Hansard

Let me begin by thanking the crofters and other individuals who, over the past weeks, months and indeed years, have taken the time and trouble to speak to me about the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill.

As John Farquhar Munro mentioned, when the previous crofting bill was before the Parliament, both he and I—and, indeed, others—gave stark warnings about what we saw as the limitations in those legislative proposals. That led to our receiving a favourable mention in Brian Wilson’s organ—something that had never happened before and might never happen again. Like John Farquhar Munro and other representatives for the Highlands and Islands, I have taken an extremely close interest in the bill as it will have a direct impact and effect on my constituents, who live in some of the most remote areas with the most fragile economies.

In winding up on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, let me take the opportunity to comment on some of the speeches that we have heard. First, I believe that the minister used the correct expression when she said that crofting is a model for sustainable rural development. She also introduced the point that registration must be a requirement if it is to work and she mentioned the issue of absenteeism.

Sarah Boyack said, as I have also said, that crofting is a way of life in the Highlands and Islands. Quite correctly, she listed crofting’s many benefits, to which I would add its contribution to tourism. Where a crofting township—Rogart in Sutherland is a good example—has crofts that are worked and that contribute to the local economy, they provide an attractive feature for tourists. We should never forget that point, as it is hugely important, particularly in the most remote areas. In highlighting the financial support systems that underpin crofting, Sarah Boyack also touched on—this rang a huge bell with all of us from the Highlands—crofting’s place within the totality of the economy, to which is connected the issue of fuel costs. As I and others have said many times in previous debates, the fact is that the cost of motor fuel has a big impact on crofting in the Highlands.

A final point that Sarah Boyack mentioned was the balanced nature of the issue. As far as I am concerned, the issue is quite finely cast, so I reserve the right—as John Farquhar Munro and others have said—to vote the bill down. For that reason, we in the Liberal Democrats, like Peter Peacock, will support the amendment. That will provide the bill with life support, but my colleague Liam McArthur has made it clear that some surgery on the bill will be necessary. If we feel that we have ended up with something that is inappropriate or a beast that will not work, we reserve the right to vote down the bill at stage 3. It is a fine balance.

Maureen Watt, quite correctly, gave an overview of the committee’s consideration of the bill. She made a plea for the bill to proceed to stage 2, but nothing in Sarah Boyack’s amendment would prevent the bill from going to the next stage, during which it will be scrutinised very closely indeed. She also mentioned the provisions for a map-based register.

John Scott told us that he is supportive of the thrust of the bill. He argued for a first-past-the-post system instead of AV, with one vote per croft. He also highlighted the issue of the choice of the commission’s chairman. He made the point that the sustainability of the community in which the croft is located is crucial. That is linked to Sarah Boyack’s point, which I have emphasised also takes in the issue of fuel duty.

My colleague Liam McArthur talked about the differences in crofting areas, and he is absolutely correct. I think of the crofting in Strath Halladale in Sutherland, where a lot of people have double incomes from crofting and being employed at Dounreay. As Dounreay runs down, that will impinge on crofting in a way that is quite different from the situation in Wester Ross in John Farquhar Munro’s constituency or even in Orkney. That is an important point, which should be remembered.

I associate myself with Liam McArthur’s suggestion that the commissioners should be able to elect their own chair. That would be profoundly sensible.

Alasdair Allan correctly reminded us about how far we have come since the draft bill. The beast that we see before us today is markedly different from the draft bill, and that is to be welcomed.

Peter Peacock correctly reminded us of the delicacy with which we should see and evaluate absenteeism and how we should address it. We have more work to do on that.

It might be a little too late to say this, but many of us were apprehensive about taking away the development function from the commission and giving it to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, because of the cutbacks to HIE’s budget and staffing reductions. We felt that we could not exactly be confident that the money stream would be directed or controlled as well as it might be. However, I accept that we are where we are, and it is unfortunate.

I go back to the many representations that I have received from individuals and crofters about the register. Peter Peacock, too, expressed the real reservations that exist. I am prepared for members to argue against me, but it is my considered opinion that a lot more must be done to convince crofters that it is a viable idea. The extra financial burdens that are being imposed on them are extremely unwelcome, and it probably cannot be done in the most fragile economies where so many crofters are. There is awareness of the register and mapping and I acknowledge the robust defence of the need for it by Rob Gibson and other colleagues, but we have a long way to go to take crofters and people who are involved in crofting with us.

Elaine Murray was interesting, especially in talking about the wider financing of the commission. A point was made about the definition of the distance from the croft. Someone—I forget which member; perhaps it was Jamie McGrigor—said that it depends on where one is. Things will be different in Strath Halladale, Wester Ross or Skye, and it depends on the nature of the local economy and the location of supporting employment.

I will conclude with two points, if I have time. First, and on a personal level, I am grateful to Peter Peacock for his kind remarks about seeing John Farquhar Munro back with us. He is a colleague and a personal friend, and he is the most real crofter in the Parliament. His opinions are hugely important so, when he counsels caution, we should listen.