Chamber and committees

I want to say at the outset that I welcome the minister’s offer to meet Rhoda Grant to discuss how to sort out common grazings. For many years, I have been acutely aware of the problem of apportionments of such grazings not being held by people in crofting communities and of funds that are attributable to the grazings being taken away from them or not being spent on what they are actually all about. I know of historical examples of money being spent by common grazings committees on children’s playgrounds and churches, and I just do not think either of those is the function of those committees.

Therefore, I welcome the minister’s offer. I do not want to muscle in on Rhoda Grant’s negotiations with the minister, but I would like to be kept informed of them, if I may be, because I think they will be vital.

I support the intention behind Tim Eagle’s amendment 211 and Ariane Burgess’s amendment 212 with regard to wider consultation, as such an approach will enable us to look at the bigger picture of crofting. My amendment 199, however, would require ministers to consult specifically on measures that would improve the regulation of common grazings. With hindsight, I think that I could have gone further by also requiring that regulations be made to deliver such measures.

I would be happy to discuss the regulations with the minister before stage 3, but I do not think that he is minded to agree the principle today, which I think is disappointing. The reason why I will be pushing the issue is that certain promises were made to the committee that I was on in 2017 regarding crofting legislation reform, but things never happened. I dare say, minister, that you might make promises about what can happen in the future, but I am not sure that you will be here to deliver them, as there may be a change of Government and ministers—I do not want to dwell on that, but it is a fact.

We are discussing a hugely important issue that warrants being given priority. Better regulation of existing common grazings could be progressed now, so that we could begin to halt the trend of neglect and abandonment of some of the areas that I have mentioned and help to facilitate the joint ventures that the bill seeks to encourage and that I believe crofters want to see happening.

As the committee is aware, common grazings cover about 550,000 hectares of Scotland, which is about 1.3 million acres. To put it in more parochial terms, that is about 800,000 football pitches, which is a huge amount of ground. However, according to the commission’s latest published figures, just under half of them are regulated through having a common grazings committee in office. That creates a lack of transparency about who manages and controls the land, which, to my mind, contributes to abandonment and neglect.

Huge frustration about the issue has been felt by many, including the owners of the land, who feel helpless to intervene, and those who use the common grazings and want to do more with them but are unable to do so. The lack of regulation is now a serious barrier to the delivery of important outcomes for the wider public interest, such as carbon sequestration through peatland restoration and renewable energy generation, and it stands in the way of wider sustainable social, economic and environmental benefits, which are what crofting is all about.

At the very least, a common grazings committee should have a named point of contact and information available to owners and communities about who holds shares. That would increase transparency, which is what the bill aims to do. That is why I think we should see these changes, which would facilitate management of the common grazings for environmental purposes and other positive uses and would reduce the current level of neglect and abandonment that I am afraid is evident across Scotland. The grazings would also benefit crofting communities, helping them to generate income and potentially help the environment. I therefore urge the minister and the committee to support amendment 199.

From the outset, I am grateful to the minister for considering and supporting my amendments 171 and 172. I have a couple of comments on Ariane Burgess’s amendment 139, which includes an interesting proposition. I am sad that the bill has reached the committee only now, given that it was promised to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in 2010. Crofting is not only about crofting per se; it is about language, communities and preventing rural depopulation. I am sad that the bill does not go further than it does, but I am sure that Ariane Burgess will work with the minister to find a way around issues.

In response to the minister’s points about amendment 210, I note the increasing number of communities that are landlords of crofting estates. You can look around Scotland and see them, so there would be some merit in considering the point further. I will not move amendment 210 if the minister is prepared to work with me to see whether there is a way to make it work before stage 3. I do not know whether he would undertake to do so.

Thank you very much. On that note, I press amendment 171.

Amendment 171 agreed to.

Amendment 172 moved—[Edward Mountain]—and agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3—Reporting on breaches of duties

Amendment 133 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

Thank you. With that, I have finished what I wanted to say.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I have a share in a family farm in Morayshire. No crofting is involved in it.

My amendments 171 and 172 came about because of the experiences that my constituents and I had with the Crofting Commission and the amount of time that it took to get a response. To put it on the record, the longest that I have waited for a response from the commission is 14 and a half months, which is unacceptable. The bill removes the timescales for the commission’s decisions, which could be seen as a negative step for those who interact with it, particularly as quite tight timescales are placed on crofters and landlords and there are serious consequences if they fail to meet them. I understand that, as it stands, there are no consequences for the commission if it fails to meet its stated timescales, so the value in statute is limited. The consultation that was carried out before the bill referred to a “customer service standards” document for the commission to produce, but the bill does not include any requirement to publish that within a reasonable timescale.

Amendment 172 places that intention on a statutory footing in order to provide some assurance that a standard will be produced that the commission’s performance can be measured against. I do not think that doing so adds any administrative burden to the commission; it simply provides a statutory commitment for it to do something that is already planned. Therefore, amendment 172 offers a practical alternative by ensuring that the commission publishes a set of meaningful standards, so that crofters and landlords have clear expectations of how long the process will last when they interact with the commission.

Amendment 171 is consequential to amendment 172.

My amendment 210 would reverse the removal of the requirement to have somebody on the commission who can represent the interests of landlords. I have some sympathy with what the minister said at stage 1 about the need for flexibility. However, given the growing diversity in types of crofting owners, which includes communities, it would be a retrograde step for the legislation to imply that their interests might not always be represented. I remember that the name of the commission was changed from the Crofters Commission to the Crofting Commission for a reason. The commission should continue to serve the wider crofting community, not alienate an important part of it. It is clear that landlords and owners of common grazings play an increasingly important and valuable role in investing in crofting counties and in helping to generate shared benefits for crofting communities. To marginalise them as the bill does is short-sighted.

I move amendment 171.

I lodged my amendments in this group because I wanted to avoid costly legal action at a later date. From experience, I know that defining the boundaries of crofts is sometimes virtually impossible. Indeed, when I worked for a landlord, when looking at maps that were dated prior to the 1900s, it was often difficult to ascertain where the watercourses where and which croft owned them. My aim with these amendments is to prevent that.

Before I became a politician, I worked with Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks to work out where electric lines ran and which person would get the benefit of the payments, and that often ended up in a dispute between two crofters. My aim with these amendments is therefore to bring forward something reasonable and to avoid costly appeals at a later date that would mean costs for the commission, the crofter and the landlord.

I have heard what the minister has said about my amendments and I seek a resolution. If the minister is prepared to meet me to discuss finding a suitable alternative to my amendments, I would be happy not to move them, on the basis that a solution might be found elsewhere. If that is not possible, I can lodge the amendments again at stage 3. I see that the minister is nodding, but it would be useful to have something on the record.

My view is that, if you are not writing off the proposal or saying that it does not need to be done, we could include it in the bill with a slightly longer flash-to-bang time, as far as implementation is concerned. I would probably be happy with that and would therefore not move my amendment.

However, joking apart, my real concern is that I want to see crofting thrive for the next generation and the generation afterwards. That is why I find it deeply disappointing that we are putting off things that we could do today and saying that we are going to do them tomorrow.

The issue is not going to go away. I am happy not to move my amendment when the moment comes, purely on the understanding that the minister will talk to me about the issue. He should understand that I will be tenacious on this matter and that there will be no giving way at stage 3.

Thank you, Sarah. The possible difficulty in getting all four nations to agree might extend the process, so the resolution might come after the time that I am in the Parliament, but I hope not.

I turn to the substantive issue. What are the main impacts that Scottish businesses will feel as a result of the changes to the free allocation that are brought about by the instrument?

So you are pretty sure that the effects on Scottish businesses are actually good and not bad.

Cabinet secretary, Lucy Geoghegan keeps looking for an opportunity to come in. It is not for me to bring her in, but just in case you want to.