be described in Gaelic as baile slaodach—the slow town movement. I am sure that Norman Leask will provide a Shetlandic version of that. The point is that that movement fits perfectly with the view of what local food is about. It is undoubtedly positive.
I turn finally to governance. Peter Peacock made an important contribution to the debate. He is utterly right that the problem will lie in focusing the report's radical and important recommendations in legislation. The points that he made are the points that I am already considering. There are inconsistencies in taking forward the case law basis of crofting law and seeing how it works with a localised movement. The intention is all. If we can think imaginatively about how to do that, I am sure that the work can be put in to deliver the intention of the report.
There are many influential books and writings about crofting, but I have always been particularly moved by two of them. One is of course Jim Hunter's, "The Making of the Crofting Community", which is a great work that tells us what lay in the past. About 25 years ago, the poet Alasdair Maclean wrote a book called, "Night Falls on Ardnamurchan: The Twilight of a Crofting Family", in which he looked back at his family's experience in a longing and moving way. I read the book again some months ago and it struck me as a nostalgic but out-of-date—although very poetic—attempt to talk about the west of Scotland and the crofting communities.
Crofting has a vibrant future. It can deliver enormous economic, environmental and cultural benefits. It has to be part of the mechanism for delivering the Scotland that we wish to see: the wealthier, fairer, safer, stronger, greener Scotland. Scotland will be like that if we respond positively to the report. I look forward to working with the whole Parliament in taking forward the report and ensuring that crofting has a safe and sustained future, thanks to the work of Mark Shucksmith and his colleagues.