Chamber and committees

This SSI will unfairly disadvantage small herd farmers and crofters, especially those who are farming on islands and poorer land. It imposes a calving interval conditionality of 410 days on support from the suckler beef support scheme. Under the new policy, a calf must either be the first offspring of a cow or be born no later than 410 days since its mother gave birth the last time. That interval will decrease over time.

The Scottish Crofting Federation told us that many crofters cannot control that interval. It quotes one of its island members who, only recently, had organised to take delivery of a bull under the Scottish Government scheme on 15 August. Due to weather conditions, delivery was delayed to 4 September. Ferries can be cancelled and there are restrictions on the weather conditions when animals can travel, for welfare reasons. Ferry cancellations also need to be rebooked. A crofter has no control over that. In that case, the crofter was already 21 days behind schedule to receive the bull, and because of that it could be up to 50 days before all their cows were pregnant. A delay of that kind can also have a knock-on impact on other small herds that may be waiting to lease the same bull. It seems wrong that delays in the Scottish Government providing a lease bull could cost a small farmer or crofter dearly.

I agree that there has to be a better way than this.

Others have asked for a derogation for small herds, but that is not provided for in the instrument. The derogation is not only important for the sustainability of farming on poorer land and islands financially but important for nature. Previous schemes that restricted cattle from the land showed that doing so was damaging to nature. We have now learned from those experiences how important cattle are to biodiversity and to fostering healthy environments. Sadly, a policy that is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions could have a counterproductive impact on the natural environment.

Due to proportionality, it could take only one missed payment to make a small farmer or crofter’s business uneconomical and for them to give up rearing cattle altogether. Once cattle are lost from our hills and islands, it is difficult to return them, due to the cost of restocking. Therefore, if we get it wrong, there is no way back. I ask that the minister therefore withdraws the SSI and resubmits it with a derogation for small herds.

So we do not need to use this act to change that in any way.

But the crofting community right to buy does not need to wait for the estate to be up for sale, does it?

Does anyone else have anything to add?

Thank you, convener. I have a supplementary and a substantive question, if that is okay.

A lot of this morning’s discussion has been about land management plans and how they relate to crofting. In a way, a landowner cannot impose on the crofter what the crofter does with their tenancy, and it seems to me that that could be a conflict in land management plans. A crofting landowner might be able to write up a land management plan for only quite a small part of the land that they own, because the rest of it will be out to tenancy. Would any of that impose on a crofter’s agency, or would their rights be protected under the bill? I am concerned that land management plans might interfere with a crofter’s rights.

Moving on to my substantive question, I note that, although previous legislation has given crofting communities a right to buy, we have not really seen that right exercised. Crofting estates have changed hands, but seldom under the crofting community right to buy. I wonder why that is. Is it an issue with the legislation itself, and could the bill provide an answer to that?

So, if the process were simplified, it might be more useful.

Would that not have been an option for the crofting communities on Berneray? It does not appear to have been used, but is that just because it is complex?

The theme for this year’s human rights day is “our rights, our future, right now”. That is timely, given the Scottish Human Rights Commission report “Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Highlands and Islands” which paints a very poor picture of people’s access to human rights in my region.

Across all nine areas researched, people in the Highlands and Islands did not have any single human right delivered to them in a way that meets all the conditions for adequacy under international law, which is not something to be taken lightly.

On housing, the report says:

“The Commission’s evidence indicates that a significant number of people across the Highlands and Islands are living in conditions of rooflessness (with no temporary accommodation or shelter). This includes individuals in temporary caravans, camping pods, and those ‘sofa-surfing’.”

The report highlights that the cost of renting and buying

“is a significant barrier, particularly for young people.”

If people cannot find a place to live, they leave, which adds to depopulation. The report also states that social housing is inadequate to meet local needs, yet the Scottish Government used funds that were earmarked for rural housing to build around cities.

On the right to health, the commission expresses critical concerns about

“the lack of local health services”.

As Alex Cole-Hamilton said, people have to travel long distances to access healthcare, as they must do to access maternity services in Caithness, but the concern is about basic health needs as well as complex ones. The commission tells us:

“For young people in Sutherland, face-to-face mental health services are virtually non-existent.”

Those are our young people. The commission also found that people are not accessing health services because of distance and costs, which mean that people become very ill and need hospital care for conditions that could have been treated locally, had services been available.

The right to culture might appear less important in comparison with health, but the report’s findings on that issue are also stark.

The lack of public transport stops people participating in cultural activities. The report highlights that children in Kinlochbervie

“faced a 120-mile round trip”

to access football training.

I have been pursuing making our right to food a reality. On that issue, the commission says:

“Measures implemented so far have not been sufficient to effectively reduce hunger or address the deterioration of the right to food.”