Seòmar agus comataidhean

It would be fair to say that there have been universal concerns about the Crofting Commission’s enforcement. That is not about whether the commission has the teeth or legislation to back up the actions that need to be taken; it is about how often enforcement takes place and issues with capacity. We have discussed environmental use and the potential for crofters to have to put together plans. In relation to contentious areas where land has not been managed or has been abandoned or rewilded—that is probably the best way to put it—does the bill provide the opportunity for you to improve your capacity as a regulator when you have those additional requirements and tricky areas relating to whether land is abandoned or being managed?

I understand that some of the Crofting Commission’s responsibilities for registration are being handed to Registers of Scotland, so some capacity will be freed up. However, this time next year, if the bill becomes an act and you hit the ground running, will you have the capacity to ensure that environmental use is policed properly?

In relation to Emma Harper’s question, if there are multiple breaches, will that have an adverse or a positive effect on the commission’s workload? There is a good word for what we are talking about: “clyping” on your neighbour. At the moment, complaints are almost filtered, in that named groups are allowed to raise a complaint. For example, a common grazings group could receive a complaint, but it would probably inform the commission only if it thought that the complaint was valid. That level of scrutiny would be gone—66 crofters could all complain about one another. Have you got anything in place to ensure that that will not make things worse for you? You have set out how the changes will make things better, but is there the potential for your workload to increase?

On that theme, we have heard concerns about the grazings committees having had to take some rap from crofters that should have sat with the commission itself. They had to report, but they were not allowed to do so anonymously, and it caused quite a high level of stress in townships that are built on people’s ability to work together. What you have are committees coming together and effectively reporting—again, I will use the word “clyping”—on someone who is part of what should be a close-knit relationship. Does the bill allow anonymous reporting? How do you deal with that? Do you, as part of your work in looking at whether there has been a breach, have to name someone? Are complainants required to be named? Again, that is a difficult situation. If we are expanding the list of people, will there be some level of ano—anomon—[Interruption.] I cannot say the word. Anonon—anononmity—

Emma Johnston (Clerk): Animosity?

I inadvertently jumped forward by about six questions, as I got confused with Rhoda Grant. That is my fault—my apologies. We are currently looking at common grazings and we will go back to the Crofting Commission’s powers, but we will stick with common grazings for the moment.

I have a follow-up to Evelyn Tweed’s question about the transfer of grazings shares. The new legislation stops the inadvertent split or the decoupling of crofting land and shares in common grazings. We have heard that there are some concerns about that, because some people have common grazings shares in order to make up the critical mass for a viable croft. Someone may have 5 or 10 acres of inby land, but, if they are to make the croft work, they need a share of the 5,000 hectares of hill land. If the link is broken, the inby land may not be viable, because there might not be enough land to make the return that is required. Is there an argument that the default should be that the land stays together and that there should not be the option to split the share in common grazings land and the crofting land?

Okay. I will go to Rhoda Grant.

Are you happy that no further safeguards need to be put in place?

It is quite obvious that not double reporting transfers and the keeper being ultimately responsible for the registrations is a good way forward. I imagine that, in the future, there will be an opportunity for Registers of Scotland to overlay different maps, whether that is via RPID or future carbon credits or whatever—one place for that sort of operation would certainly be Registers of Scotland. It appears to be the commonsense way forward, along with using strengthened powers to rectify errors, as you have touched on. You are talking about it being a while away, but what other challenges might there be in that transition? What challenges might the separation bring for the commission?

Good morning, and welcome to the 26th meeting in 2025 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Before we begin, I ask members to please ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of subordinate legislation. I welcome to the meeting Jim Fairlie, Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, and the following Scottish Government officials: Darren Cormack, policy manager, livestock products; James Hamilton, lawyer; and Joe Kirk, poultry unit branch head. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Thank you very much, minister. I call Rhoda Grant.

If I have 40,000 hens outside but I have adequate and satisfactory housing for only 20,000, and then there is a housing order and I squeeze all of those 40,000 in—