Hansard

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to present our stage 1 report. At the outset, I acknowledge the positive feedback from many stakeholders about the Scottish Government’s engagement on the bill—we do not often hear such praise, and it should be recognised.

The committee began its scrutiny in June with a call for views. We held five evidence sessions between September and November with stakeholders, including the Crofting Commission and the Scottish Government. We visited the Isle of Skye to meet crofters, and we held an online event with crofters across Scotland. I thank everyone who has contributed to our scrutiny and I thank the committee clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and, of course, the members of the committee for their hard work.

I turn to our consideration of part 1 of the bill. The committee recognises the vital contribution that crofting makes to Scotland’s rural population, economy, environment and cultural heritage. Two clear messages emerged from our evidence taking. First, there is strong support for the bill’s targeted approach of fixing specific issues rather than attempting fundamental reform. However, many stakeholders called for a wider, long-term review of crofting law. We agree, and we recommend that the next Scottish Government undertakes such a review and introduces comprehensive legislation as soon as practicable.

Secondly, we repeatedly heard concerns about the enforcement of crofters’ duties—that is, to live on or near the croft and to maintain and use it purposefully. Crofters want a clear, consistently applied regulatory framework. We welcome the Crofting Commission’s renewed focus on enforcement and the Scottish Government’s commitment to strengthen collaboration between the commission and the rural payments and inspections division. However, enforcement remains challenging. The committee believes that the current system for reporting and enforcing duties should be central to any future review of the crofting law, and we are pleased to hear that the Government shares that view.

Sections 1 to 27 of the bill make a series of specific, often technical, changes; I will focus on those that generated the most debate. In the sections on enabling the environmental uses of crofts and on common grazings, we welcome the extension of the definition of “purposeful use” to include “any environmental use”. Crofting land can deliver significant environmental benefits, and simplifying the route to environmental activities is sensible. However, we heard concerns about how absent or negligent crofters might cite “environmental use” in order to mask neglect. The bill includes some safeguards against that occurring, but we recognise that the strongest protection lies in robust enforcement. On that point, we welcome the minister’s commitment to strengthen the definition of “environmental use”, and it would be helpful if he would set that out in closing today.

On common grazings and environmental projects, the treatment and sharing of benefits—particularly carbon credits—requires clarification. We heard support for joint projects on common grazings, but questions remain over fair benefit sharing while ensuring that grazing remains available in the spirit of crofting. Further details from the minister on that during the debate would also be welcome.

On assignations—that is, the family transfer of crofts—the committee supports a fast-track process to reduce administrative pressures on the Crofting Commission so that resources can be redirected to enforcement. Some stakeholders queried the proposed three-croft limit for using the fast-track process, particularly for crofters with multiple interests. On balance, we accept the Government’s rationale and note that those with more than three crofts would continue to use the existing process. That is a fair and proportionate way to speed up family assignations without compromising oversight. We also heard concerns that prohibiting the transfer of owner-occupied crofts could inadvertently hinder community organisations from seeking croft land for crofting or housing. We welcome the Government’s intention to explore a stage 2 amendment to ensure that community aspirations are not frustrated.

On common grazings, we took strong evidence about problems when grazing shares become unintentionally separated from the inby croft or croft land, so we support and welcome provisions aimed at preventing such separations. Members differed on whether the bill should go further and prohibit separation entirely. We note the minister’s assurance that additional safeguards will be introduced at stage 2 to tighten practice while retaining flexibility where separation is genuinely desirable. We also welcome the consideration of a process to reattach shares that have been unintentionally separated, and we would appreciate an update on stakeholder discussions about workable solutions.

I turn to part 2, which is on the proposed merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. Although some stakeholders worried that the merger might be driven by cost cutting, the general view was that it was pragmatic. We were reassured by the minister’s confirmation that the aim is to streamline and improve operations, not to diminish access to justice or expertise. The committee’s report sets out detailed comments, including from the current president of the court and the chair of the tribunal. We welcome the Government’s intention to bring stage 2 amendments to tighten part 2 and clarify issues that we have raised, particularly by preserving specialist knowledge, ensuring appropriate routes of appeal and maintaining accountability for rural communities.

The committee supports the bill’s general principles. We endorse the targeted approach in part 1. We also make a clear call for a comprehensive future review of crofting law, with enforcement at its core. We support strengthening of provisions on environmental use, common grazings and assignations. I look forward to further details from the minister on definitions, benefit sharing, safeguarding for grazing shares and community-friendly routes for owner-occupied transfers. Overall, on part 2, we recognise the potential benefits of the merger—subject to stage 2 amendments—which will secure clarity, continuity of expertise and access to justice. I look forward to members’ contributions.