First, I urge the committee to support Tim Eagle’s amendments 143 to 145, 147, 149, 150 and 153. As members know—this is an important point in this section—the bill will give the commission, rather than the landowner, the final say on a grazings committee’s proposal to use the grazings for forestry or environmental purposes. It follows that some of the previous constraints on how the landowner could oppose such proposals are no longer appropriate.

I commend, in particular, Tim Eagle’s amendment 150, which would reduce the time limit for commencement of an approved project from seven years to five. It is in no-one’s interest for the land to be tied up longer than is necessary when planned activities are not happening.

However, Tim Eagle’s amendments 167, 169 and 170 cover some of the same ground as Rhoda Grant’s amendments, as does Ariane Burgess’s amendment 132. I support Rhoda Grant’s version, so I ask Tim Eagle and Ariane Burgess not to move their amendments.

I support Rhoda Grant’s amendments 3 to 8 and 10, because they would make sound changes to the definition of “environmental use”, in line with the evidence that we heard at stage 1. I also support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 197. It seems to me that, even if the grazings committee and the landowner are in agreement about a proposal, it is still appropriate that the commission plays a role in the final decision.

However, I cannot support Rhoda Grant’s amendments 202 or 203. They refer to “carbon units”, but no regulations have yet been made under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 to define what those carbon units are or to establish any system of registering, holding or transferring them. A lot of detailed work needs to be done to set up such a carbon credits scheme, and it is far too early to set out in legislation how any financial benefit from such a scheme should be shared between landlords and tenants.

That said, there is nothing to prevent—

09:45

I apologise. I will have to keep my eye on the screen.

I will just finish the point that I was making, and I will then take Rhoda Grant’s intervention.

There is nothing to prevent crofters and landlords from entering into joint ventures that will develop and secure shared solutions that benefit all the parties that participate in them.

As I said in relation to the previous group, I am more than happy to meet Rhoda Grant to discuss the matter further. My concern is that we do not have a fixed market or a system to define carbon units. However, we need to have those conversations, so I am more than happy to continue to have those chats after this meeting.

My amendments 2, 9, 23, 74, 100, 101, 106, 110, 111, 115, 120, 121, 125, 128 and 130 can be accurately characterised as minor amendments that correct technical issues in the bill, such as typographical or referencing errors. I will run through them as quickly as I can.

Amendments 100 and 101 limit the Government’s and the commission’s powers to make provision about the giving of public notification and specifying the form and content of public notices in relation to the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 to provision under section 12(8) of the 2010 act only. That is because section 12(8) is the only public notice requirement in the entire 2010 act, so the broader reference is not appropriate.

Amendment 127 cancels an insertion that the bill was going to make to section 58A(4)(b) of the 1993 act, to confirm that that sub-section applies to any non-crofters who hold shares in the common grazings. That insertion is now considered not to be needed, because section 47(10) of the 1993 act already makes that provision.

Amendment 131 is a consequential change. It updates the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 to remove the Lands Tribunal for Scotland from the listed tribunals that may be transferred into the Scottish tribunals. The jurisdiction and functions of the Lands Tribunal will transfer to the Scottish Land Court under section 36 of the bill, and amendment 131 ensures that the statute book accurately reflects the tribunal landscape.

I invite members to agree to the amendments.

I move amendment 2.

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendment 168 moved—[Beatrice Wishart].

We do not need to restrict who can hold the title—only a natural person can have owner-occupier status. Therefore, I think that Beatrice Wishart’s amendments cover the concerns that you have—or, I should say, that the member has. I apologise, convener. I would therefore ask the member to support Beatrice Wishart’s amendments. However, as I said at the start, there are lots of other things that we can discuss. The bill is not going to cover all the concerns that we currently have, and there is more work to be done on it.

I am not sure where I have got to, convener—I should have marked my page. [Interruption.] I am in agreement with Rhoda Grant’s amendment 184, but it will not be needed if Alasdair Allan’s amendment 36, which goes further, is agreed to.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 138 would create a regulation-making power to allow ministers to make regulations limiting how many owner-occupied crofts one person can hold. That is a contentious proposal, which some crofters would support and others would be very much opposed to, and a change of that scale would require much wider consultation than simply consulting the commission. It is an important issue, but it requires much wider consultation.

I am very happy to support Alasdair Allan’s amendments 1 and 24. Enforcing compliance with statutory duties is one of the commission’s most important functions, and it is right that that is stated explicitly in the legislation. It is also much more appropriate and practical for enforcement to be done by means of a civil fine rather than by approaching breaches as criminal offences.

However, I cannot support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 166. Andrew Thin, the chair of the Crofting Commission, in his evidence to the committee, explained that the commission was modernising its policy plan, which will be significantly more detailed and make it crystal clear what being “ordinarily resident” means and what evidence for that will look like. That will allow the commission to undertake evidence-based residency checks, and I ask that we trust the regulators to regulate at this moment in time.

I am also unable to support Ariane Burgess’s amendments 133, 135 and 136, or Rhoda Grant’s amendment 173. If we extend the list of those who can report breaches and require that those must be investigated, that has the potential to create a lot of additional work for the commission, because it would be obliged to investigate every report that it received, regardless of the strength of the evidence that was provided. One of the things that we are trying to do is get the commission to actually investigate breaches.

09:15

In the view of the Government and the commission, the significant expansions already in the bill strike the right balance. We do not want to diminish the overall regulatory effectiveness of the commission by drawing the scope too widely and giving people who may have no connection to the township such a right. We should also bear in mind the existing roles of Government officials and community councillors, who have their own key roles to play in these communities. That goes back to Rhoda Grant’s earlier point that rural payments and inspections division officers also live in these communities.

We know from the commission’s evidence session that it can and does consider some breaches of duty that are reported by people outwith those mentioned in legislation. However, that decision is based on the strength of the evidence that is provided; no one person or organisation is prevented from reporting a suspected breach of duty, but there has to be evidence behind it.

For similar reasons, I cannot support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 134, which would expand the geographical extent of those with the right to report a suspected breach and thereby require the commission to investigate. Several parishes in the Highlands and Islands extend over a considerable area. Again, I point out that there is nothing to prevent anyone from the wider parish reporting a suspected breach of duty, and whether the commission chooses to investigate that report will be based on the strength of the evidence. That would be a far more efficient use of the commission’s resources. I urge the committee to reject amendments 166, 133, 135, 136, 173 and 134.

I also urge the committee to reject amendment 174. A system of anonymous reporting would be problematic, for several reasons. For one thing, anonymity can be hard to maintain in practice. If anonymity were maintained, that could potentially have a devastating effect on the community. If a person is complained about, they may then harbour suspicion about all their neighbours or may wrongly assume a certain neighbour has made a complaint. Thirdly, as the amendment accepts, a request for anonymity can sometimes be overturned by some other rule of law.

With regard to amendment 175, the commission is already entitled to consider whether a report of a suspected breach is frivolous or vexatious. Considering each case on its merits, which could already include whether it comes from someone whose reports have been considered frivolous or vexatious in the past, will continue to be required. As a result, I do not support amendment 175.

I turn now to eight amendments in my name: amendment 11 and amendments 14 to 20. Section 4 of the bill replaces provision in sections 26C and 26D of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 to streamline the process for the giving of notices and undertakings relating to the enforcement of duties. These amendments further simplify the procedure to be followed by the commission in instances where a crofter or owner-occupier crofter is issued with a notice suspecting them to be in breach, and the period set out in that notice expires when no undertaking has been given. Instead of having separate sections setting out the procedure in which representations are made or not made on time and the consequences that flow from that, amendment 11 will omit proposed new section 26DB, with some aspects being imported into new section 26D. That will provide a clear steer to the commission about what it may do in relation to a person who engages with the enforcement process and in relation to those who do not engage properly or at all.

In deciding whether the duty is being complied with, the commission may treat a nil return by the person as an acceptance that they are not complying with their duties. The commission will still have to consider any representations that are made on time, and it may take account of any late representations.

When the commission decides that the duty is not being complied with, the amendments provide that its obligation to give the person a further opportunity to give an undertaking before it takes enforcement action will apply only in cases in which the person has engaged with the process properly—that is, in cases in which the commission received representations from them on time. In all other cases, the commission can exercise discretion in deciding whether or not to offer such a further opportunity. New section 26DA sets out the procedure to be followed if an undertaking is given, whether in response to an initial or further notice.

Amendment 13 provides that, when the commission has a suspected breach of duty notice and then chooses to decline to do anything with a regulatory application that the person has an interest in, the commission must notify the applicant of its decision. Amendment 21 will apply the standard timescales and grounds of appeal to any appeals against a decision of the commission to decline to do anything with an application.

I move on to amendment 22. Section 5 will insert new section 29BA into the 1993 act, which will give the commission powers to vary or revoke consent for a sublet or short lease when it considers that the subtenant or short leaseholder is not fulfilling the crofting duties or is otherwise breaching a condition of let. Amendment 22 provides that, when the commission makes an order under that new section, its decision will be appealable to the Land Court.

I ask the committee to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 137, which will enable the commission to treat a breach of grazing regulations in the same manner as it treats a suspected breach of duty when considering whether to process a regulatory application or decline to do anything. Oversight of common grazings is an important regulatory function of the commission, and there is the same need for sanctions as we have recognised in regard to enforcement of crofting duties.

I cannot support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 189, which would remove the right for a crofter or owner-occupier to apply to the commission for consent to be absent from their croft. The consequence of the amendment would be that the crofter, who might have to leave their croft for work or health reasons, for example, would not be able to advise the commission in advance. They would leave and have to wait and see whether someone decided to report them, and if they were then reported, they would not be at home to respond to the commission’s suspected breach of duty letter. All of that would cause unnecessary stress and uncertainty. It is far better to have a system that encourages people to be up front about their current position and not to wait and see whether they are caught or informed on by a neighbour. I urge the committee to reject amendment 189.

I also cannot support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 190. One of the aims of the bill is to simplify the legislation and make crofting regulation less onerous for crofters and the commission. The amendment would bring yet more regulation into the system and would have a resource impact on the commission.

If she allows me to finish this point, I will let her in. I apologise—I was not seeing the screen, so thank you for letting me know.

I agree that we need to raise awareness of the crofting duties. That is why I welcome the action that the Crofting Commission is taking to issue guidance to solicitors and agents on croft sales. The guidance is designed to ensure that those who are acting for the sale of a croft or croft tenancy are fully aware of the legal duties and obligations that come with owning a croft.

I am happy to take Rhoda Grant’s intervention.

I am more than happy to have a discussion. I should say that, throughout the amendments, there are a lot of things that we agree with in principle but in relation to which the bill is not the place to make the suggested changes. I am more than happy to have a discussion on many of the things that we will cover as we go through. The fact that I am saying that we cannot support an amendment at this point does not necessarily mean that further discussion cannot be had. I am more than happy to have that discussion.

I was dealing with amendment 190 and talking about the work that the Crofting Commission is doing. The advice that it gives to estate agents outlines the key responsibilities of a crofter, including the legal duties that the crofter needs to be ordinarily resident or near the croft to make purposeful use of it. The advice also highlights the offence of failing to return the annual notice, which requires crofters to confirm that they are complying with their duties. I have been encouraged by the work that the commission has done on that, and, on that basis, I urge the committee not to support the amendment.

I ask the committee to support Tim Eagle’s amendment 155, as it will bring clarity to the material in section 40A of the 1993 act and remove any potential for confusion.