Chamber and committees

I will speak to my amendments 16 to 21. Sections 50 and 50ZA make changes to the regime for crofter-led forestry projects on common grazings and, importantly, also extend that regime to other crofter-led environmental projects. A system whereby the grazings committee has to get separate consent from both the landowner and the commission is to be replaced by one in which the commission has the final say. The commission must, of course, consider the owner’s views, but alongside other factors such as the benefit to the crofting community and the public interest. In short, my amendments would ensure that the commission, and not the landowner, has the final say on crofter-led environmental projects.

Amendment 16 clarifies that the commission has full discretion to substitute its own decision when it considers that an owner’s original decision was unreasonable. That would apply whether the owner’s decision was to refuse outright, to put conditions on the project, or to approve it.

Amendment 21 expands the list of factors that the commission must take into account in reaching its decision, in line with the commission’s standard decision-making criteria as set out in section 58A(7) of the 1993 act. That list will now include the interests of the estate, the interests of the crofting community and the sustainable development of the crofting community, as well as such things as the public interest and any objections received. In addition, amendment 21 requires the commission to take account of the owner’s decision, including the reasons stated by the owner for any refusal.

Other changes within amendment 21 and in amendments 17 to 20 will remove duplication and correct cross-references.

I press amendment 6.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

After section 10A

I will press amendment 16.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will speak to my amendments 16 to 21. Proposed new sections 50 and 50ZA of the 1993 act make changes to the regime for crofter-led forestry projects on common grazings and, importantly, also extend that regime to other crofter-led environmental projects. A system whereby the grazings committee has to get separate consent from both the landowner and the commission is to be replaced by one in which the commission has the final say. The commission must, of course, consider the owner’s views, but alongside other factors such as the benefit to the crofting community and the public interest. In short, my amendments would ensure that the commission, and not the landowner, has the final say on crofter-led environmental projects.

Amendment 16 clarifies that the commission has full discretion to substitute its own decision when it considers that an owner’s original decision was unreasonable. That would apply whether the owner’s decision was to refuse outright, to put conditions on the project, or to approve it.

Amendment 21 expands the list of factors that the commission must take into account in reaching its decision, in line with the commission’s standard decision-making criteria as set out in section 58A(7) of the 1993 act. That list will now include the interests of the estate, the interests of the crofting community and the sustainable development of the crofting community, as well as such things as the public interest and any objections received. In addition, amendment 21 requires the commission to take account of the owner’s decision, including the reasons stated by the owner for any refusal.

Other changes within amendment 21 and in amendments 17 to 20 will remove duplication and correct cross-references.

I will speak to my amendment 6, but I begin by saying that I strongly support sections 14A and 15 of the bill, which will prevent the further separation of grazing shares from crofts, which has been an unfortunate consequence of the crofter’s right to buy and has been detrimental to crofting. I will also support the minister’s amendments 7 to 14, which will strengthen those sections still further.

My own amendment 6 would support sections 14A and 15. Section 10A, which was inserted by one of my amendments at stage 2, gives ministers power under the affirmative procedure to make regulations on the transfer of owner-occupied crofts. My amendment 6 would make it clear that that power includes the ability to make provisions on the transfer of associated grazing shares, should it be desirable to strengthen or modify the regime set out in sections 14A and 15.

I move amendment 6.

Does the member acknowledge that there are only 11 commonly used irregular verbs in Gaelic? If a landlord wishes to become the Gaelic-speaking representative on the commission, he or she need only learn.

Will the member take an intervention?

Does the member acknowledge that there are only 11 commonly used irregular verbs in Gaelic? If a landlord wishes to become the Gaelic-speaking representative on the commission, he or she need only learn.

I will speak to my amendment 6, but I begin by saying that I strongly support sections 14A and 15 of the bill, which will prevent the further separation of grazing shares from crofts, which has been an unfortunate consequence of the crofter’s right to buy and has been detrimental to crofting. I will also support the minister’s amendments 7 to 14, which will strengthen those sections still further.

My own amendment 6 would support sections 14A and 15. Section 10A, which was inserted by one of my amendments at stage 2, gives ministers power under the affirmative procedure to make regulations on the transfer of owner-occupied crofts. My amendment 6 would make it clear that that power includes the ability to make provisions on the transfer of associated grazing shares, should it be desirable to strengthen or modify the regime set out in sections 14A and 15.

I move amendment 6.