Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will first just remind everybody of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

My amendment 155 simply changes the section heading of section 40A of the 1993 act to avoid any possible confusion between a crofting-specific notice given under that section and either the agricultural census or the national census, which occurs every 10 years. I thank the minister for working with me on the drafting of the amendment.

It is important to put on record how important crofting is to the Highlands and Islands. I know that from the many contexts that I have worked in over the past couple of years. I have not lodged many amendments to the bill, purely because it is quite technical and there is quite a lot of agreement on most of it. For me, the key aspect is that, back in 2017, when the Parliament carried out the crofting review, crofters thought that there was going to be some consolidation of previous legislation and that more would come out of the review. That goes back to Edward Mountain’s point and that is what I will speak about in relation to amendment 211.

Amendment 211 would require ministers to undertake a review of all crofting legislation two years after the bill gains royal assent. The review would need to consider the impact and effectiveness of existing legislation. It would also question whether further legislation on crofting is required and whether any legislation should be consolidated. The amendment would require that, following the review, ministers would need to produce a report and lay it before the Parliament. That reflects the committee’s recognition in its report that there was broad support for a more fundamental and structural review of crofting policy and law in Scotland. It recognises that crofting has been protected by legislation since the 19th century. We must ensure that crofting law is not overly complex, is not scattered across various legislation and is up to date, so that it reflects crofting traditions in a modern Scotland.

Turning to other amendments in the group, I am happy to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 212, as its aims are broadly similar to those of my amendment 211. However, I prefer my amendment, as it addresses concerns about whether existing legislation needs to be consolidated and whether there needs to be more legislation, whereas the aim of amendment 212 is to look at the need for further legislation specifically. I believe that we need to avoid having legislation on top of legislation, which would create complexities and a lack of clarity before the law is consolidated, and it might require us to repeal further legislation that would no longer be necessary.

My amendment 211 would require a review of the bill if it becomes an act. At stage 1, we heard that the bill, although it is welcome and makes positive changes, is not the significant update to crofting law that is wanted or needed, or that has been promised. The Scottish Government has said that the bill will pave the way for future legislation. My amendment would see its effectiveness being reviewed as part of a full review of all existing legislation on crofting.

Finally, Ariane Burgess’s amendment 212 states that the review must be undertaken within five years of the bill receiving royal assent, but I prefer the speedy two-year requirement in my amendment, because I believe that we need more robust change and consideration as quickly as possible.

I move amendment 211.

I think we have covered that. I am not going to press amendment 211.

Amendment 211, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 212 and 213 not moved.

Sections 34 and 35 agreed to.

My amendment 167 would add to the list of what constitutes misuse of a croft. The bill outlines a list of what constitutes misuse if the crofter fails to do something. Amendment 167 works alongside amendment 169, which prevents a crofter from putting the croft to environmental use unless the crofter is present on the land and the land is being used for active land management. This reflects concerns that were raised at stage 1 about extending the use of crofts for environmental purposes. It addresses concerns that environmental purposes would allow absent or neglectful crofters to neglect their crofts. It also addresses concerns about the commission’s enforcement powers and abilities.

As drafted, the bill outlines some examples of what environmental use may include, such as peatland restoration and habitat creation. My amendment 170 seeks to add to the bill that environmental use does not include a use for the generation, transmission or storage of renewable energy or for the purpose of rewilding. This follows arguments that I have repeatedly raised that food-producing land should not be overtaken by any renewables infrastructure. That is a constant problem in our rural communities, where communities and the needs of locals are often ignored. The amendment also reflects concerns that the definition of “environmental use” is vague. We hope to establish what it definitely does not mean by ensuring the very best possible drafting, rather than having a vague term which could be interpreted in various ways.

I thank the minister for working with me on the amendments from amendment 143 onwards in this group, which seek to make adjustments to section 18, on the use of common grazings for forestry or environmental purposes, for a variety of reasons. My amendments 143, 144 and 145 would remove certain constraints on the rights of a landowner to refuse consent for proposals put forward by a grazings committee. The owner would be able to refuse consent if they considered the proposal detrimental, rather than its having to be “substantially detrimental” to the management of the estate, or if they considered that it would cause them hardship rather than “undue hardship” or would lessen rather than “significantly lessen” the amenity of the land. The requirement for a high degree of detriment, hardship or loss of amenity is not necessary, because the bill gives the final say on any application to the commission rather than the landowner. The constraints, if they were retained, would, in effect, prevent the owner from expressing their views freely and fully.

My amendment 147 would allow an owner eight rather than six weeks to state whether they wished to refuse consent to a grazings committee application for a forestry or environmental use of the common grazings. Any refusal would not be the last word, however, as the commission could overrule it.

My amendment 149 would remove a duplication from the legislation. The requirement for a commission determination to be entered in the register of crofts is already provided for in section 58A(12) of the 1993 act and does not need to be repeated in new section 50ZA of the 1993 act.

My amendment 150 would provide that, when the commission consents to a grazings committee’s proposal to use the grazings for forestry, an environmental purpose or any other novel purpose, the consent would expire if the project was not commenced within five years rather than seven. Finally, in this group, my amendment 153 would insert into section 50B of the 1993 act, on the use of common grazings for other purposes, text that is equivalent to words already in section 50 of the 1993 act and that would be retained in the new section 50ZA, on the use of common grazings for forestry or environmental purposes. The text would provide that, once consent was given by the commission, it would take effect when entered into the register of crofts, and the agreement would be binding on the successors to the owner’s interest.

I will turn briefly to other amendments in the group. I will await the member’s explanation, but, from my reading, I believe that Rhoda Grant’s amendments 4 and 5 are along similar lines to mine and would ensure active management of environmental use. As such, I am content to support them, and the same applies to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 7 and the minister’s amendment 76.

I will listen happily to what Ariane Burgess says about her amendment 132, but, at the moment, I am not convinced that I can support it.

I move amendment 167.

I have nothing to add. I will not press amendment 167.

Amendment 167, by agreement, withdrawn.

I do not know what you are going to go on to say, but I agree with Ariane Burgess’s final point about putting something in legislation now. We do not know what will happen in May, so we need something that reflects what I thought—unless I am mistaken—was a pretty consistent view in our earlier stage 1 investigations: that the legislation was going to be more than it is. Is there potential to take this off the table and to have a discussion before stage 3, to try to do something with my amendment and Ariane Burgess’s amendments that the Government will be comfortable with and that will give people the reassurance that they were looking for at stage 1?

I get that, but, to go back to Jim Walker’s report of years ago on calves in a sustainable beef industry, or even to what has happened with the agri-environment climate scheme over the years and the amount of money that we have put into that, my understanding, from the latest data that I can get, is that the drop-off has been massive—partly because you took away a lot of the capital grants, so people have just not done those things. On EFAs—I am just using practical examples—we were expecting a whole raft of measures, but the scheme has been cut back to just four new options.

Fundamentally, delivery has been quite poor, has it not? You say that it takes a long time. However, we are 10 years or so on from the start of discussions and we still do not have the rural support plan or know what is coming around the corner, so I wonder whether farmers are dropping off.

My other point is that, to some extent, I hear from the community that the working arm of the department is so busy concentrating on paperwork that it is not concentrating on the difference on the ground. Is there some truth in that?

I get that. I just wanted to be sure about that. Maybe I completely misunderstood. Somebody—it might have been Emma Harper—mentioned a dairy example, but a dairy farmer might say, “There’s not much I can do, as I have a lot of cows and I am milking, but I have filled all my sheds with solar panels and I have worked hard on planting trees.” If that is not being considered in the way that statistics are delivered, it might look as if agriculture is not doing much.

Does that make sense? I think that what John Kerr is saying is that you are trying to pull all of that together to show that agriculture is doing quite a lot, even if it is not based purely on livestock numbers.

Yes. Okay.

I think that the budget this year sets out a figure of £28 million for this work, and it also mentions 10,000 hectares. The draft climate change plan is looking to do around 13,200 hectares this year. Are you confident that that is achievable within the £28 million budget?