I am happy to make that commitment.

I am confident that Beatrice Wishart’s proposals cover the issues raised in the earlier parts of the debate. I am not quite sure why the member—or you—[Interruption.] I am not quite sure how to address members in committee.

I am not quite sure why the member considers it necessary not to support Beatrice Wishart’s amendments at this stage.

I would be content to meet and have those discussions.

I have nothing further to add, thank you.

Amendment 42 agreed to.

Amendment 43 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

I ask the member to allow me to finish. What I was going to say is that we are currently looking to revise CAGS. Part of that will involve looking at what projects will be supported, and discussions are already under way with stakeholders.

I will now take the member’s intervention, but I hope that she will bear that information in mind.

Amendments 65 to 69 and 73 are designed to introduce a more comprehensive and flexible system for achieving our policy aims on grazings shares and their connection to crofts.

My officials have reviewed the provisions in the bill with the help of a group of stakeholders with legal expertise. They have concluded that the provision currently in section 15(2) of the bill is inflexible and might have adverse consequences. Amendment 67 will therefore remove that section from the bill and amendments 65, 68, 69 and 73, supported by amendment 66, will introduce a new set of provisions.

New subsection (2), which will be inserted by amendment 65, provides that, if a crofter purchases the entire croft, including the grazing right, that right counts as part of the croft for the full range of purposes of crofting regulation. It therefore cannot be separated from the inby land unless a division application is approved by the Crofting Commission.

Amendment 69 reinforces and supplements amendment 65. It explicitly provides that any grazing right that is held by an owner-occupier crofter, whether as a purchased heritable right or as a deemed croft held in tenancy, is part of the croft for the purposes of section 19D of the 1993 act. That means that the right cannot be separated from the rest of the croft except by a division application that is approved by the commission.

Amendment 68 considers what happens if an owner-occupier crofter who also holds a deemed croft sells his inby land without having secured approval to separate. It provides that, in that circumstance, an assignation of the deemed croft automatically takes place. That will apply to all deemed crofts that are held by that owner-occupier crofter in the relevant common grazings, including any deemed croft that existed before the passage of the bill.

Amendment 73 will require the crofting register to record links between crofts and deemed crofts that are held by the same person. The registration schedule for the croft will have to include a reference to the deemed croft and vice versa. That provision will be forward looking so will not apply to shares that had become deemed crofts before the commencement of the section until those are next transferred. However, even when the links are not recorded in the crofting register, the constraints on separation and other provisions set out in amendments 65, 69 and 68 will still apply.

Other important changes are made by amendment 65. First, it creates a new situation in which the right to buy applies to an apportionment—which is when someone who is not a crofter holds a separated share that has been permanently apportioned to them. In that situation, it makes sense for them to be able to buy the land, which would then become a new owner-occupied croft.

Secondly, it provides that, if an owner-occupier crofter lets a croft to a new tenant crofter, any grazings share goes, too, and becomes a pertinent of the new tenancy.

Thirdly, it confirms that a grazings committee and the Crofting Commission have the same management and oversight roles for all grazings shares, no matter who holds them or in what form.

I agree with the intent of Rhoda Grant’s amendments 193, 194 and 195, as those appear to be designed to do largely the same things as the set of amendments that I have just described. However, they will not be needed if the full package of my amendments is approved. Moreover, my amendments do not require further regulations to be made to achieve the desired effect. I therefore ask Rhoda Grant not to pursue those amendments.

Amendments 70, 71, 72 and 75 make small improvements to the bill for readability and clarity, and I hope that members will support them.

I cannot support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 141. I appreciate the importance of dispute resolution for common grazings, but a regulation-making power for what is a very specific aspect of commission activity is not necessary or appropriate. The commission already has a broad range of general functions and duties that can extend to such intervention, and it has the right to devote resources to mediating in disputes. Indeed, if necessary, the Scottish Government already has the power to direct how it fulfils its functions. It is not clear what the proposed new power would add, other than further legislation and process.

11:30

I also cannot support Edward Mountain’s amendment 199. Each party will be considering its approach to further crofting reform ahead of the upcoming elections. I do not think that it is helpful at this stage to single out one aspect of that, however important it is, to be prioritised for the review as a matter of law.

As Ariane Burgess will, no doubt, explain, her amendment 163 will correct an important deficiency in the legislation regarding the review of part of an apportionment. I encourage members to support amendment 163.

I move amendment 65.

Will the member give way?

I support Ariane Burgess’s desire to see new crofts being created. However, I cannot support amendments 154, 200 and 201.

New crofts are a means to provide opportunities for new entrant crofters, so I will preface my remarks with some comments about the actions that are being taken to free up existing crofts. Each year, the commission reports to the minister—to me, at this moment—on the number of new entrants into crofting. On average, that figure has been around 500. From October 2023 to September 2024, there were 543 new entrants into crofting. The commission also reports each year on the number of crofters who have self-reported, through their annual notice, that they are in breach of one or more of their duties. In 2024-25, that number was exactly 1,000. If we consider that approximately 25 per cent of crofters did not return their annual notice, we know that the true figure is significantly higher. However, I am pleased to say that the commission is now taking decisive measures to encourage the return of annual notices and is taking action on more of those who are in breach of their duties. That is the work that the commission needs to focus on. I am delighted to say that, due to its increased focus on duties and enforcement, the commission is currently letting one croft a week to a new entrant.

Amendment 154 would place a very short period after royal assent for the preparation and publication of two reports. It is important that we let the bill bed in and take effect. That, together with the excellent work of the commission, will give us a much better idea of what new crofts may be needed and where.

The expansion of crofting outwith the crofting counties is a topic that needs serious thought. We need to consider whether there may be practical and unintended consequences from simply allowing crofts to be created anywhere in Scotland. I would want to seek the views of the crofting public before making any firm decision. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 200.

I am unable to support Tim Eagle’s amendment 211 and Ariane Burgess’s amendments 212, 213 and 215. I am not saying that because we do not want to commit to future crofting reform, because we absolutely do. As I said in my evidence to the committee, future reform is necessary, but I urge caution about rushing into reform in the next five years, as is suggested by Ariane Burgess’s amendments.

We need to establish, first, what crofting policy should be in the future, and, similar to the approach we took with this bill, we need stakeholders to consider what that policy is. Although it is ultimately the Government’s responsibility to set policy, that should never be done in isolation and policy should only ever be based on good evidence—that comes from discussions with stakeholders and those involved in the sector, which take time.

The past four years of discussions in preparing the bill have been informative and have led us to produce a bill that has wide stakeholder input and buy-in. However, these discussions have also told us that there is a wide range of views out there.