Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to engage with anyone who wants to talk to me before stage 2—there is absolutely no question about that.

If the owner of the six deemed crofts is absent, they are not fulfilling their duties and it is up to the Crofting Commission to ensure that they do so.

That is a very pertinent point. It is the crofting communities themselves that want the changes to happen. They understand what their community is, and there is a requirement to be able to say, “This is a functioning ecosystem, which we all live and work in.” If people upset that, we need to have the ability to intervene.

The Crofting Commission has clearly demonstrated that the matter has now become very serious for it. The signal is being sent out to those who might have been a bit lackadaisical in the past that the situation is no longer acceptable and that, if crofting communities are going to function as they are supposed to, they will have to comply with the duties. That can only be a positive thing.

I do. I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence on part 2 of the bill, which makes provision for the merger of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and the Scottish Land Court.

The merger will create a one-stop shop for users, thereby offering a streamlined process that will be clearer and easier to understand and navigate. The rich history of the Land Court, which dates back to April 1912, and the affection in which it is held, especially in the crofting community, are recognised and respected in the bill. That is a key reason why the tribunal, which is itself a respected body with important functions, albeit one with a shorter history, will be joining the court.

The bill also seeks to preserve the traditional character of the Land Court. That includes maintaining local sittings and retaining the requirement for a Gaelic-speaking member.

Under the new arrangements, the composition of the bench will reflect the specific requirements of each case. There will be no dilution or diminution of expertise. The newly expanded Land Court will retain and, indeed, strengthen the depth of specialist knowledge that is available. The bill also provides for the expansion, by regulation, of the Land Court’s jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis.

Importantly, on-going proceedings will not be disrupted by the merger. The provisions have been designed to provide flexibility so that any transitional or implementation matters can be managed smoothly as they arise. Although the tribunal’s jurisdiction and functions will transfer to the court, the tribunal itself will not dissolve immediately. Its members will be able to sit in the court during the transition period. Full integration will follow through separate legislation.

Alongside the merger provisions, the bill will enable suitably qualified members of the merged court—and, on a transitional basis, members of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland—to act in the Upper Tribunal. Although the provisions are largely administrative, they will enhance the resilience of the Upper Tribunal by giving it access to a broader range of expertise when required. To ensure that that is done appropriately, there are a number of safeguards in place, which involve the chair of the court, the president of the Scottish tribunals, the Lord President and the members themselves.

In summary, the proposals in part 2 of the bill will bring about practical improvements, while safeguarding the proud heritage and expertise of both institutions. They offer continuity where continuity matters and change where change is needed.

I am happy to take questions from the committee.

The policy objective of the merger—which has been talked about for a very long time and has been looked at by various institutions over that period—is to give a streamlined structure to the current system. As I said, the merger will not result in any diminution of the ability of the tribunal or the court. In fact, it will enhance it, and that has been broadly welcomed by most people we have spoken to.

At this moment, yes.

As I said, Environmental Standards Scotland is an independent body that is currently setting out its strategy for 2026 to 2031. That is the current position.

By finding the solutions to those issues, we hope and think that we will alleviate most of the legal concerns that have been expressed, and we will make the necessary amendments to the bill as we go forward.

However, there are also policy concerns. We know that some stakeholders and crofters would prefer that the share always remained with the inby croft and could never be separated. The concern is that that might lead to many more common grazings not being used at all, at least for extended periods of time. Historically, it would not have been an issue, because most crofters kept livestock, but that is no longer the case. If 80 per cent of current crofters had livestock, we would not be having this conversation. In fact, if 50 per cent of crofters had livestock, we probably would not be having this conversation either, but we estimate that the figure is around 25 per cent, and it has been decreasing over the years. It is therefore not hard to imagine a township where all the crofters are meeting their inby crofter duties but none of them are using the common grazings.

In that context, I do not think that there is a justification for insisting that all the shares remain attached to the crofts in all circumstances. The decision should remain a matter of choice for the crofter. Many crofters will retain a share in a grazing, but others will have no interest in the share whatsoever because they use their inby land purely to grow food and not to run livestock at all, or they might have no intention of using it.

We have listened to the concerns and we think that the process requires a safeguard, so we are also looking to establish an agreed approach whereby a crofter, tenant or owner-occupier would have to apply to the commission to divide a grazing share from the croft, and they would have to state a reasonable purpose for doing so. We should trust the commission to regulate that and ensure that the right balance is struck between the shares being in the hands of those who will actually use them and protecting against too many shares being separated from crofts.

When discussing deemed crofts, we often start with the assumption that they are a bad idea, but the more important question is whether the shares are in the hands of people who are actually going to use them. In its evidence session, the commission correctly pointed out that a deemed croft can create an opportunity for a new entrant and their family by way of an apportionment. Officials are looking at whether we can amend the legislation to allow those who have an apportioned deemed croft to have all the rights that would allow them to work it as a croft, including being able to decroft a small area of land for a house. The purpose is to create the functioning community that we talked about at the start of the session.

I invite Michael Nugent to pick that up.

You have already touched on the scenario of accidental separation. Some crofters do not use their grazings shares and have absolutely no intention of using them. However, somebody else might want to use those grazings shares, and they can be put to better use. That is the purpose behind the measure.

Is there anything that I am missing here, Michael?

We can take that away and look at it. Are you talking about the wider community rather than the crofting community?