Seòmar agus comataidhean

All that I can tell you is that if they do not feel included, I do not know what conversations they have been having. They are in the room—they are talking to us and giving us their information, and they are giving us their views very strongly.

Given the fact that we are moving to 7 per cent, not 10 or 20 per cent, I would say that, yes, we are listening. Given the fact that we are putting in place a derogation for calves, I would say that we are listening. I cannot give you any more of a demonstration than I have already given you, Mr Eagle.

Because we know that it works. We can see that the enhancements are having an effect. I spend a lot of my time going around farms that are already employing those enhancements at the current levels, and there is massive biodiversity gain. We want everybody to get on board with that and start pushing towards it.

As I said, the pushback is indicative of the fact that, although everybody is agreeing, they are saying, “Just not me and just not now.” We are having to make some tough decisions. This is not a massive change; it is a moderate change. We are asking farmers to get behind it and look at the options.

I hear the point that you made about farm viability. That is why we have included other options and are talking about undersowing and adding legumes to the grass mixture. We are giving people alternatives and options so that they can get behind the change.

Given that we are putting £142 million of public money into the greening system, I do not think that it is unreasonable that we are asking people to do a little bit more. That is a huge amount of public money. In Orkney, for example, only 11 farmers are currently using that system, but the new change will increase that number by 200. It is about fairness, too, because a lot of people are already doing it.

In addition, to give a crude example, two farmers might be sitting side by side with 500 acres of land—one has permanent grassland so does not have to provide an EFA, but the other, next door, does because they do not have a large hectarage of permanent grassland. That is simply not fair. We need everybody to carry the weight. Pushing the figure to 7 per cent after 2026 is not unreasonable, given the amount of money that is being provided.

It is very much a compromise. We are being pushed to go a lot further, but it is a compromise, following these conversations. I have read the NFUS letter and understand its concerns, but I disagree. As long as this committee is in agreement, we are pushing ahead with the 7 per cent in order to reach the targets that we are trying to achieve. We have to aim for regenerative agriculture.

I go back to the point that I made at the start: people say, “Yes, we want to do this—but not now and not by that amount, and let’s not do this.” It is a bit frustrating that we have had that pushback from NFUS, but we are committed to moving forward with our plans. We have asked people and have told them that we will listen to them and hear their concerns. However, we are moving forward with the vision for agriculture that we have all signed up to, and this is part of that journey.

The concerns are indicative of the fact that we will have difficulties in getting people to where we want everyone to be. The 7 per cent figure is a compromise.

I think that I am right in saying that the dairy sector is already looking at EFAs for its grasslands—it is already doing that. There are options available for the dairy sector, but anyone who puts anything into the ground has the option of adding additional plants and legumes into their mix, which will allow them to adopt the policies that we are looking to develop.

Permanent grassland does not form part of the current thinking on the greening options, but we will develop schemes as the years go on. I go back to the point that I made to Mr Eagle and the convener. As part of that process, there will be intensive discussions with stakeholders to ensure that what we do is welcomed by them.

We considered all those things, including ferries, and had extensive discussions about them. We looked at a couple of different options, and we looked at front loading, but we came to the conclusion that the derogation was the best way to go, as it was the least threatening approach, particularly for island communities. We want to ensure that our island communities continue to produce calves, particularly given the fact that we have a Scottish bull stud. I have visited it and there are some absolutely cracking bulls in there, so there are some tremendous calves coming from small herds on the islands, and we want that to continue. These cattle are delivering biodiversity gain at the same time. Having looked at the options that were available to us—John Armour can talk about what front loading would have looked like—we took the decision that the derogation was the best way to go.

We are trying to establish an agreed approach whereby a croft, tenant or owner-occupier would have to apply to the commission to divide the grazings share from a croft and would have to state a reasonable purpose for doing so. Therefore, we have to trust the commission to regulate that activity and to ensure that the right balance is struck between grazings shares being in the hands of those who will use them and protecting against too many shares being separated from crofts. I understand people’s concerns, because, in the past, the Crofting Commission was not enforcing duties—I am trying to be polite—and was not deemed to be doing its job appropriately. That is not the position just now. The Crofting Commission is in very good hands at the moment, and people understand that it is doing its job properly to find the right balance for the communities that it works with. That is where we are at the moment.

I do, indeed, have an opening statement.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. As you know, the bill has two main parts. I will begin with a short opening statement on part 1, on crofting. I will give a further short statement on the merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland later in the meeting.

The crofting provisions in the bill are the culmination of more than three years of stakeholder engagement. To date, there have been 20 crofting bill group meetings, and those will continue through the upcoming stages. The proposals that have been considered came from a variety of sources. They include issues that were previously identified by a crofting bill team between 2016 and 2019, many of which were drawn from the crofting law sump, issues that the Law Society of Scotland singled out for crofting law reform in 2019-20, and issues that were identified and raised by stakeholders over the three-year period. Over the summer of 2024, we carried out a consultation and officials ran 15 public events throughout the crofting counties, which were attended by 257 people. It is fair to say that the bill has not lacked stakeholder engagement.

It has been mentioned that the bill does not go far enough and that it does not address some of the bigger issues that exist, but the bill was never meant to deliver fundamental reform. Officials have made that point throughout the process. Crofting law is complex, and even when there is consensus that something needs to be changed, it is often difficult to reach a consensus on what the remedy should be. Developing proposals and identifying workable solutions requires time.

However, the bill is more than just a technical bill—it is also an enabling bill. It will give crofters more options for how they use their land, it will allow approximately 700 people to apply to become crofters, it will streamline the enforcement of duties and the family assignation process, and it will prevent those who are in breach of the duties from profiteering and removing land from crofting tenure. Landlords and subtenants will be able to report breaches of duty to the Crofting Commission, and crofters will be able to apply to the commission for boundary and registration changes.

Rather than being viewed in isolation, the reforms should be viewed alongside the work that is being done by the Crofting Commission. As the commission pointed out in its evidence, it is important to note the interplay between the legislation and the commission’s policy plan. The legislation provides the necessary framework and the plan provides the detail of how the commission will administer and regulate. The commission has advised that it has the legislative tools and the resources to carry out its functions, and the changes in the bill will further support the commission in its work in processing regulatory applications and tackling breaches of duty.

The bill prepares the ground for what comes next. It will help to lay a stronger, healthier foundation for crofting, whereby we aim to have increased residency levels and more people actively using their crofts and common grazings. We will then be in a better place to take stock and consider what is needed for the future.

I am happy to take questions.

I absolutely concur with what you have just said. The bill team has done a phenomenal job in the engagement that it has undertaken. As I went out on my own around the crofting counties, it was clear that the bill team had done a phenomenal amount of work. I hope that that will enable us to get the bill absolutely right.

With regard to your question about a clear definition, the bill makes it clear that “environmental use” must be planned and managed for a clear purpose and must not adversely affect adjacent land. Crofters are already familiar with the concept of acting in a planned and managed manner. It is vital that environmental use is undertaken in a planned and managed way, and for a clear purpose.

We are sympathetic to the concerns that someone might neglect their croft and claim that they are rewilding, but we believe that it will not be difficult for the commission to tell the difference between someone who is actively putting their croft to environmental use, who will be able to explain what the environmental benefits are and what they are trying to achieve, and someone who is simply neglecting their croft and presenting the results of that neglect as good environmental practice.

We have intentionally framed the provisions in broad terms to allow for flexibility and adaptability as new environmental practices and technologies emerge. We have taken note of the concerns that stakeholders have raised, and, as officials have already discussed at meetings of the crofting bill group and the cross-party group on crofting, we will strengthen the wording of the bill to avoid any misunderstanding of the policy intention.

Those changes might be along the lines of what has been expressed by those who have already given evidence. For example, “environmental use” could mean any land that is deliberately planned and actively managed to achieve a specific environmental outcome. Allied to that, in its evidence session, the commission explained that it intends to make changes to its policy plan. That will bring further clarity on the matter and explain what would be expected of crofters in meeting that specific duty. The legislation provides the framework and the policy plan provides the detail for how it will be implemented and enforced in reality.

The land is the key asset and we need to optimise its use, whether it be to produce food more sustainably, to cut emissions or to enhance the environment. There are 750,000-plus hectares of land in crofting tenure, which represents a significant opportunity to deal with some of the key challenges that we face in creating potential benefits for crofters.