Hansard

My amendments in the group seek to clarify the powers of the commission when it considers proposals by a grazings committee for the grazings to be used as woodlands or for an environmental purpose. They also seek to make technical modifications or changes that are consequential to other provisions in the bill.

Amendment 5 seeks to correct the reference to “other purposeful use” in section 3AZA of the 1993 act, which is inserted by section 8A of the bill, so that it applies to owner-occupied crofts.

Amendment 15 is consequential on a stage 2 amendment in the name of Tim Eagle, which I was happy to support. The landlord’s deadline for responding to a grazings committee application is mentioned twice in section 18, and amendment 15 seeks to change the second reference from six weeks to eight weeks, in line with the change that was made at stage 2.

My amendments 29 to 31 are also consequential. The bill will give tenant crofters the right to put their croft to an environmental use, and consequential changes are needed to provisions of the 1993 act that refer to the uses to which a croft can be put—they are section 30, on compensation for improvements; section 58, on the commission’s decision making; and schedule 2, on the statutory conditions of tenure. The necessary changes will be made by amendments 29 to 31 respectively.

I am happy to support Alasdair Allan’s amendments 16 to 21, which seek to clarify important changes that the bill will make. They seek to make it clear that the commission, not the landowner, will have the final say on a grazings committee application for the common grazings to be used for an environmental purpose or for forestry.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments 43 to 46 propose changes to the landowner’s role in that process. I am happy to support amendment 46, because it is right that the owner should be required to specify any conditions that they wish to impose and the rationale for them, but I cannot support amendments 43 to 45, which would reinstate three words that were removed from the bill at stage 2 through amendments that I supported.

Amendments 43 to 45 would forbid the owner from refusing consent on the grounds of detriment, hardship or loss, unless those impacts were substantial, undue or significant. At stage 2, I argued that those words were unnecessary because, with the bill, we are strengthening the role of the commission. In future, the final decision will lie with the commission, which will decide how much weight should be given to a decision to refuse consent on account of, for example, detriment to the management of the estate. The commission will set out its reasons for its decisions on such applications. We want that process to be—as far as is possible—the standard process that will apply to all decisions, so that the commission considers the wider public interest when it takes a view on the balance of the benefits and the drawbacks of the scheme.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 16A would require that, in imposing any conditions of its own, the commission must act reasonably and must set out its reasons for decisions, including why they are justified. I think that we all agree that the commission should do that anyway. However, as a public body, the commission is already under a statutory obligation to act reasonably and to communicate fully the reasons for its decisions. Duplicating those obligations in the bill would be bad law and, for that reason, I ask members to oppose amendment 16A.

Finally, Rhoda Grant’s amendment 47 would provide that grazings committees should be entitled to all the financial benefit from an approved crofter-led forestry or environmental initiatives on the common grazings. In respect of forestry, that would cut across the measures that are already in the bill that ensure that a grazings committee will continue to have exclusive economic and recreational use of woodlands on its grazings. With regard to other environmental uses, the provision would sit uncomfortably with new section 50AA of the 1993 act, which provides for grazings committees to be able to enter into binding joint venture agreements with the owner of the grazings with the consent of the commission. I believe that the measures that we have set out in the bill deliver the right balance that will ensure that crofting communities can benefit from environmental uses of common grazings. As part of the wider review of crofting law, we are committed to carefully considering how natural capital markets can support vibrant crofting communities.

I turn to the wider issues of natural capital and financial benefits that must be looked at in a wider cross-Government space to ensure that natural capital markets support vibrant crofting communities. A lot of the detailed work on the natural capital markets is on-going, but it would be premature to set out in legislation at this stage how any financial benefit from a scheme should be shared between landlords and tenants. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 47.

I move amendment 5.