Seòmar agus comataidhean

The minister has suggested that there is no free-range meat production in Scotland at the moment, but you referred to the work that was done on free-range eggs. Was any consideration given to a pre-application process, under which businesses could apply to market their eggs as free range in the event of an avian flu lockdown? For example, there could be inspections of the conditions in sheds or buildings that chickens or hens that would normally have been outdoors had been moved into in the event of a housing order. Those inspections could ensure that the conditions were of a standard that would allow businesses to market their eggs as free range under the legislation.

Let us say that I had a farm and my chickens were generally outside, but the housing that I had for them was far from adequate—maybe I had only a few sheds, which would make it difficult to allow them to have free range status, whether there was a housing order or not. Would there be any benefit to having a pre-application process so that businesses that could maintain standards at a certain level could apply and those that do not have any sheds could not?

Joe looks as though he might understand the question that I am trying to ask.

Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a report on the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next agenda item is an evidence session with the Crofting Commission on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. I welcome to the meeting Andrew Thin, who is the chair of the commission, and Gary Campbell, who is the chief executive. Thank you for joining us.

As usual, we have a lot of questions to get through, so I ask members and our witnesses to be as succinct as possible in their questions and answers, and I remind everyone—not that they will need reminding—that we have a gentleman here to operate the microphones.

I will kick things off by seeking your views on section 1 of the bill, which revises the duty on crofters to allow a third, distinct option for croft land: environmental use. At the weekend, a delegation of committee members visited Skye, and concerns were expressed about the potential for the term “environmental use” to be misused, given that it is so broad. What is your view on what that provision might achieve? Can you see any pitfalls with such a broad definition?

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—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?

We will now jump back to discussing the Crofting Commission’s powers, which is where we should have been.