Chamber and committees

I disagree with none of that, but, as Andrew Thin and Gary Campbell made clear in the evidence session at the committee, they are cracking down on crofting duties—they are getting out into the communities and making sure that crofting duties are being upheld. They are pushing people. That in itself will help to free up crofts.

It is the start of a process. We are working with many years of history, so I believe that our current approach is right. That will help us on our way, but I am more than happy to carry on the discussion after the debate.

Ariane Burgess’s amendments 185 and 186 would allow a community group or a not-for-profit organisation to become an owner-occupier crofter. I can see why that has been suggested as a way to address the concerns that were raised at stage 1 about rural housing bodies taking title to support new entrants, but, as Beatrice Wishart has set out, this is not the right solution. It does not feel appropriate for any non-natural person to be an owner-occupier crofter when a better solution is available. I will finish on that point.

If the member is content to give way, I will just point out that we have considerably increased the funding to the Crofting Commission, to allow it to carry out a lot of the functions that we talked about earlier, such as ensuring that duties are held. It is in the Crofting Commission’s best interests for communities to work together, and I see no need to put that in primary legislation. If ministers feel that something still needs to be done, there are provisions in the bill that could compel the Crofting Commission to do stuff.

I absolutely understand the point that the member is making—clearly, there are disputes that we need to try to resolve. [Interruption.] One of my officials has just clarified that the provisions are in the 1993 act, not the bill.

I take the member’s point on board, but I do not think that this is needed in the bill. The Crofting Commission has set out its stall and how it will go forward, which is a good position to be in. I do not think that this amendment is needed in the legislation.

I absolutely understand the point that the member is trying to make, but I think that two years is too soon, as an awful lot of work would have to be undertaken, and we should also allow time for the bill to bed in.

The member stated that he thinks that I am not prepared to discuss the amendment, but I am more than happy to discuss his proposal in order to work out whether there is another way of doing what he calls for, which could involve there being an extension to the time that would be required. However, as I said, I do not think that two years is long enough to allow us to get to the position that is stated in the amendment.

As I said to Edward Mountain, every party will have a manifesto with the policies that they are putting forward. However, it has been made very clear to me that we require further work to be done on crofting legislation. I absolutely accept that we need to go much further and be much bolder. I cannot say what will be in the Scottish National Party’s manifesto at this stage, but it is very much in my mind that this is a bedrock to start with and that, in the future, we need to go much further.

It is not clear how amendment 201 would be used. It would allow a community body to require a Scottish minister to consider designating some area of public land as a croft, irrespective of which public authority owns that land or whether the community body is situated near the land. Further, the Scottish Government community land team is currently undertaking a separate review of all the community rights to buy. As a result, how groups could access the right to purchase such land is likely to change. I reiterate what I said: I absolutely take on board the sentiment behind what the member is trying to do. However, I ask her not to press amendment 154 or move amendments 200 and 201, because I believe that work is coming down the line, and if she does so, I ask the committee to reject the amendments.

Yes. I am more than happy to do that, and I do not need to say any more. I think that we are agreed around the table and across parties that we need further reform. If Ariane Burgess and Tim Eagle are prepared to take their amendments off the table, we will have a discussion ahead of stage 3 and work out what we think the proposals should look like going forward.

I take those points on board and I am happy to include Rhoda Grant and any other member who wants to discuss what we need to do going forward.

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.