Chamber and committees

I am pleased that my final speech in this session of Parliament is about such an important subject to my constituents as crofting. I, too, pay tribute to the contributions that have been made on the issue over the years by many members, not least by Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain.

This bill has been in the works for a long time. Following the Shucksmith report in 2008, the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 was passed. In 2014, the so-called crofting law sump concluded that a significant overhaul of crofting legislation was still required. As the minister has outlined, 140 years of successive crofting acts have created a complex legal situation that is not currently serving crofting particularly efficiently, so the bill is a welcome move to simplify some of that picture. Like other members, I very much hope to see further and more comprehensive legislation soon.

Meanwhile, as other members have mentioned, it is important not to lose sight of the reasons for and origin of crofting law. Throughout the 19th century, the people of the Highlands and Islands faced systematic persecution and eviction at the hands of some landlords who increasingly viewed humans as unprofitable. After the Napier commission examined those issues in the early 1880s, as has been mentioned, five members of the Crofters Party were elected as MPs. That pressure led to the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 finally being passed. For the first time, crofters had legal security of tenure and the right to fix a fair rent.

It is rare that any sector wants tighter regulation. However, the history that I have just recounted means that crofters are very aware that this traditional, culturally vital way of life requires legislation to sustain and protect it. The bill is a step forward in what must be a longer process of crofting law reform.

The bill streamlines administrative processes, frees up the Crofting Commission to focus on its enforcement duties and combines the functions of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. That tackles at least some of the areas on which there was the greatest consensus among stakeholders.

The next piece of legislation will need to be more comprehensive. However, I believe that the crofting community supports the general principles and the final form of the bill that is before us today.

I was pleased to secure several amendments at stage 2, including to give ministers the power to regulate the transfer of owner-occupier crofts, to prevent a right-to-buy where a crofter is in breach of their duties, to explicitly include enforcement duties in the Crofting Commission’s responsibilities and to introduce a more practical and proportionate civil rather than criminal penalty where there is a failure to uphold certain duties.

Other members also improved the bill with their amendments, and I thank them for supporting those and other amendments last week that related to grazings shares and the involvement of the Crofting Commission, where necessary, on grazings committee applications for environmental or forestry use of common grazings.

Depending on the voting intentions of my constituents, I look forward to working with the next Government on the additional legislation that will be required. In the meantime, the bill is an important step forward on the road to crofting legislation reform and I urge members to give it their support.

17:26

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 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.

I will press amendment 16.

I press amendment 6.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

After section 10A

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 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.