Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will pick up on some of Rhoda Grant’s points and on Dr Needle’s comment about the policy of not putting people on one-man boats to gather data. I have been on those boats. I do not want to approach this through anecdotal evidence but, like Rhoda, I am not sure that I understand how the supposed cod bycatch by creelers is being measured if people are not being sent out on one-man boats to measure it, or how you would propose to get past that. That certainly seems, from my anecdotal knowledge, to be quite an unusual thing compared with practice in the nephrops trawl sector.

Can you give us a picture of what role the Parliament would have over the next three years in assessing the effectiveness of the measures and any new data that might come the Government’s way?

You mentioned the possibility of new legislation. If such data emerged, would there be powers available to the Government to make changes to the measures without needing to return to the Parliament for new legislation?

Thank you.

I will speak to amendments 1 and 24.

Amendment 1 would add the enforcement of statutory duties to the general functions of the Crofting Commission. Applying criminal rather than civil sanctions for failing to comply with, say, the return of an annual notice seems to be heavy handed. It is vital that the Crofting Commission has the necessary enforcement powers to ensure that crofters meet certain requirements, but a more practical civil system of monetary penalties would enable the commission to respond proportionately and effectively to non-compliance.

Amendment 24 would give ministers a regulation-making power to establish a civil monetary penalties regime for non-compliance with specific duties. That power would enable ministers to, by regulation,

“confer upon the Commission the power to impose and collect monetary penalties”

and to

“repeal or adjust any existing criminal offence”

that relates to those duties. The regulation-making power would be subject to a statutory consultation requirement. That would allow those who are likely to be affected by any change to have an opportunity to express their views, and it would ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I urge members to support my amendments in the group.

I move amendment 1.

I have nothing further to add other than to press amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 166 not moved.

Section 1—Enabling environmental uses of crofts

I will speak first on amendments 27, 28 and 30.

Amendment 27 creates a direct route for a landowner who creates a new croft to become its owner-occupier crofter, which is a simplification of the current process that has been requested by a wide range of crofting stakeholders. In those circumstances, when someone makes an application to the commission to create a new croft, they will have to indicate their intent to become the owner-occupier crofter. The application will be treated as a single composite application so that the package is either accepted in full by the commission or rejected in full. The amendment does not provide a middle option of accepting the croft creation while denying the applicant’s wish to be the owner-occupier crofter.

That procedure is largely the same as the existing procedure for croft creation applications, with the addition that, in determining the application, the commission will also have regard to the crofting duties and an expectation that those duties will be fulfilled by the applicant. Amendments 28 and 30 ensure that, if a person becomes an owner-occupier crofter in that way, both they and their successors in title will meet the definition of an owner-occupier crofter within the act.

Amendments 35 and 36 ensure that the crofting community has the opportunity to object when an owner of a vacant croft applies to the commission for owner-occupier status. Community consideration is relevant because the commission must assess whether the duties of residence, cultivation and purposeful use are met. Allowing objections will give communities the opportunity to comment on whether those duties are, or are likely to be, fulfilled. That will bring those applications into line with the scrutiny that is applied to other applications, so that the commission must first consider any objections before deciding whether to approve an application.

Amendment 38 will give ministers a general power to make provision by regulation about transfers of owner-occupied crofts. That will include a new regulatory system for the control and transfer of ownership and for the transfer of the owner-occupier crofter status. For example, ministers could allow the crofting community the opportunity to submit objections about who could become owner-occupier crofters.

Although that proposal, as currently structured, did not feature in the Government’s 2024 consultation on crofting law reform, the consultation did ask whether the sale of an owner-occupied croft to a holder of three or more crofts should be subject to a Crofting Commission decision and the majority of respondents were in favour. Many in my constituency would consider it anomalous for there to be regulatory checks on who can become a tenant crofter by assignation without any similar controls on who can become an owner-occupier crofter by purchasing an owner-occupied croft. However, I appreciate that regulating the sale of owner-occupied crofts might require wide-scale reform that might extend beyond the scope of the present bill.

There are approximately 6,000 owner-occupier crofters who would be affected by such a change the next time they sold their croft and there could also be a significant impact on the commission, which could, in turn, impact all crofters. Therefore, amendment 38 proposes that the Scottish ministers should consult appropriately before using the power, including with the Crofting Commission and with representatives of both owner-occupier and tenant crofters.

I urge members to support my amendments in this group, and I move amendment 27.

I press amendment 27.

Amendment 27 agreed to.

Section 9—Meaning of “owner-occupier crofter” etc.

Amendment 178 not moved.

Amendment 28 moved—[Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 29 moved—[Beatrice Wishart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 30 moved—[Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 31 and 32 moved—[Beatrice Wishart]—and agreed to.

Amendments 179 and 180 not moved.

Amendment 33 moved—[Beatrice Wishart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 34 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 181 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

I will speak to my amendments 12 and 41. Amendment 41 would enable the Land Court to

“sist proceedings in respect of an application”

by a crofter to buy a croft, when the commission has issued the croft with a notice of suspected breach of duty. It would suspend the crofter’s right to buy in cases in which the commission was satisfied that the crofter was not complying with their duties. That would be achieved by providing that the Land Court

“must not make an order”

to authorise the acquisition under section 13(1) of the 1993 act in such circumstances.

Amendment 12 supports that approach by providing that, when the commission issues a notice of suspected breach of duty to a crofter, it must send a copy to the Land Court.

Those changes would prevent a crofter from profiting from their croft while they are in breach of their duties. There is no possible case for continuing to allow that possibility. The amendments ensure that duties cannot be sidestepped through a right-to-buy application. I ask the committee to vote for both amendments.

I move amendment 12.

I will merely press amendment 12, convener.

Amendment 12 agreed to.