���˿���

As members of the committee know better than anyone, crofting law is unbelievably complex, and common grazings and the associated shares are probably the most complicated part of it. The policy intention is that there should not be any accidental or unintended separation of shares from the inby croft. Broadly speaking, everyone agrees with that.

We have listened to the views and concerns that were expressed by stakeholders before and during the evidence sessions, and officials have set up a common grazings sub-group, which has already met on two occasions. It is made up of crofting lawyers and members of the Scottish Government legal directorate, and it is working on a number of topics to resolve some of the concerns.

I will pass over to James Hamilton, because we are moving into the legal side of things.

In what sense?

It was never intended for this bill to deliver fundamental reform. It is technical in nature and provides the necessary improvements while enabling crofters to take control of how they use their land.

The future reform will absolutely be necessary, but I caution against rushing straight into it. We first need to establish what crofting policy should be in the future, and, similar to the approach that we took with this bill, we need stakeholders to consider what that policy is. Although it is ultimately the responsibility of Government to set policy, that should never be done in isolation. At the start of the session, you referenced how well that work had been done by the officials, who ensured that they were actively engaged with the stakeholders.

Once we have the views, we will need to see where they converge and where negotiation and compromise will be required. The discussions of the past three years have been informative and have led us to produce a bill that has had wide stakeholder input and buy-in, but they have also told us that there is a wide range of views out there.

From the consultation responses, we can tell that some crofters want more regulation, but an equal number of them appear to want less. Some stakeholders are asking us to review a crofter’s right to buy their croft, which is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, but more than 6,500 crofters have already exercised that right. Establishing clear policy outcomes will therefore take time and it will be central to any future wholesale reform.

From my travels around the country in the summer, I know that we were getting different views from different sets of crofters, each of which raised absolutely valid concerns, but a wide range of considerations will need to be given to any future policy programme.

As I said earlier, the bill gives us a solid foundation and a bedrock to go forward from. I am not going to put a timescale on when we will introduce new legislation. We are coming up to an election next year, and a whole load of things will have to be discussed between now and then.

I absolutely take on board the point that you and stakeholders have made that some people would like to see the reforms go further, but, as I say, others want less regulation. All that would need to be considered as a policy objective, and it is very much in my mind for when we see what happens next year.

Sorry?

I am happy to engage with anyone who wants to talk to me before stage 2—there is absolutely no question about that.

If the owner of the six deemed crofts is absent, they are not fulfilling their duties and it is up to the Crofting Commission to ensure that they do so.

That is a very pertinent point. It is the crofting communities themselves that want the changes to happen. They understand what their community is, and there is a requirement to be able to say, “This is a functioning ecosystem, which we all live and work in.” If people upset that, we need to have the ability to intervene.

The Crofting Commission has clearly demonstrated that the matter has now become very serious for it. The signal is being sent out to those who might have been a bit lackadaisical in the past that the situation is no longer acceptable and that, if crofting communities are going to function as they are supposed to, they will have to comply with the duties. That can only be a positive thing.

I do. I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence on part 2 of the bill, which makes provision for the merger of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and the Scottish Land Court.

The merger will create a one-stop shop for users, thereby offering a streamlined process that will be clearer and easier to understand and navigate. The rich history of the Land Court, which dates back to April 1912, and the affection in which it is held, especially in the crofting community, are recognised and respected in the bill. That is a key reason why the tribunal, which is itself a respected body with important functions, albeit one with a shorter history, will be joining the court.

The bill also seeks to preserve the traditional character of the Land Court. That includes maintaining local sittings and retaining the requirement for a Gaelic-speaking member.

Under the new arrangements, the composition of the bench will reflect the specific requirements of each case. There will be no dilution or diminution of expertise. The newly expanded Land Court will retain and, indeed, strengthen the depth of specialist knowledge that is available. The bill also provides for the expansion, by regulation, of the Land Court’s jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis.

Importantly, on-going proceedings will not be disrupted by the merger. The provisions have been designed to provide flexibility so that any transitional or implementation matters can be managed smoothly as they arise. Although the tribunal’s jurisdiction and functions will transfer to the court, the tribunal itself will not dissolve immediately. Its members will be able to sit in the court during the transition period. Full integration will follow through separate legislation.

Alongside the merger provisions, the bill will enable suitably qualified members of the merged court—and, on a transitional basis, members of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland—to act in the Upper Tribunal. Although the provisions are largely administrative, they will enhance the resilience of the Upper Tribunal by giving it access to a broader range of expertise when required. To ensure that that is done appropriately, there are a number of safeguards in place, which involve the chair of the court, the president of the Scottish tribunals, the Lord President and the members themselves.

In summary, the proposals in part 2 of the bill will bring about practical improvements, while safeguarding the proud heritage and expertise of both institutions. They offer continuity where continuity matters and change where change is needed.

I am happy to take questions from the committee.

The policy objective of the merger—which has been talked about for a very long time and has been looked at by various institutions over that period—is to give a streamlined structure to the current system. As I said, the merger will not result in any diminution of the ability of the tribunal or the court. In fact, it will enhance it, and that has been broadly welcomed by most people we have spoken to.

At this moment, yes.