³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Assignation is probably the biggest aspect, as that is where the vast majority of the commission’s time has been taken up. Bill Barron has worked in the commission, so I invite him to give a brief overview of the things that would eat into the commission’s time.

I do, indeed, have an opening statement.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. As you know, the bill has two main parts. I will begin with a short opening statement on part 1, on crofting. I will give a further short statement on the merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland later in the meeting.

The crofting provisions in the bill are the culmination of more than three years of stakeholder engagement. To date, there have been 20 crofting bill group meetings, and those will continue through the upcoming stages. The proposals that have been considered came from a variety of sources. They include issues that were previously identified by a crofting bill team between 2016 and 2019, many of which were drawn from the crofting law sump, issues that the Law Society of Scotland singled out for crofting law reform in 2019-20, and issues that were identified and raised by stakeholders over the three-year period. Over the summer of 2024, we carried out a consultation and officials ran 15 public events throughout the crofting counties, which were attended by 257 people. It is fair to say that the bill has not lacked stakeholder engagement.

It has been mentioned that the bill does not go far enough and that it does not address some of the bigger issues that exist, but the bill was never meant to deliver fundamental reform. Officials have made that point throughout the process. Crofting law is complex, and even when there is consensus that something needs to be changed, it is often difficult to reach a consensus on what the remedy should be. Developing proposals and identifying workable solutions requires time.

However, the bill is more than just a technical bill—it is also an enabling bill. It will give crofters more options for how they use their land, it will allow approximately 700 people to apply to become crofters, it will streamline the enforcement of duties in the family assignation process, and it will prevent those who are in breach of the duties from profiteering and removing land from crofting tenure. Landlords and subtenants will be able to report breaches of duty to the Crofting Commission, and crofters will be able to apply to the commission for boundary and registration changes.

Rather than being viewed in isolation, the reforms should be viewed alongside the work that is being done by the Crofting Commission. As the commission pointed out in its evidence, it is important to note the interplay between the legislation and the commission’s policy plan. The legislation provides the necessary framework and the plan provides the detail of how the commission will administer and regulate. The commission has advised that it has the legislative tools and the resources to carry out its functions, and the changes in the bill will further support the commission in its work in processing regulatory applications and tackling breaches of duty.

The bill prepares the ground for what comes next. It will help to lay a stronger, healthier foundation for crofting, whereby we aim to have increased residency levels and more people actively using their crofts and common grazings. We will then be in a better place to take stock and consider what is needed for the future.

I am happy to take questions.

That is a legitimate concern. Officials raised it at recent meetings of the bill group and the cross-party group on crofting, and we have begun discussions with stakeholders to try to resolve it. We are potentially looking to amend the bill in that regard. Michael Nugent can give you some background to the discussions that he has had on the matter.

I cannot give an answer to that one way or the other. My consideration has purely been about what the merger would deliver for crofting regulation.

Are you asking about transparency in relation to what grazings committees are doing on the land, which others do not know about?

Okay. You have touched on something that I do not have an answer to.

That is a very good point. I regularly meet Gary Campbell, the Crofting Commission’s chief executive officer, and the commission’s chair, Andrew Thin. We discuss crofting and the commission’s performance, and those two topics—enforcement duties and regulatory application, and processing times—are always high on the agenda.

It has been clear that the commission is increasing its enforcement work. Last year, the commission commenced engagement with 215 crofters and resolved 134 breaches of duty through taking some form of regulatory action. The level of engagement and enforcement is increasing further for the coming year.

Since the summer, the commission has been terminating tenancies at a rate of one per week due to unresolved breaches of duty. That is significant. You can see that the commission is now using its powers of enforcement. As the committee was advised by Gary Campbell and Andrew Thin during their evidence session, the commission is better resourced now than it was a few years ago. It is already taking greater action to enforce annual notice provisions. As Andrew Thin said in his evidence, the commission already has the legislative tools to enforce duties through the crofting census, and, if the census is not returned, the commission will now be taking action. If the census is filled in falsely, that will be fraud and action will be taken. Spot checks will be carried out on those who have returned their census.

For many years, the commission has been supported by the Government’s rural payments and inspections division when proper local knowledge has been required to advise on regulatory applications. More recently, RPID has also been acting on behalf of the commission in connection with duties and enforcement cases. We are using the existing network and local agricultural offices in that way because that is more sustainable. We are seeking to establish a parallel network of local commission offices.

The bill will help further through streamlining the enforcement processes, the family assignation provision and the enforcement provision against subtenants and short lease holders. That will enhance the efficiency and scope of the commission’s enforcement functions.

Gary Campbell gave the committee some quotes about the level of enforcement that the commission is carrying out now, which was not happening in the past. I hope that that gives the crofting community confidence that the commission is using the powers that it currently has through the extra resources that were put in a number of years ago.

I ask Michael Nugent to deal with the anonymity bit.

I am not sure that it is needed, but I will ask Michael Nugent to give his thoughts.

Crofters have the right to assign their croft, but only with the consent of the commission. The legislation sets out the process that must be followed before the commission decides on the application, which includes public advertising and the opportunity for local crofters to object. When a crofter wishes to assign to a family member who might already be resident in the community, our position is that the process is disproportionate. It costs the crofter and the commission time and money, and we want to reduce the burden of crofting regulation where it makes sense to do so. That is one of the things that came out of my trip around the Western Isles, where we talked about family assignations. The resources that will be freed up by the change will then be available for the commission to deploy elsewhere. We talked earlier about reducing the burden on the commission so that it will be able to carry out more enforcement duties, for instance.

We settled on a limit of three crofts because that felt like it struck the right balance between the policy intention, which is to improve the efficiency of the service that is provided to customers, and concerns that there could be croft collecting or land banking by certain individuals.

The main reason for not going with a hectarage threshold is that we are including any interest that the crofter has in deemed crofts, which do not have a set hectarage. It is normal and accepted for some crofters to run their business on multiple crofts, and we are not opposed to that in any way, shape or form. It is also beneficial to the community if there are opportunities for new entrants to take on a single croft. All that we are saying is that, if someone has three crofts or more, their application will be subject to the current process. The local community will be given the opportunity to comment and the commission will give it reasonable consideration.

No one crofting area will be disadvantaged by the three-croft rule. We want to make family assignation as easy as possible, but, if someone has three crofts or more, it is worth having another look at that to make sure that there is fairness in the community.