I will not give in to temptation and say that that might prove too difficult for some landlords. As Dr Allan knows, the current representative of landlords’ interests on the commission is a Gaelic speaker, so theirs is dual-hat position. I very much take his point, but I am trying to make sure that there is an equilibrium between the two roles.

As I made clear earlier, it is absolutely vital that common grazings are used by crofters to ensure that the country meets its net zero obligations, not only in peatland restoration but in woodland planting. Having a landlord representative on the commission would ensure that there was no conflict. Giving the commission the flexibility to have a landlord representative would therefore be helpful.

I know that the minister will say that he can co-opt a landlord representative on to the commission, but I want to take that out of the minister’s hands and put it in the commission’s hands, because I would like to see the power at commission level rather than at ministerial level. I await the minister’s comments on that.

I move amendment 56.

I will keep this short and sweet. I understand what the minister says, but practical experience tells me that my amendments would be a sensible way forward. Therefore, I will press amendment 51. If it falls, I will not move amendments 52 to 55. The Conservative members will support the other amendments in the group.

The two amendments in my name are the only ones in the group. The amendments relate to the representation of landlords’ interests on the Crofting Commission. Before anyone questions that, I advise that I am not a landlord and I have no landlord’s interest. I am purely a tenant, and not a tenant of a croft.

Currently, the interests of landlords must be represented on the commission, but the bill as drafted would remove that obligation. I make the gentle comment that every croft has a landlord, unless it is an owner-occupied croft—which has a landlord, technically, within the law.

I note that the bill does not remove the current provision on Gaelic speakers being represented on the commission, despite the fact that only 130,000 people in Scotland speak Gaelic, which is 2.5 per cent of the population. I am not disputing the importance of the Gaelic language in the crofting communities. There is therefore a fundamental protection of the language and of some of our rural populations, which I feel very strongly about. However, my amendment 56 would reverse the removal of landlord representation on the commission, reinstating the status quo. If that is unacceptable to the minister—

I will just finish this point and then I will come back to Dr Allan.

If amendment 56 is not agreed to, my amendment 57 would provide an option for the commission—without forcing it—to co-opt a member who represents the interests of landlords.

I remember that we started looking at the issue of crofting reform when I first came into the Parliament in 2016. It was agreed that crofting reform is not just about crofting but about keeping the population in the crofting areas and providing a sanctuary for language and people on the land. When the review is to be carried out on the legislation, of which there are numerous acts—too numerous to mention—will it first detail what the aims of crofting should be for the future? If we do not set out those aims, we will not be able to protect crofting and ensure that it thrives for many years to come.

I have five amendments—51 to 55—in the group. These amendments are about promoting communication between the crofter and the landlord at the point of registration. We all agree that registration of crofts is absolutely critical and it has been Government policy for a while. The amendments would minimise and simplify the first registration of crofts and to identify any discrepancies at an early stage. The Crofting Commission would prescribe a form of notice to be given by a crofter to the landlord, which would include a copy of the application. That would allow the landlord to comment on the application. I stress that the commission would be required not to act as arbiter but simply to highlight the discrepancies to the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland when the croft was going through the registration process.

The amendments would not add an administrative burden to the commission or put it in the middle of a fight between a landlord and a crofter, if such a thing were ever to happen, but they would flush out potential areas of dispute as the registration process was going ahead. This has come about from my experience of trying to register a croft, which has sometimes been quite difficult because the ownership is quite difficult to identify in title deeds.

The other amendments in the group—22 to 24, 32 and 33—are minor technical amendments in the name of the minister. I confirm that we will support those amendments on this side of the chamber. The minister can talk to them for some length of time if he wishes to, or he could just accept our report and allow us to concentrate on amendments 51 to 55.

I move amendment 51.

I will not give in to temptation and say that that might prove too difficult for some landlords. As Dr Allan knows, the current representative of landlords’ interests on the commission is a Gaelic speaker, so theirs is dual-hat position. I very much take his point, but I am trying to make sure that there is an equilibrium between the two roles.

As I made clear earlier, it is absolutely vital that common grazings are used by crofters to ensure that the country meets its net zero obligations, not only in peatland restoration but in woodland planting. Having a landlord representative on the commission would ensure that there was no conflict. Giving the commission the flexibility to have a landlord representative would therefore be helpful.

I know that the minister will say that he can co-opt a landlord representative on to the commission, but I want to take that out of the minister’s hands and put it in the commission’s hands, because I would like to see the power at commission level rather than at ministerial level. I await the minister’s comments on that.

I move amendment 56.

I have listened carefully to what the minister has said, which gives me some confidence. However, I will make a small observation: crofting commissioners are paid £10,812 a year for working four and a half days per month. If it were decided that an additional commissioner was required, that would not add overly to the bill.

The minister has highlighted, previously as well as today, that paragraph 3(6) of schedule 1 to the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, which is one of the many acts that cover crofting—and my goodness, you need to know your way round them—gives the minister the ability to co-opt an additional member. I would rather that that ability were in the hands of the Crofting Commission, so that it would have the flexibility to make sure that crofting goes from strength to strength.

I will withdraw amendment 56, but I intend to move amendment 57.

Amendment 56, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 57 moved—[Edward Mountain].

I thank the minister for taking the time to meet me and trying to find compromise. Sometimes that is not possible, but he tried very hard on this, and for that I am grateful.

In relation to common grazings, I am sad that we have not resolved the issue of what are often called slipper crofters. There are real issues where crofters have moved away and sold their shares in the common grazings to people who are no longer part of the crofting community.

I lodged my amendments 48 to 50 to encourage ministers to commit to a review of the operation of common grazings. I wanted such a consultation to be undertaken within three years; the minister wanted the time period to be much longer, although no figure was put on that; and he has compromised by making it five years, which is fair.

The reason that I was pushing for such a review is that 1,078 common grazings in Scotland, which cover more than 500,000 hectares, are recorded in the register of crofts. Of those, only 461—fewer than half—have common grazing committees in place.

Considering the amount of land involved, and the significance of crofting in reaching net zero, which will be a high priority for the next Parliament, it is important that we utilise common grazings and that crofters benefit from them, to the extent that they can, and that the country benefits from them, too.

I will say no more, except that I will not move amendment 48 or amendment 49, and that I would appreciate the support of the Government on amendment 50.

I will keep this short and sweet. I understand what the minister says, but practical experience tells me that my amendments would be a sensible way forward. Therefore, I will press amendment 51. If it falls, I will not move amendments 52 to 55. The Conservative members will support the other amendments in the group.