 Rhaiddiw, wrth gwrs, i'n gweithio ar y 8 yma ar y Cymru i'r Rheolau Rhaolol Iconiaeth a Rhaol Llywodraeth. Rhaiddiw, rhaiddiw, yn ddod i'r cydwyddiol i ddim yn ymdweithio ar y ffordd ymlaen. Rhaiddiw, rhaiddiw, yn ymdweithio ar y cydwyddiol. Dyma, rhaiddiw, mae'n un iddynt yn y gwaith. Rhaiddiw, yma, mae'n ddwy gynllun o'r prydau cyfwyr o'r rhwng. We recognise as a committee that a considerable amount of work has already been undertaken to identify potential improvements to crofting legislation. What we as a committee want to do is hear from a range of those with an interest in crofting to allow us to make an assessment of the priority action that has so far been identified. To make recommendations on any action we consider necessary to progress and complement the reform process. Now, we are all conscious there are some very contentious issues regarding crofting at the moment that are being discussed in the media and elsewhere at the present time. The committee does not intend to stray into these specific areas and I would urge all committee members and indeed witnesses to focus on the legislative priorities rather than personalities. So, I'd like to welcome to the panel and I hope I'm going to get all these pronunciations right and I hope I do. First of all, Lucy Simpson from the Crofting Policy Manager and Regional Manager for our Garland, their islands, NFU Scotland. Patrick Kraus from the Chief Executive of the Scottish Crofting Federation. Donald McKinnon, Scottish Crofting Federation Young Crofters. Peter Peacock, Policy Director of Community Land Scotland. Murray McShane, Chair of the Crofting Policy Group, Scottish Land and Estates. Good morning to you all. Can I ask each of the witnesses briefly to outline the work that their organisations do in relation to crofting? Let's start with you Murray, do you want to go first? Yes, good morning. Scotland and Estates is a membership body and in this context our organisation represents the interests of land owners. Not exclusively by any means large landed estate owners with a crofting interest. Scottish Land and Estates has a membership which includes owner-occupier crofters which can be of a very, very small nature in terms of land size and value. We're a membership organisation primarily representing the interests of our group. My position I've very recently become chair of the Crofting Group this year. My background is that I am not a land owner, I am not a crofter but I am a solicitor in private practice. A lot of the work that I do and my practice does relates to crofting law and we represent crofters and land owners. Thank you very much, Patrick. Hello, good morning. I'm with the Scottish Crofting Federation which used to be the Scottish Crofters Union. We still operate to an extent as a union in that we're a representative body. We're the only organisation that is dedicated to representing crofters and crofting, i.e. that's all we do is crofters and crofting. We also have widen our emit since 2001. We now do development work as well. We're not simply a representative organisation, we're also a crofting development organisation. Our two main development projects at the moment are crofting skills training course and crofting connections, which some of you will be familiar with, working with young people. Thank you, Donald. I'm representing the Scottish Crofting Federation Young Crofters Group. We're a branch of Patrick's organisation, but we're seeking to highlight the issues that particularly affect young crofters. We've identified access to homes, land and jobs in the crofting areas, and these are the three areas that we try to promote and look for solutions so that we can encourage more young people to get into crofting. For those who are already involved, stay part of crofting. Thank you very much, Donald. Lucy? Good morning, everybody. I'm policy manager covering crofting for the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which, like both SLE and SCF, is a membership organisation. We have across the whole of Scotland about 8,500 members, but we do have over just under 800 specific crofter members. We also have landlords who are members, and also farmers who have a crofting interest. Quite often, we will have farmers who also have a croft as well. We have a Crofting, Highlands and Islands Committee, which I provide the Secretary for, and Sandy Murray, who is our chair, should have been here today, but he's unfortunate on holidays, so you've got me instead. We do a significant amount of work with our crofting members, and we've just completed a survey from them, which I'll not share with you some of the results of that later on today. Thank you, Lucy. Peter? Thank you, convener. Community Land Scotland represents the growing number of new community landowners in Scotland. We're only about six years old as an organisation, so we're much younger than the other parties represented here. We've got a growing membership of about 70-plus members now. Within that membership, we've only, comparatively, recently discovered that over 20 per cent of Scotland's crofts exist on community-owned lands. We're taking a closer interest in crofting as an issue for our members because the health of crofting very much determines the health or significantly influences the health of the communities that our members are owning and managing. I just want to make it clear that we are not representing crofters. We don't have a remit to represent crofters, but we're representing landlords in the context of community ownership. The work that we've been doing recently has been trying to work out from our members' point of view what is crofting there to do in the 21st century, what does it do to serve the ambitions of our community owners, what would need to change to serve those ambitions better, and what, therefore, are the limited number of things that we think ought to change in crofting to support those ambitions. We've got a quite narrow focus at present times, partly because of our organisational resources, but we'll get into the detail of all of that, I'm sure, as the conversation goes on. Okay, thank you very much. I mean, I'm sure you're all well aware of how this process works is that there will be some questions put, and I will try to get you all in to say your bit on every question. It's a question of managing time and to get through all the questions and say, I'll try and give you all equal opportunities to say something. If there's something that you feel is very important and you want to come in, I'll just make sure that you catch my eye and I'll try to bring you in. So the first question, I think, is from Rhoda. Thank you, and good morning. The Crofting Reform Act in 2010 changed the role of the Crofters Commission, indeed changed its name as well to the Crofting Commission rather than the Crofters Commission. How successful do you think that has been? Does there need to be changes to that role again going forward? Who wants to lead on that? Okay, Patrick. I'll have a go at it. It's a very interesting question because I think the two answers are yes and no. The SCF wanted there to be a majority-elected Crofters Crofting Commission. I think it actually changed its name partly because of the fact that we'd changed ours from Crofters Union to Crofting Federation with the idea that the remit was going to be wider and that the Commission was there for crofting as the Federation is there for crofting. I think in light of what's happened recently, it's shown that there does need to be a review of the Commission and we feel that the suggestions put forward by the Committee of Inquiry on Crofting, led by Professor Shucksmith, in 2007 I think the report came out. We really need to look at that report and keep it live because the suggestions that he had for how regulation can work and how the Commission can work, being much more devolved I think bears a lot of value still and we should be looking at that. I mean our opinion is that partly what has gone wrong with the Commission is due to it still being very centralised to there being too few people taking too much responsibility over decisions that should be happening at a more local level. I agree with what Patrick said. I think the other element of change that happened within the Crofting Commission was that it lost its developmental role. That was transferred to Highlands Alliance Enterprise, although when the transfer was made it was moved from crofting development to crofting community development. I think a number of organisations have felt that that maybe hasn't been to the benefit of crofters and all crofting and it has been raised at the cross-party group on a number of occasions. The survey that I had said that we just completed, which I've just done a bit of basic number crunching, we asked a question, did our members think that there was a role for a single organisation dedicated to crofting development which would be able to give advice and information to individual crofters and crofting communities as well as promoting the wider interests of crofting. Of the respondents, 67% were in favour of that, and interestingly enough, 57% were in favour of it being within the Crofting Commission or going back to the Crofting Commission. Only 17% suggested high and there was a random selection of others, including one of which was DEFRA, which I thought was interesting. I think that the whole issue of development and how crofting is taken forward is muddled at the moment and isn't very clear. Peter, do you want to? I suppose in many ways if the question is about the 2010 act in general, the commission in particular, I'll maybe address both, but in terms of the 2010 act in general, I think it's probably too early to say how successful or otherwise it's been in many respects because a large chunk of it was about registering crofts and registering common grazings and all the procedures around that, and that's under way and it's progressing, and whilst there are anxieties that people have about some of that in terms of the amount of effort that has to go into doing it, it's not the talk of the steamy so to speak that this is a problem necessarily. So from that point of view, it's probably quite early in its life as an act to work out whether that's right or not. The other part I was going to raise is the one that Lucy has just raised about crofting development because that's something that there is a clear gap on and our members are anxious about that because the focussing of the role of the commission on purely regulation by the 2010 act and moving away from that general view and general development of crofting, that development role ostensibly passed a high, but as Lucy said, high either interpreted it or been told to interpret it. I'm not sure which, it was about the development of crofting communities, not the development of crofting, and that means that people aren't addressing the modern art of how do you do crofting, what are the technical requirements, what's the best practice, what's the advice that you need to do certain things on crofting, how do you diversify, how do you make more income from your croft and all that kind of work where crofters and therefore the crofting community would benefit from that by improving how you do crofting then I think there is a big gap in that and we would like to see that gap filled. It is an open question how you do it. We don't have a view particularly on that. It could remain at high or it could go to the agricultural colleges, it could be a contract that's put out by government, it could go to a number of places but I guess the principal point to make is that there is, from our member's point of view, a definite gap in that crofting development function. I suppose that the wider question, if you may not want to get into this, it's now coming in a bit, Rhoda Grant's question raises this in one sense and Patrick touchon it to some extent. I don't think there's any doubt there's a debate beginning to happen or is happening within crofting beyond the technicalities and the legalities about do we need all this regulation? Is it or isn't it holding back the system? Questions about is it time to think about decentralising some of the decision making that the commission currently has? I don't think there's any doubt that if you go around the Highlands and Islands there is a difference of perception between Shetland, for example, in the Western Isles, about what crofting is and what its current features are. I don't want to get too far down that line because we are actually going to come to the regulation and I think you've identified a very important point and you'll very much get a chance to come in on that and how that regulation fits in with regional variations is very important. Can I stop you there without taking away anything from what you've said and ask Murray if he'd like to come in? I want to echo what Lucy said and what Peter said about the developmental role that was taken from the commission and I think that there's a clear gap there just now that more could be done in that respect. At a higher level, Scotland and the States is interested in sustainability, is interested in openness and is interested in predictability. Those words, to some extent, inform the idea that has emerged from what Patrick said and what Peter is saying about decentralisation. When things start to be decentralised, local democracy is great. No-one in the room would say that that's a bad idea, but if that's where the ultimate decision-making process is centred, then you may get one policy applied in Shetland and a different policy applied in Mull or in Islay or in Central Invernaeshire. That's the benefit of having one place, which is currently the Croft and Commission, around that. In relation to detail, Rhoda, your question asks about has it been good? I think that there are elected members of the Croft and Commission. Anecdotally, I've heard it said that there could be clarification around whether those members are there to represent a constituency or whether they are just put there because a constituency has elected them. There's been some confusion around that in the Croft and Public, if I can put it like that, and perhaps on the point of the members as well. There's been a query whether there is need for other specialist representatives on the Croft and Commission. I raise that because Scottish Land and the States recognise that there is an appointed member, not an elected member, for the landowner's interests already there on the commission and if they have a representative there, could there be room for other places? On another point, I commend the work that the Scottish Croft and Federation does. Peter talked about the need for people to be promoting crofting. I know that Patrick's organisation does a great job in doing that, and that's got to be commended. It's wrong to present a picture that nobody is talking about development or promotion of crofting. I think that the other thing that I would say is that it's good that there is a one-stop place for it if at all possible. By definition, you have before you five representatives, four of different organisations today, so is the system completely broken as it currently is? I don't think so. Are there improvements that could be made with the Croft and Commission and how it functions? Absolutely. Before I come back to reddit, representing the future here, you'll definitely have views about how crofting could be developed and encouraged. Do you want to share those at this stage, or would you like to share them later on? I'd just like to echo the rest of the panel. I think that the increase in democracy, the elected commissioners, has been a positive thing. It's led to an increase, hopefully, in accountability for those elected commissioners, which SCF young crofters welcomed. I'm also concerned about the development aspect of things, and I'd like to know more about what the HIE is doing for the development of crofting, and whether that has been a positive move or not, because I think that it's very unclear at the moment. Donald, when we see them, we will definitely be asking them as a result of this session. Reddit, do you want to follow up on that before I go to Stuart? Yes, if I can just have two follow-ups, if that's okay. First, on the role of elected members, there seems to be a concern that their role is maybe not that clear. Are they representatives of a constituency, or are they elected on to a commission to provide a different role that is not answerable to that constituency? I think that that makes it quite difficult for elected commissioners to work. Would you want to see a change to that role, to make it clearer as to... If their role as commissioners first and foremost, does the election work on that basis? Where does that all tie in? I'd be interested to hear. I see that Murray's catching my eye, and I just remind everyone that we're talking about roles, and I'm very happy to direct Murray on asking that or reminding him of that when he responds. Julie noted, convener. I wasn't going to stray. I didn't intend to. When you have elected people there, there's the tendency for things to become partisan. But I said earlier that it's good that there is a central organisation geographically. It doesn't have to be located in Inverness. It happens to be located in Inverness because it's the easiest place to get to across the Crofton counties. But it's good that there are people who come from different constituencies, if I can put it like that, in its broadest possible sense, into a central body query. Perhaps there's a need for more evidence on this in the process that's under wages now, whether the roles could be more clearly defined as to whether they are there to represent interest. Under the current system, they're not. They're just put there because they have been elected, but they've got a bigger remit which is beyond their own specific interest. I'm sure Patrick's got a view that he'll be happy to share around the empowerment of local communities in that. It needs to be clear whether that is the role of the Crofton commissioner if he's there representing his local constituency, if you like, or whether he's there with a bigger interest. I've been given an election, I'm here, and that's the end of it. I'm not the member for Russia and Sutherland or Central Highland, whatever happens to be carved up to be. I think there's a need for maybe more evidence on that before there's a knee-jerk reaction to say, well, policies should be. We abolish something that's central and go down a devolved way. In terms of the Scottish Parliament's intentions and the oversight for that, I think it would be much more difficult. If the system's difficult to understand just now, when you have a plethora of different decision-making bodies, it becomes just so much harder. It doesn't need to be made more complicated than it is already. I'm not sure if that directly has answered your question, but that's what I offer. I notice Patrick nodding. He'll probably want to come in. I don't want to stifle conversation. I'm conscious just we're on question one and we're at 20 past 10, so there's 14 questions or 15 questions without supplementaries in front of you. I would like to move on, but I'd like to ask you to make quick comments. Patrick, and then... My second piece which ties into that because we have commissioners who are there, unelected and not representative. We have different forms of crofting in different places. People say if you croft in Shetland and Croft in Sky, it's totally different things. Is there a way, rather than devolving the powers of the commission locally, is there a way of making commissioners more responsive to their electorate and reflective of their electorate when looking at how the legislation is and how things are regulated so that the crofting commission can be responsive to each of those different ways of crofting rather than having many commissions all over the place. I suppose that's what I'm trying to get thoughts about. Patrick, do you want to follow up and then I'll give Peter a chance to come in? Yeah, it's quite difficult to keep a short answer to this, but I'll certainly try. The way I look at it, and again going back to Shuck Smith, there wasn't going to be no central body, but those people in the central body were there on the mandate of their localities. I think I'm very much of the opinion that when the majority move in a direction, there's not a lot of point in trying to stand in the way and say no, no, no, it's not like this. The fact that people think that the commissioners are there as local representatives I think is justification enough to actually make them local representatives because all crofters think that the commissioners are there because they elected them, therefore they are there as our local representative. So it would make sense that the commissioners are local representatives. To give them a clearer mandate, I think that the devolution part of it would be just that there needs to be clearer local groups that are having discussions on the things that they want their commissioner to put forward to the commission. So I don't think it has to be a very complicated system. It's just about people meeting and talking to each other and giving those commissioners a mandate. Something that there's just two small points that I need to make. One is that I don't think that the way that the commission is described should be in primary legislation because we're stuck now. Supposing at this point where we're going into the second election we were thinking about doing it differently. Supposing we made the decision now to say, right, okay, they're going to be local representatives. We can't do that without changing primary legislation, which is crazy. So in the legislation there should be the intention of what we want the commission to be, but with the flexibility that in secondary legislation or however it works in a bureaucratic sense, we can change it and say, right, for this election we're going to do it differently without having to change primary legislation. And the other point I wanted to make is that I think that the commissioners are far too involved in administration and the actual workings of the commission. This whole, I was nearly getting specific about what's happening at the moment, but in a broad sense, commissioners shouldn't be sitting in local meetings and making decisions at local meetings. This is something that we have trained people in the commission to do. And so I would like to suggest that the model of board governance that's used in the third sector is a model that would be much more applicable. The commissioners should be there as a board and the duties are to ensure that the commission is following its remit, that it's carrying out its objectives, that it's staying legal, that it's being prudent, et cetera, et cetera. The rules, the trustees of third sector organisations have to abide by. I think we understand what you're saying there. Peter, can I ask you, I'd like to bring you in, but can I ask you to keep with your skills as an orator to keep it as short as possible, please? That's very noble of you. The point I was going to make was that in thinking back to the 2010 act and the conversations around that and the desirability of having elected commissioners, it was in a sense to make sure that the commissioners were attuned to crofters, that they understood them because they came and they were elected by them and they were ultimately accountable to them. It also provided for a guaranteed geographic representation on the commission. The tension comes, it seems to me, that the role they are nonetheless performing, not the standing they are elected, those that are elected, is as a regulator. It's not in a body with wide discretion. It's not like being in a local authority where you can make policy and make choices about how you regulate in terms of do we push absenteeism or purge and absenteeism for a while, or do we push registering common raisings or whatever it happens to be as an activity. You can't change the law, you're there to make sure that the regulation is implemented, but you do it with the sensitivity you have of being elected by crofters and being attuned to their interests and needs. I think it's the only regulator I can think of that's got an elected component. So there's a fundamentally different set of dynamics within the commission than would be in any other elected body, I would have thought. Can I just clarify, Peter? I understand what you're saying, but Patrick has said that he believes that they should have an oversight that the commissioners and help the commission perform their jobs without getting too involved in issues individually. Is that what you're proposing as well? No, I haven't really thought about that to be honest, but this is from not my knowledge within community land Scotland, but my broader knowledge of having dealt with some of these matters over the years that actually one of the best functions that commissioners used to perform was to go out to local meetings and sort out issues in the village hall and hear cases and hear what was happening. That seemed to deliver outcomes that people saw, witnessed, were able to make representations into and could see the decisions. So I'm not entirely sure that I would go along with Patrick in that sense, but this is a big topic in its own right, and it would require an awful lot more discussion before you could, I think, a light on a change to the current system. The fundamental tension is between an elected regulator. Thank you. I'm conscious that it's a big issue, and I think that the committee will need to deliberate on that and come to view on it in due course. Without wanting to stifle because I know that there are members, the people that want to come in, and I'm going to have to, if I may, just move this on because John Finnie's got a very important question on which he'd like to ask as well. Thank you. Good morning, panel. I'd like to ask about the register of croffs. Peter's already mentioned it, and we know that it's a process that's under way and covers assignation, de-crofting and subletting. Can I have the panel's views on the operation of it so far, please? Who's going to go first? Peter, why don't you start first? The only point that I would make is that because it's not something I hear about every day from our members, I guess it's going okay. I mean, it's not something that's absolutely... Sorry? You're referred to anxiety. I mean, people... it's quite challenging to do some of this and doing common grasings and so on. But those who have done it, they're seeing, you know, they've now got clarity about certain situations. But, I mean, it's not something that I certainly am hearing from our members that this is a big problem and it ought to be fundamentally changing. No, I think it's... people are learning how to do it, they're learning from experience. It is happening progressively. And so I don't rate it as a big issue right now, in that sense. Lizzie, would you like to... Well, Willie was a question from Mr Finnie. It's a point of clarification in terms of the register of croffs. Which is held by the Crofting Commission. And then there's the Crofting Register, which is held by Registers of Scotland. Which is to do with the mapping, et cetera. So it's the mapping. So do you have a comment on that? Yes. Having clarified, you've had a moment to gather your thoughts. I mean, Patrick, maybe say more, because they were more involved in some of the community mapping that went on. But certainly from our members' point of view, I think that the costs of doing it are something that they're concerned about. Also that any challenge can only be done through the Land Court, which for many is quite a sort of foreboding thought, and they just don't go down that route. I think it's early days yet on it. One of the specific issues that was raised, and again, this was something that was in primary legislation, which is problematic, is the whole issue of having to advertise twice in local papers. It's been raised in the Sump report, and it just seems to be over bureaucratic, really, to ask crofters to jump through those hoops. A lot of people will not have thought of it yet, because they haven't had to add a trigger event that will enable them to register. I think something that still is outstanding, and we might come on to, if we come on to talk about common grazings, is the mapping of the common grazings. And again, Patrick. Grazings, you may be assured of that, but slightly later on, if I may leave it at that. But specifically about the mapping, is that there was funding initially to map the whole of all common grazings, and that's come off to the Commission, we're going to do that. We've got serious implications in terms of the resource that's taken to do that, and now the funding has, well, certainly for the moment been withdrawn, so there are now no more common grazings being mapped. And I think there's certainly a disappointment from some people who are in the process, and also there's an awful lot of common grazings still to be done. I'm just working on the thing, Donald. Do you want to come in? Yeah, just picking up on Lucy's point about the public notification in the press. I think as well as being overly bureaucratic, that also represents a huge amount of money coming out of crofting. It costs a lot to put a wee notice in the local paper, and I think it needs to be looked at whether that's really necessary or not. Patrick? Lucy mentioned community mapping. We're still very much of the opinion that the register should be being populated through community mapping. Getting groups together in village halls to look at their assets and using it as a development exercise, as well as a legislative exercise. So we still think there should be a lot more community mapping going on and that the government should be helping with this. I know the registers of Scotland do actually have somebody, a project manager, but that's not enough. One person giving a bit of advice on community mapping isn't what we were talking about. Some hands-on trained people actually going out and helping communities to map and using mediators to resolve the disputes that inevitably come up. The adverts thing, I would just add to that because we're very much against this two adverts, but I would say again, why is that in primary legislation? An act as prescriptive as this. An act saying you will place two adverts is crazy. There's been quite a lot of complaints that we've heard of people saying that there's not enough information on the crofting register. That information theoretically lies on the register of crofts, but examples are things like access, access rights on crofts, number of shareholders, who are the shareholders. That information should be very easy to access through the crofting register, which is online, so you can see the map. You don't know who the shareholders are or what rights there are attached to that croft that there is the boundary of. The last thing is the grazings that need to be mapped. Murray, do you want to... Several points, if I may, convener. I'm starting with Patrick's last point about transparency. Make no mistake, we are on a road, we're on a journey as far as the crofting register is concerned, and not unrelated to this is the land register of Scotland, and the sooner the two registers are complete, the better. That will take at least another 10 years, but the process has been started. It's not like the old two Ronnie's sketch if you were going to get there while I wouldn't start from here. We are where we are and it's good. I think that there is a lot more information, like Patrick has said, that can be added to the register at a later stage. The question that Mr Finlay asks is around are there problems with the crofting register. There's one major problem, and that is that the registration of the common grazings has ground to a crashing halt. At the recent stakeholder's group, questions were asked about why that is, the crofting stakeholder's group, saying that it was because there is a lack of funding between registers of Scotland and the Crofting Commission. We are in the phase now where, I think, 333 or so of the however many common grazings there are, and someone in the room might have the statistics more than I have, but about 333 have been registered. We're now about to embark upon the hard cases. We're dealing with the crofting communities where there is disagreement, where there is a need for what Patrick says, of a mediator to come in and to deal with those problems. We'll never really be able to have a full and proper discussion until the crofting register is complete. So one tangible thing that this warning I would say that the Scottish Parliament can consider, this committee can consider, is the funding for common grazing registration. That is far and away. Because we're going to talk about this later on, it underlines the importance of all of that that one of the serious priorities should be getting that register complete. Mention was made about the land court. As a slister in private practice, I've represented appeal number 8 and appeal number 16, and I've got another case pending before the Scottish Land Court just now about common grazings. Does the system work? Yes, we've got a tried and tested way of appealing that it's there. It's not complicated. It may be perceived to be expensive and cumbersome, but it doesn't have to be. Anecdotally, I can tell you, as soon as a case is put into court, what happens, if people have good pockets deep enough, they might manage to slog it out, but usually it gets resolved very, very quickly, and that's helpful. It's a good system. It is not broken. We're on that road to getting it complete. As far as the cost of adverts are concerned, unless there's a control put on the free market and what a press agency is going to charge, that's not going to change unless the system's changed. If you change the system now, when there's so many croffs registered already, and we're sitting around 3,000 of 19,422, that gives you an idea of the scale of where we are in terms of croff registration. If you change the system now, on the people who have registered already, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. If the goal is getting the croff register complete, then maybe it does need to be looked at. Anecdotally, I wanted to come back. The cabinet secretary is coming in, so I'm sure that the question of funding will be raised with him. It's a very brief question. I'm conscious of others. Is there any role for high in any of that mediating that you say is required regarding this issue at all? Yes. I think that we should be using a mediation organisation, and there are several really good community mediation organisations in Scotland. Stuart, I think that you're next. 30 seconds of indulgence. My signature, as minister, is on the Crofting Commission election Scotland regulations 2011. I'll just direct Patrick perhaps in that piece of legislation. There might be the ability to change things which he's suggesting needs primary legislation. The schedule defines the constituencies, how many they are and what their scope is. It defines section 16, you can only stand in one constituency. It also requires candidates to submit a couple of hundred words of a statement to which they might be held accountable by their electorates later. It's very close. Basically, one of the things that we set out to be deal with was absentee land crofters and neglect of crofts. All the arrangements and the new have sought to address this. How successful have we been? Should we be doing more? I've been pretty good at starting at one end and working along. I'm now going to start in the middle and work outwards. Lucy, would you like to lead on that? Yes, thank you. At the end, if you, Scotland, put in our submission to the 2010 bill act, as it was, we were very much of the mind. It wasn't absenteeism, per se. It was activity that was the important bit. I think that is still our opinion. The Croft and Commission have put resources into their pursuit of absenteeism, but I think the issue of neglect and underutilisation is more significant in many cases. I think often that may be well what is stopping young crofters being able to access crofts is the neglect and not making use of crofts. I think there are issues around succession and enabling people to move out of crofts. I think there are also issues about allowing people to have multiple use of a number of crofts to make an economic and viable case. I think activity is a difficult one to define and I think one of the problems is that, as we know from the farming and recent cap negotiations, and I think that's partly why the commission may not have tackled it before now, it's just a resources, but how do you go on to a croft and judge whether it's neglect or not? I think there's a lot of work to be done about how you define activity. For crofting it's not just purely agricultural, there are multiple uses of crofts these days, but certainly the neglect aspect is a significant bit. Can I just come back before going to others on specifically do you not consider that the economic value derived from crofting should also be attached to the community, which is a broader community than a single Croft Air or Croft. In other words, that the person who's deriving the benefit from the crofting activity should be part of that community by residence. What you're asking to define is a comment on the 32 kilometre restriction and whether you think that's important. Yes, the NFU are saying the important part is the activity not where the person who derives benefit from the activity is resident. I'm just saying is that really what you're trying to say? No, I think the two go in hand because obviously one of the recognitions of the value of crofting is population retention and keeping people in populations. So you could have the argument is it better to have six families in six very small Crofts or do you have one person making a better agricultural economically viable unit out of six Crofts? So I think it depends on what you're to be clear about what your objectives are what it is you're trying to achieve and being realistic about what is possible on the ground because you can get six families into that community but there may be no jobs or there may be no housing or all these sorts of things coming to play as well. Donald, I know you're going to have strong views on this and we'd be delighted to hear them. I think the process is working and like Lucy mentioned it has focused on absenteeism at the moment which is obviously the easiest one to deal with because it's easy to measure the distance away from the croft and I think the way forward for it really is reminding Crofters about their responsibilities and their duties as a Crofter and trying to find ways of Crofters dealing with this themselves to sort out their situation whether that would be entering into like getting arranging a sublet of their Croft so that they're then fulfilling their duties in that we see that as a way for young Crofters to get into crofting rather than the commission having to go through a process of removing a tenant from a Croft which will obviously take a lot of resources and time so really I think that this is about encouraging Crofters to sort this out themselves but obviously with the sort of overlying threat that the commission may step in at some point. I think what Donald is saying is really, really pertinent that this is something that can be dealt with to an extent in the communities themselves. I think the point that Stuart is making about absenteeism being important to the community or rather occupancy being important to the community and absenteeism damaging communities is a really important point. I know that in our submission to the bill we also say the same as the NFU made the point that neglect is probably more important than absenteeism. So saying absenteeism does affect communities I mean we're very much against amalgamation of Crofts and enlargement of Crofts and that's something that can happen from absenteeism but if too many Crofts are left unused that the temptation then is to amalgamate them and then as Lucy said you've only got one family then instead of a potential of six or ten or however many which is something that's almost a definitive aspect of Crofting that Crofting has populations in remote areas so that's a very important point. This ties in as well with the community mapping idea that we're talking about because Crofting communities if they map their assets they can see then which Crofts aren't being used which Crofts are absent and they the community can decide what are we going to do about this and very often I think it's about incentive it's about asking the commission to help bring Crofts back into use to provide support to people who have Crofts and they're not using them we used to have a Crofting new entrance scheme and maybe there wasn't enough money involved in it but everyone remembers it as something that was a positive force in getting people to give up Crofts that they weren't using because the new entrance scheme staff would actually go out to Crofts and help them and explain that there are people out there that want the tenancy of your Croft and we can help you to pass that tenancy on to a young person like Donald for example and don't be scared of this and a lot of people are sitting on Crofts because they're worried, they don't know how it all works so it could be a positive thing Before I come to you Murray John wants to add something to this that I love in a city so I do not know about Crofting and this is fascinating listening about it today but as an outsider I'm just interested in what Donald some of the things you were saying we don't tell people in the city how to use their land we don't tell farmers how to use their land why should we tell Crofters how to use their land I mean it's a good question does anyone want to go ahead above the parapet could I ask you to do it shortly and then I'm going to ask Murray and Peter to come in on that point Patrick, very briefly Very briefly I would just say look at council housing and housing associations they do tell tenants how to treat their houses and tenants can be evicted for lack of use or misuse of a public asset like a council house or a housing association house it's the same thing, it's a regulated system OK, that's a very good answer Murray John Rees-Nass is a very, very probing question which goes right to the heart of why the Crofting legislative system is the way it is today and that's a big political football to kick around but it's one that I would urge you all not to lose sight of I'm not going to supply the answer except to say that Scottish land and estates attitude is simple, is good understandable, predictable is good so any system that leads to uncertainty is not good Lying behind Stuart Stevenson's question was is absenteeism the big elephant in the room is that the big problem SLE's view is no it's absolutely not an earlier stage SLE had said use is more important, that's a view that's already been mentioned and that remains the situation what Donald has described is really, really pertinent and you need to be aware of that that within the current regime because absenteeism and land being put to a purposeful crofting use in terms of the legislative parlance schemes are devised to ensure that absenteeism isn't a problem and what's the end result of those schemes people like Donald, as Donald has said are being given the use of a sublet of a croft now you can argue the rights and wrongs of that but is there a big problem I don't think there is if you were to ask somebody from the crofting to commission to give you statistics around absenteeism I think they would tell you from the census that there is around 800 or so absentee crofters you might have heard that figure anecdotally if you've got just under 20,000 crofts or 19,500 crofts you might think that's a big problem if the pressure were to be increased and something done about the absenteeism what's going to happen are there 800 people looking for crofts Patrick would tell you how many people he's got on his organisation's books looking for a croft it's not 800 is it a problem no recently I met the previous chair of the crofting commission and she was asking if Scottish land and estates have members who would be willing to work with the commission in identifying crofts which are vacant or have fallen into neglect and that's a process that Scottish land and estates are actively looking at we're canvassing members to say can we actually help solve the problem because we're not interested for land and crofts to be sitting unused but is this the biggest problem no it's not Thank you Peter if you've got something fundamentally different to add I would welcome it but I would ask you to keep it as short as possible I think that coming back to Stuart's original point I think both residency and use are important you could have people who are resident so both are significant when we looked at the crofting for our members point of view creating new crofts and we would say there is a demand for new crofts and there's nothing more frustrating than somebody wanting a croft and seeing an abandoned croft or a neglected croft or just an underused croft and that creates real tension that partly answers John Mason's point that's why in the modern day you require people to use purposeful use because there are people who want crofts but when they have created new crofts which some have the demand has been double what the supply was so there's a person sitting behind me in the audience from the Ascent Foundation they've recently asked for expressions of interest for new crofts and I think they've had 18 from the immediate locality which is within a defined area similar to the absentee definition of residency and there's another almost 18 or 20 from beyond that area and that's a significant demand in an area and we've found the same in Galson we've found the same in Mull where people have created crofts demand is running well ahead of supply and there's difficulties but creating new crofts will come back to that but I guess that's the main point that answers John Mason's point is that when there is demand and we think there is then you need to make sure that the existing crofts are purposefully used or made available for other people to use in the economy of an area that's what's significant for our members, creating new crofts doesn't add to their bottom line as a business it detracts potentially from the bottom line there's nothing in creating new crofts for a landowner in terms of their absolute financial bottom line there's a huge amount in it for the development of the economy creating more units that are active creating more disposable income in the economy helping the supply chain for agriculture school places and so on that's why these matters are important Peter, thank you I just remind you, short is short that was quite quite long well maybe I will be spared the benefit of that today I want to move on to the next question if I may which ties into this which is from Peter I'd like to ask the members about the fact that something like 28 per cent of crofts are owner-occupied and what are the panel's views about the measures in the 2010 act which sought to ensure that owner-occupied are crofters of the same rights under subject to the same obligations as crofters who have remained as tenants I'm going to ask Patrick to go first on that sorry, I know you think I'm being difficult but we have got a huge amount to get through so that the more succinct dancers would be very much appreciative Patrick I think the point that you raised is really important that we need to look at what the intention of the legislation was and the intention was that anyone who occupies a croft should be defined as a crofter because prior to the 2010 a crofter was a tenant whereas now there should be anyone who occupies a croft is a crofter subject to the same rules, regulations and privileges that all crofters enjoy which is going to have problems which Murray's going to say I think by looking at his face I am like the person who is sitting in the school exam and realises that their question has come up that they have revised and revised and revised for so I thank Mr Chapman for the question The one thing that the Crofting Sump report talks about is the need to simplify the problems around this owner occupation I do not understand why owner occupiers still are working under the crofting regime My big idea and evidence will be coming in about this and how this would work in practice is that once someone a crofting tenant and remember when crofting started it was a landlord-tenant relationship now we've moved on 40 years ago right to buy was given I'm not advocating right to buy being removed but upon right to buy being exercised why is an owner occupier still within the crofting system there is it seems to me no good reason for that to remain there are details on the common grazing share that pertains to that crofter who and the croft that has he's exercised his right to buy but when someone has exercised the right to buy why should he be any different from any other landowner in Scotland when someone exercises the right to buy or a council house when that regime was in play did the local authority then have any say over them after that why should there be any change now there's been lots of clamour for simplification so the big news that I come to this committee with today is that if you want something to get your teeth into make this change there's no amount of legislative change is going to solve the problem codification of the legislation it's not just like unholy broken lots of people might disagree with that because they don't seem to understand it but as a lawyer in private practice it's not any more complicated than lots of other branches of Scottish legislation today but this one thing would make a big big difference I go on to Peter who I know is going to have views on this just wants to add something just wanted to be clear if SLE are thereby in that statement is associated with the sale of heritable assets because that's what I appear to be hearing that's a question that I can't answer and I'm happy to take that away I've come with my hat on as chair of the crofting group so I'm afraid that I can't supply an answer here maybe we could ask you to submit an answer to that Peter just before we move on I could ask Moray does that mean that you believe that crofters who have now bought their crops shouldn't get the extra grants that are available to crofters there are advantages to being recognised as a crofter as well as potential difficulties you're saying they should be treated as any other landowner does that mean that the extra grants that are allowed in the crofting areas would go away from these folks that are permitted to give a political answer I will come back with the detail of that in a written submission because that is a practical problem if someone's taken a grant as a crofting tenant under the current regime within a certain number of years it has to be repaid if the ownership goes somewhere else now there's detail there and I don't want to be fuddle the issue just now with detail but I want to come back in evidence with a fully thought through why should they be any different to any other landowner in any other part of Scotland Murray, you're going to come back and specifically when you're thinking about things like the crofter's bull scheme house grants and all those things that are... I'm going to go to Peter and then I'm going to come to Lucy It will be your encouragement not to answer a question but Murray having said that he's distinctively nervous about Murray's approach to us now I'd have to really think hard about why that is but it's partly caught up in Stuart Stevenson's question but I think that it's a very fundamental issue about the entire crofting system legislation was only approved five years ago to make the situation as it is today and I would be extremely cautious about moving away from that without some very very fundamental thinking about that and the impact on the entire system as you haven't unlike Murray had the chance to revise on this and beg for the question to come up I'm sure we would welcome a written response by the time you've had a chance to consider it Lucy Just one small point of clarification for Peter Chapman is that in the recent new SRDP there is now a small farm scheme so it could be that a crofter who stops being a crofter would then be eligible for the small farm scheme it's just that it doesn't mean that they're necessarily excluded from the grants that are available It's got something to say I'm quite concerned by the suggestion that owner-occupair crofters would come out of crofting and I think it sounds like it could lead to the breaking up of crofting communities if you have one croft that's in crofting and then the next one is an owner-occupair one and is no longer a croft that could lead to the fragmentation of communities and the townships and I'm quite concerned about it Okay Can I just add a very tiny comment? I think that we need to be led by crofters on this and I think Lucy her organisation certainly ours as well have our mandate from our members who say that they want crofting to remain a regulated system Okay That comment's noted Mari, I think that you've got a question you'd like to go with You have already mentioned some of the recommendations that came out of the crofting law in some final report and I believe that there were 57 issues identified that need to be resolved in crofting law So it's just really to ask each of the members if you agree with those 57 issues that were raised if that covers the majority of the technical issues that there are or would there be any other issues that you'd be aware of that should be looked at as part of that That's quite a detailed and in-depth question and if there are issues that you'd think about subsequent to the committee meeting and giving evidence we would of course welcome those to be given to us in writing I would like to start on that Peter, I have to give it to you I mean, those people who have been sitting looking at this for a long period of time are the experts in crofting law and I would not second guess them on that if they say that they are problems as far as we are concerned most of these people have forgotten more about crofting than I've certainly ever understood so I think we should take them at their word on that The issue for me is that this is a report really about technical issues rather than policy issues we tidy up all the technical stuff but are there wider policy questions and for us there are potentially and we're still looking at the detail of this and we will advise you about that but for example, there are issues around the creation of new crofts that we're coming across that could be, there are probably policy questions but we've yet to bottom that out there are issues potentially now around grazing committees and the clarity about how they are governed and so on from recent events there will be a policy question rather than a technical question there are still issues around how difficult it is for crofters to get mortgages for example so these are more policy questions and I think that's where I would suggest that there are perhaps a wider agenda but for that agenda I would go with what they are saying Patrick I would agree with Peter on the fact that there was a lot of work when into forming the sump and organisations contributed to it so I would say yes certainly it's probably 99% of what needs to be dealt with I think the recent stuff about common grazings has highlighted a couple of things about how committees work and so on so eventually that will probably be something there will be points there that will be added to the sump and there was an interesting one that the recent stuff brought up where crofters appealed to the Scottish Land Court because that is the root for crofting appeals and then the Scottish Land Court had to say we can't make a judgment on this because we don't have the authority on this particular point of law so that's probably something that would need to be changed I think Marys question is appropriate in the sense that some of the people are very involved in the sump report coming in to give evidence next week and so I think it's very helpful she's asked this question and that you're responding so that we can ask those questions when we see them next week so is there anyone else Murray you want to? As Peter and Patrick have said I'll add our voice that written evidence will come in in an answer about this but I've mentioned one thing already on our occupation and that is a current issue but beyond that there's other issues too in a very short while can I just say that and just because we are seeing people next week if there are things that you think the committee could helpfully have sight of or knowledge of before that meeting you let us know that would be very helpful I know it's a very short timescale but we appreciate it OK Lucy sorry I saw what happened It was really just I think it is very comprehensive what the sump has come up with and yourselves and SCF and Nesli were partners in that group that drew it up but it was it was very technical and it came from the lawyers and from the Cofting Commission themselves and the sort of situations that they were coming across and maybe I don't know situations you've got coming up but one of the questions again we asked in our recent questionnaire was about crofting legislation we asked our members if did they think it should stay it is be consolidated, be reviewed, simplified and modified, start again or abolish completely and the vast majority 60% were in favour of being reviewed, simplified and modified and I think it touches on a couple of times it's been mentioned in the session this morning that just shouldn't be there so while there's great validity and what's in there I think at the time it was written with the idea that these anomalies would somehow be rectified maybe through consolidation I'm not sure that we had in our mind specifically that we were looking at simplification and modifying it and being conscious of the policy the policy aspects that we actually wanted to deliver through it so I think it's just something to bear in mind was there something there to look at consolidating the crofting acts or is what we're now looking at something more or less starting and fresh maybe not with a completely clean sheet but modifying and simplifying what we've got No one's catching my eye Murray you had a follow up about priorities Yeah because obviously there were priorities identified out of that list of 57 and it was just really to get your opinions on that as well those are still the priorities in terms of modifying that legislation or if you think in that period of time the priorities have changed My point of view I think that I would repeat the point I made that I think that the way they've narrowed it down is probably fine I don't have a problem with all of that it's the issues that have come on to the agenda since and I think the greasings the work that's going on in greasings at the minute if that shows there's new bits of legislation of not just a technical change but actually to do things differently then I would give that a pretty high priority for the reasons that are coming on to me I'm going to leave it there Murray are you happy with that I'm not going to turn to the issue of common greasings if I may and I'm going to ask a question on this if I may and I want to stress at the outset I want to leave aside any local issues relating to this and any things that are going on at the moment and really what I want is a feel from you is whether the common greasings is working right there are issues I think that you may wish to talk to you regarding the composition of the common greasings committees the the split of the shares in the common greasings and whether it's right that those could be held separately to a croft and be interested to your views on that I also think that how the apportionment has panned out whether that is now the best way to serve the community and the final issue is the issue of how the money is held in there and the relevance in the common greasings committee the funds they have and whether you think that there are issues relating to tax and who is responsible for that there are fairly meaty issues and I would ask you please just to bear in mind that we are trying to get a feel for common greasings across the whole of Scotland and the Croft and County is not about individuals I don't know who wants to start with that Peter is not shying away I don't know whether he is scratching his nose but it's coming to us Happy kick-off I think that this is a really significant issue for crofting and crofting communities and I guess it comes back partly to the point that Stuart Stevenson was making earlier it's about how vibrant and active a crofting community is as a whole and if you want to have vibrant active crofting communities which we do for broad economic reasons you've got to have as part the mix there an active grazing committee and if you don't have that and I guess that we are increasingly aware of the potential of common greasings that might not yet have been realised for a whole range of diversification purposes as well as for traditional purposes and we know that there are many grazing committees that are inactive or out of office and that ultimately that cannot be good for the system and so on so I think that they are fundamentally important to the whole way in which the crofting sector and the crofting communities work on their attention I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which without getting into the recent events the recent events have made people really worry about are the things that we've been doing doing in good faith doing with the consent of the majority in our community are we now in danger in some way are we in jeopardy in some way from what we've been doing and that all needs to be clarified confidence needs to be given back to the system that with the commission as I understand it now and that will give a clue to the much of the detail that you've touched on I guess the other thing that I would have suggested and it touches on other points that have been made already about the system as a whole to me how grazing committees work is largely a matter for the grazing committees where you see them at their best these are common sense people doing common sense things with consent and they should be left to get on with it the less we interfere the better it's a very localised form of democratic control of local assets and they should be determining their own rules and procedures and operating and only when they significantly are believed to have aired might there be some reason for intervention but otherwise give them confidence to put the effort in to make sure their community is working effectively and give them a high degree of trust that what they are doing is common sense magical and acceptable locally Lucy, do you want to go on that and maybe somewhere in there you could weave in whether you think the common grazings producing an annual report to the commission is appropriate as well Thank you We've recently done some work with members on Sky on looking at common grazing and we've had a couple of workshops and as I said we've just done this survey I'd just like to read a couple of quotes for you that have been signed from the survey and as long as it's not too personal or not personal at all I think it just kind of illustrates the variation across the country so the first one is our common grazings have always been very well run and managed and has gained us a great deal through environmental schemes and through other means and we would be very much worse off without it the second one and I'll say this is from mainland Scotland so not from any of the islands it is run by a clique of bullies who manipulate control and prevent new entrants from using the grazings effectively the rules are made up to suit others and the clerk is regarded as an overlord who tells everyone what to do we try to raise it in effect to change and use the regulations properly but it's becoming very stressful and disheartening I cannot comment on the present but my recollection when I was younger was that there never seemed to be a problem and people seemed to get along and agree much better and just in relation to the questionnaire we did ask a question about where people share holders in their common grazings and one of them was how satisfied are you with how your common grazings is operating so first of all 54% reported that they weren't actually shareholders in their common grazing but those that did respond 48% 34% were either very satisfied or satisfied with how their common grazings were working 8% had no comment and only 10% were very dissatisfied so I think it's important to remember and maybe to put that in context that while there has been a lot of press about common grazings the majority I would say are working well but I think there is an issue about rebuilding the confidence and taking people forward with the confidence that they can work with their common grazings and that they can work well and I think there are some overarching principles that need to be accepted and Peter alluded to the work both I think all the stakeholders here are involved with the Croft and Commission in drawing up sort of best practice guidance for common grazings but importantly I think there needs to be an attitude of openness and transparency there should be some sound financial recording and accounting and I don't mean full accounts as with the business but as with any other voluntary group and that best practice procedures should be followed I think there are issues about active and inactive shareholders I think that's a really crucial one and how that circle is squared as it were I think renumination of grazing clerks is another, I think they tend to be undervalued in the amount of work that they do but ultimately the committee should be answerable to their shareholders and that's important in terms of the report that grazing committees are under the duty to do as far as I understand and the commission will be able to confirm this I'm not sure that any have actually been done yet and I think it will depend very much on how that grazing committee works locally as to how comfortable they feel about putting something in I think much of this it will very much depend on personalities on the ground and within a community you have a whole range of different personalities and you will get people who will work well together in your works and in other situations where it just doesn't so that's just my point Donald, it would be interesting also to have your take on the point that Lucy just made about inactive members with shares in the common grazing so from a young crafter's point of view on that point I think that does present an opportunity for and on to your second question which was around holding shares without a croft that is an opportunity for young entrants to get into crofting as if somebody isn't using their share that perhaps that could be used by a young entrant into crofting and that could be an entry route in for them on grazing committees I think Peter made a good point there about how important they are to crofting communities and how they become a focal point within the township and although in the legislation and in the draft the template grazing regulations that the crofting commission produce their role is quite limited to running the grazing and regulating the grazing I think that there's a potential there for a wider development role that grazing committees should be prevented from doing that if there's agreement with the shareholders an example might be creating a a silage park or something like that where it could produce collectively produce winter feed for their animals that sort of thing I don't think that that would be a bad thing for a grazing committee to be able to do but possibly might fall out with current legislation that is held I don't see a problem either with the grazing committee holding money on behalf of the shareholders if the shareholders are in agreement with that it makes much more sense than trying to recoup the funds when a project is developed like a building a ffanc or make building roads to get money from each individual shareholder would be very difficult Thank you Donald Patrick, do you want to I agree absolutely with what Donald said and he said it much better than I could say it I would just add to it then maybe that that I think there's there's a lot of models business models of social enterprise that could be looked at and in fact in the in the legislation regulations stakeholder meeting that has met once so far and it's going to meet again next week or the week after this is something that came up in that that there are business models that grazings could adopt and that would help with this having a clear constitution how to manage money how to be accountable at different levels of income so having models that already exist could help a lot with how grazings work I think on the question about whether shares can stand alone and not be attached to a croft is an interesting one over the last few years particularly it's been discussed a lot because it's certainly in common knowledge I don't know I'm not clear whether originally in the law shares were always a pertinent to a croft this is what I was told that shares were a pertinent to a croft you had to have a croft to have a share in the grazings and then over the last few years it's been defined legally that shares can exist by themselves and I think there's certainly the feedback I get from our members on that there's a lot of regret about that and that the original concept of shares being a pertinent to a croft was favoured and it's caused all sorts of strange situations where crofts flow about shares float about by themselves not least in the register of crofts as well the crofting register where there's deemed crofts that can only be illustrated on a map by a cross I think that Stuart wants to come back just this is new to me can shares be owned by someone other than a real person if you don't know, you don't know I would have to refer to a lawyer if it's my turn anyway I think that the point Patrick makes and that Donald's making on those shares that are detached from the croft is that it may be preventing the full benefit of the grazing being enjoyed by the township and certainly what I'm hearing is an expression which I thought we'd got round which was slipper farming but slipper crofting I don't know if that's relevant but Murray, perhaps you'd like to comment on that Crofting law sump talks about that as being a specific issue that needs to be addressed so I think the answer is maybe there already I had thought if you'd pinned me to the wall and asked me to answer the question I don't think they can be held by a non-natural person but because the authors of the report have said that needs to be addressed then I would be inclined to think it's maybe possible to address that issue or a concern SLE's position in relation to the question about should shares be a separate tenement or tied to a croft SLE are broadly neutral around that but common grazing are really, really important because and again going back to parameters as to what a common grazing is it's a piece of land that is owned by a land owner or an individual or whoever and there are rights given over that land the problems that we've been alluding to in talking about specifically this morning are because there's been a shift and modern life has moved on from where the crofting act started a shift away from agricultural use of common grazing to diversification into alternative energy use into hydro schemes, into wind farms into environmental schemes and these are all part of modern day life in Scotland are the common grazing regulations fit for purpose where you've got a group of crofters who are doing the job because their father did it and their grandfather did it and their grandmother did it and they're being asked then to manage in some circumstances tens of thousands of pounds is it fit for purpose? No, it's not fit for purpose Patrick's already said there is work going on with the Crofting Commission and Patrick and I are both involved in looking at that and coming back to the model and saying are there things that can be done within the current regulations and if there's not then I suspect of course I know that there will be recommendations given as to how the model could be changed but if I may just one last thing regards common grazing it's really the key point that owners can be and should be more engaged than they are in the system because they are like it or not they are invested in the system, it is their land now are there more things that can be done to collaborate with landowners by crofters absolutely is that something that SLE is promoting to landowners absolutely to say that there should be but it shouldn't be overlooked at the fact that in the current regulations an act there is provision now for alternative uses on the common grazing and there are schemes that are happening beyond the traditional take it out of common grazing for forestry and these schemes are on-going so I'm not suggesting that the legislation's broken far from it but I'm just saying that there's more that can be done and I certainly would want to say to the committee SLE are looking to promote that to their members and to see the good results of that in future Peter has got a supplementary that you want to ask him and please I would like to ask the panel just for clarification I've been a farmer for 45 years but I farm on the east coast and I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs of the crofting system but I'm interested to know who claims the CAP money BPS and environmental scheme money is that claimed by the grazing committee or is that claimed by the individual crofter on his own right I mean how does that work Before anyone answers that question I'm looking for a definitive answer and if we can't get a definitive answer and the only reason I'm saying this is we are three quarters the way through our time and we're halfway through the questions does somebody have a definitive answer Murray it's not the landowner in my understanding it would be the landowner would put his grazing share on his IAX forum and that would be part of his payment but the grazing committee could claim SRDP money on the common grazing How is that money held and then distributed to the various crofters involved That's really the issue for contention at the moment is that the suggestion is that it should be paid out immediately to the shareholders but in most circumstances I would imagine that it would be held by the grazing committee and then spent on development in the grazing which I would tend to agree with Lucy I think what that also raises there is there have been some fundamental issues about the disconnect between the rules and regulations that ARPD work under under EU regulations and what is required under crofting regulations and I think going forward that disconnect needs to be looked at in some detail I don't know if some of you may have come across this report which has done a number of years ago trends in common grazings which was done prior to the latest SRDP and in that it very much calls that crofting common grazings should be looked at in their own right within the development of agricultural policy I have to say I don't think that did happen and they were kind of bolted on at the last minute so I think there is some and particularly as we go into a new era potentially in terms of agricultural support there is an opportunity to look at common grazings in their own right and how they are best supported depending on what you want to achieve with them I'm going to move on there and I just thank you all for keeping that in the way that you did and ask Richard if he'd like to ask his next question To set the scene the crofting legislation stakeholder group was set up by the Scottish Government to consider the Sump report number of issues basically unfortunately no parliamentary time in session 4 to complete those and now we have the programme for government 2016 committed to work began working on a national development plan for crofting can I ask the panel have any of you been asked or are you presently working on this national development plan for crofting and if you are what are your priorities for this plan Patrick Sorry No is the short answer we haven't been asked to work on a national crofting development plan yet but the idea of there being a national crofting development plan is something that we put forward at the beginning of the last session of government actually so it's really heartening to see that this government is saying yes there does need to be a national plan we have put forward our five actions for crofting that came from a lot of discussion and debate and conferencing not least in the conference that we held at the beginning of the end of last year actually the future of crofting and the five actions we came up with targeting financial support simplifying the law making crofts available making croft housing available and having a lead body on crofting development now if I could sorry just go back to Shuxmith and this idea that crofting development was going to go to HIE actually what the Shuxmith committee recommended was that there needed to be a unit set up based on the very successful community land unit that was under HIE at the time and the community land unit I mean Peter has been involved in this for a long time and the community land unit has really helped to enable community buyouts and so the vision was that crofting development would come under a unit such as that so it would be the crofting development unit Can I ask you to focus you've asked the first part of the question which was have you been asked and I believe the answer was no and the second thing was what are your priorities I'm very happy I'm very happy if you want to leave it there rather than suggest the way you would see that implement it because I suspect the Government may have views on that I'll leave it there with the five actions we're crofting Peter, Lucy and then Mary at the end Donald at the end so you come last Donald but not least Yes we are we believe we're involved we have been asked we're part of the stakeholder group and we regard that as the route into the development of the plan we had a meeting with the minister a few weeks back and he was very keen to encourage us to say what we wanted to see in that development plan we think it's a good idea to have that I guess the question would be who delivers on it in the end of the day and as long as those things are particularly who is responsible for delivering on that in the end of the day as long as that's clear we would have thought that this would help drive the future of crofting for our part we want to see it in touch on how you create new crofts how you support new entrants into crofting the stuff we've touched on the grazing committees particularly how you make grazings or bring grazings into more purposeful use and more diversify use over time the crofting development point we would want to see in fact the national plan implies that there should be some crofting development effort into the future and so on and so forth so we've got a pretty clear agenda but we think we've got the opportunity to push that through the stakeholder group and we're certainly not finding any barriers to making our point of view known Lucy? Yes I would just echo what Peter says certainly through the crofting stakeholder forum we have been working on these priorities we set five initially but we actually just in this last year have added common grazings as a sixth priority to be worked on and currently members of the stakeholder forum we've divided up into subgroups and each subgroup is working on a paper to bring forward and certainly my understanding from Scottish Government was that that was to do the ground work for a national development plan so I think we are involved and we have been formalised but that's kind of where we are I just wanted to check that Patrick's organisation is part of the crofting stakeholder forum that others have referred to Sorry my answer is that we haven't been formally asked to develop a national but you've been exposed to the same invitations and discussions as well and we are part of the group helpful thank you Mary Just what Mr Christ has said, her answer is the same we are not officially formally asked but we are very engaged in terms of priorities I hope I have tried to say the land owners interest in relation to a part of a croft whether it's a tenanted croft or an owner occupied croft the landlord's rules are limited always to say that the landlords aren't interested but across the panel well the three to my left were perhaps more reactive than proactive but collaborative working is important and the common grazings issue is certainly important to land owners and as it happens I'm charged with writing the paper for the stakeholders group but we'll come back to that on another day Donald I don't attend the stakeholder group myself but another member of the group does and I'd imagine that they have been involved in the early stages of this plan I think we would probably have similar priorities to what Patrick outlined basically the same around access to land, housing those things but I'd like to add on to that that quite often when we're having these discussions we leave out the agricultural side of things and that any development plan for crofting should include agriculture and an emphasis on how crofts are going to be actively used and developing that within the crofting counties sorry Richard taking all you again I've knocked a lot of crofts and nothing's been built on but basically and you have been involved in this and Murray machine said earlier about when people buy you come up with this view which I think shocked about your colleagues have you have any going to want to come up with a similar shocking proposal which you may want to consider over the next year to resolve this issue Do you have any proposal which we all know that there's problems we all know it's addressed these problems over the years you know as someone who's not a crofter is there any proposal that you think should be on the table in order to resolve these problems just to clarify I think what I'm Richard correct me if I'm wrong is you're asking over and above the things that you've talked about that's already in your development plan is there other particular issues that you think are relevant that the committee should be thinking about sorry I hope I've got that right Richard Yeah I've always found that if you don't ask the right question you don't get the right answer so I'm asking you if you've not been asked that question is there any that you would want seen on the table I don't think there's a silver bullet that's going to answer the problem there's a hugely complex system that the point I would only make I don't know if you want to get into or not is the point I made right at the beginning that there is the beginning of a much more fundamental philosophical debate on what is crofting for is all the regulation necessary in the future could it be administered in a different way but these are very fundamental questions that would require an awful lot of debate over a long period of time and the slate general grazing committee has published a paper recently which I think is on the crofting federation's website which is postulating some or their view of a different way of looking at the future of crofting and I don't think there's any doubt there is that kind of undercurrent of debate but that's very fundamental stuff I mean I've certainly seen that that paper and I'm sure other members of the committee have seen it as well and I think that the point you raise is incredibly valid the problem is in the time that we have left I'm not sure we have the ability to go through that and it will slightly from our point of view that the Government to give us direction I mean we will give them direction on the issues that we think they need to address on whether they want to approach that philosophical debate as part of their review we say I'm going to come back to you and then I know because Donald's point is actually needs very neatly and to a point that Mike wants to ask questions on so Lucy if I may come to you It's a little point of clarification I think the people from Slater have thought and have written evidence to this committee so you should hopefully get that in I will look forward to receiving it with I'm sure all the committee have had a plethora of correspondence on Crofty Patrick, if it's very quick I would like to go to Mike then next The way you pose the question was is there a big breakthrough other than deregulating Crofts I would say I would just refer back to the Schuchsmith final report because I think it probably just came a bit early and what the slate Crofters have very eloquently put together is based on Schuchsmith's recommendations and I think again look at Schuchsmith because they were suggesting some quite radical things I'm very nervous about solicitors when they give me the evil eye if I'm not going to bring them in so I will bring Murray in but very briefly if I may I'm surprised no one has advocated abolishing landlord's interests in Crofts that's all I'll see on that bombshell Mike My question is going to be focused on the future of Government financial support for Crofting post 2020 we all realise that we are leaving the European Union and a lot of funding comes through the common agricultural policy to Crofting support and of course there are other issues as well Government support the whole issue is this money after 2020 the whole point about this is that the Scottish Government is responsible and the devolved legislation entirely responsible for supporting agriculture throughout Scotland but particularly for Crofting in the Crofting County so my question is really have you as membership organisations thought first of all have you thought about what you want to see post 2020 for a completely new funding regime designed for the needs of the Crofting Counties in Scotland first of all have you thought about it and when do you think you're going to be in a position to be able to enlighten us as to what those positions would be because there's a money here a huge amount of finance if you as organisations haven't thought about it other organisations have and are doing Lucy I'm going to come to you first because when I was talking on Friday on behalf of the committee I got waived the NFUS policy on funding post 2020 so I'm sure you have a policy we do no it's in development obviously the union agricultural support is absolutely fundamental to our members both crofters and farmers and to the wider rural economy we all know how the ripple effect and as Peter will know when farmers have money they tend to spend it so it does go wider into the rural economy the union obviously was starting out in this process recently produced two initial discussion documents others will come to pass as time progresses we're in the very early stages we still have to consult more widely with the members so I wouldn't like to come out and say this is a union position I think you're absolutely right it's going to come down to funding and how we initially secure that funding from the UK government and then when it does come to Scotland how it then is divided up between Scotland an interesting on-fight I was going to say but that's probably not the technical term so certainly yes the union is forming our policies and we will take into account the needs of crofting our crofting members as well but I don't think I can say anything more there's a problem to that there's two issues about the funding there's two methods that's going to happen either the UK government will ring fence the money or the Scottish government will spend or it will come as the Scottish block at the moment everything comes through the Scottish block and therefore the focus will be on the Scottish government's decisions and how it operates do you have any information to suggest otherwise I think that is an absolutely fundamental point because at the moment my understanding is that our share of cap money that comes to Scotland is 60% if it's done through the Barnett formula that would drop to 8, 8.5% which is a huge, huge drop and the 16% doesn't even begin to address the sort of issue that is still in there is about the convergence issue and that we've argued that actually Scotland should be getting a greater amount of that money anyway so yes I think real concerns about A whether it's ring fence and B we need to secure what's similar if not bigger maybe and one can always be always a spar than we currently get but very significant concerns about if the Barnett formula is worked okay rather than confuse everyone I am going to confuse everyone Peter you're next we're going the opposite order for the purposes of this exercise I'm delighted to see that we have not got a policy on this perfect Murray do you have any okay Patrick we have policy in construction at the moment so it's a it's a really complicated issue so it's going to take a lot of discussion there are some fundamentals one is that you said very conclusively that we're leaving the European Union the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union I really don't want to get into a discussion on that we could do other philosophical discussions on all sorts things I will avoid that if I may what I think you're being asked is have you identified the priorities for funding for crafting post 2020 and I'd like to try and stick to that if I may please I assume that this is based though on the idea that Scotland may not be in the European Union because obviously if we are still in the European Union things carry on as they do a review of farm payments in 2020 and the government will need to make a policy on that so priorities are important sorry we have found that the European Commission has been very pro small small units small farmers, crofters they don't necessarily call them crofters in European countries but the European Commission when it came out with its proposals this round of the CEP was putting forward a lot of things that were very pro small units which we were really pleased about so after 2020 we obviously want to see that again and whether its proposal is being put forward by the Scottish Government or whoever we really want to see small units being promoted this is a move a general trend I think across Europe that small units haven't been promoted enough so that is a fundamental that we really want to see another one is that the likelihood is that budgets are going to reduce whatever happens budgets will reduce so we want to see more targeting of resources clear outcomes identified the SRDP for example uses public money probably in a much more conscientious and accountable way than the pillar one basic subsidy scheme works so we would like to see more of that very specific outcomes identified that are good for delivering public goods and the crofters get paid public money to deliver public goods so that is a fundamental we haven't really discussed this recently as an organisation but we have over the years discussed various elements of support and I think going on recent events that Brexit could present some opportunities for crofters for crofting to Taylor the support to crofting and we shouldn't ignore that but on a specific example on the there's a new entrance scheme at the moment for people coming into agriculture which is I might have this wrong but I think it's a £50,000 grant for new entrants but it's an all or nothing kind of thing so it's not open to a huge number of people because it's a limited pot of money and perhaps there would be potential for a smaller amount of money for new entrant crofters and something like that could be developed and that's certainly something that SCF young crofters would support Thank you Donald, Lucy you want to try and come back in briefly I see I think it's just to bear in mind that even at the point where we lead the EU we are still going to be if you want to trade with them we are still going to be governed by their rules and regulations so it's just something to keep in mind that we can't unlikely that we're going to be able to dismantle everything certainly not straight away and it's going to take a long period of time OK, just moving on then if I may because Patrick introduced an interesting concept which I think you were going to ask a question I think like some of my colleagues I admit that I'm not from a crofting background or indeed a farming background I'm a town and city boy but this has been absolutely fascinating one of the things that certainly comes through is that it seems that crofters know best and that there's a general consensus that listening to people on the ground actually doing this seems to be quite important to us as committee members that's something I'll certainly take forward over the next few weeks it does lead nicely into looking at the future of how we approach policy as you're probably aware that there are still a number of small landholders in Scotland who have the right to convert into a croft although I'm interested to learn that none of them have done so to date also quite interested to see that some new areas have been added to the counties some of them in my area such as Arran and Cumbria so I guess my question really and it's to anyone you don't need to go on the table necessarily as we're tight for time is should we be looking at crofting law and small landholders policy together as part of a single strategy and also how can we attract new crofters into some of these new areas as well such as those in my area I'm not seeing anyone jumping at that so Patrick you're always first into the fray if I could ask you to keep it brief again but I think important points here now how do I keep that brief we find a lot of the work that we do in the federation benefits small holders as much as crofters but we were set up to represent crofters and crofting is a regulated system so it is fundamentally different from small holding how we encourage small holders or indeed people creating new crofts to create them as crofts rather than than small holdings I would say the number one thing is to sort out the legislation so that it's simpler because it actually is good legislation it's just so complicated that it frightens people and the purpose of crofting is three fold really one is to protect tenants two is to protect landlords and three is to protect the land and so it is a good system that we believe small holders should be attracted to and want to become part of a regulated system I'm going to go to Peter first and then Murray I think my strong instinct is not to combine them unless all the small holders and there's not a huge number express the desire for that because I think that one of the things that we are exploring with our members is crofting the only way of creating new tenancies and how do you satisfy the demand that we think there is not just in the Highlands and Islands but throughout Scotland for people to get access to a wee bit of land to do with what they want people are quite clearly a large or significant number of people are driven by the desire to be able to do things on the land to feel attached to the land and to do so in terms of agriculture and production and so on so how do we do that and crofting is not the only answer there are other answers and it depends on the particular circumstances and what you're ultimately trying to do so I wouldn't automatically combine them with what's required on the whole question of small holdings and how you create more small holdings I think it's something that we've not as a society in Scotland spent enough time talking about and doing Murray I don't disagree with anything that Peter has said absolutely people being attracted into crofting which around the table today we've perhaps got a view that it's just a really complex system who's going to vote to come into that unless people like us, as we do are able to say it's actually not that complicated you just need to get your head around it and take advice and go forward into it but there need to be incentives and there need to be it's good that this committee asks that question because there are other issues around rural life in Scotland as to why people don't want to live in rural areas so that's really back to you guys I don't think the answer completely lies in rolling out the crofting system which is why I agree with Peter unless people are clamoring for it and it's not clamoring for it I think it just stays as is and we'll go forward Donald and Lucy, unless you've got something particularly at opposing views to that I would suggest I'd like to leave that there if that's all right with you you have a bit of that I want to move on to the next question which is John and he's got a question on legal matters I think right well I think this is now the winding up session if you like or pulling it together and I've got a couple of questions I think Gail's got one as well so I mean from what we've listened to the real question is where do we go from here we, Parliament, oblique government as far as legislation is concerned and I've already heard some of that especially from Lucy the whole concept that we want to amplify and modify the law which sounds good to me so I think we're facing one or two choices and so I'd be interested in your views on that I mean I get the impression that the 57 or slightly less number of these kind of sump technical recommendations there's kind of broad agreement and we could probably move on that fairly quickly without too much excitement and of course one option would be to do that quicker and then look at the kind of longer term Peter policy stuff over the next 10, 20, 30 years or something like that or do we try and put all of that in together within the next five years and I mean the next five years in my opinion means the next four years because you do not want any legislation going through in the final year of the Parliament because it gets rushed and it's messy and you don't want to be there and and and so I mean that does that make it too short a timescale to get it through by say summer 2020 now consolidations being mentioned as well but and I've been involved in a consolidation bill before but that is very much putting the existing law just into a different format I don't get the impression that's what we're looking at here everybody's wanting a bit of policy change can you give me thoughts on that I don't know who wants to start on that I think I think John's neatly done my job and I should probably step down but who'd like Lucy would you like to I'll kick off I think what you summarise there is absolutely vital and it's not something that we've consulted our members on specifically in terms of the timing so this is just my initial thoughts at this stage I think what we need to in this is that crofting legislation reform is urgently needed how having said that I think the priority must be in the development of good legislation and I think certainly from our members point of view there is been a criticism of the Scottish Parliament that sometimes that isn't always the case that good legislation comes out particularly when things are hurried I think the question about the some issues is one that you should put to potentially the lawyers when you speak to them because I think there are things that lawyers and Murray Ball may be able to comment on this dealing on a daily basis which they're pulling their hair out they need these things resolved now so I'm not going to say one or the other I think what you say is absolutely person my concern is yes we want things done urgently but it's got to be done it's got to be done well so there's going to be a trade-off Donald I'm going to come to you next if I may please I'd just like to add that I think in this process going forward crofters really have to own this piece of legislation as you go forward that you really need to go to the crofters and see what their views are and make sure that they have an input into this process and not just through the membership organisations but ordinary crofters themselves that's quite important that you'd rather maybe wait a bit longer and get it right even if it meant you weren't young anymore well well possibly yes I think it really does have to be right this time around and if there was any sort of suggestion that it was going to be rushed then maybe I need to take a step back but I do think that it's important that you do listen to crofters in this process I'm just picking up on that and again going back to the Shuxmouth report it was the biggest inquiry for 50 years into crofting so crofters were consulted and certainly need to continue to be consulted I think the whole idea of participation is absolutely vital you know if people feel they're part of something then it will work I think this is the question of do we have a consolidation act or do we have a new act we're certainly of the view that there needs to be a new act but the thing that's important about consolidation or new act is that we have one act that's the point at the moment we're dealing with an act amended by an act amended by an act amended by an act and so it's really difficult to get your head around any part of the legislation which comes to the simplification I think the quest for simple legislation is it always comes up that we want crofting legislation to be simplified but it always strikes me as a very interesting question what is simplification because I think actually what often people mean is that they want clarification because to put something over that people can understand doesn't necessarily mean that you use much less words it's about putting it over in a way that people understand it that's the fundamental thing that's wrong with the legislation the overarching principles and less of the detail or does it mean something else? I think it's as I said earlier the act, the legislation as it's written is far too prescriptive there's all sorts of detail in it that doesn't need to be there so the act itself could be simpler if it was more overarching, if it was wider, more general but it's the clarity of it that's the important thing not how many words are used in it or how many sections there are and what refers to what it's the clarity of it that it needs to be easy to read I don't know whether you've had a go at it it's actually written it's really strange so and then the other thing I would just add because I think that can be sorted in the term of this Government it can definitely be sorted and the other one is the formation of a national plan for crofting can certainly be sorted in the term of this Government as well I think what you're saying is the guidance that supports the legislation is a critical thing to make it easier to understand Stuart, sorry I just wanted to make a technical point about parliamentary process if it's a consolidation act it is forbidden that it changes any of the policy and just perhaps we should all bear that mind when we use that term it leads on to what I wanted to say which is if you're changing legislation and you're bringing in overarching principles or I don't hear anybody shouting for that so if it's codification then that's simple and unfortunately it's detailed because it's a complex system it has become a complex system where there's lots of definitions but it's all here in the Sump report everything that's been identified as the potential tweaks that need to happen now it's here it's not an adventure to suggest rocket science that changes in legislation just now which perhaps in terms of the detail needs a Croft and Reform 2017 act to deal with the detail followed by a consolidating act to bring it all together Croft and Consolidation Act 2018 or 2019 and so we go forward but the bigger point that I want to make is that it's not worrying, that's the wrong word it's unusual legislation being changed and that's driving the process legislation I would have thought is to deal with a social problem that's arisen or because the lawmakers of the land want to change social policy nobody's suggesting that social policy really seriously none of us have said that apart from one or two ideas coming in there nobody's really talking about that so I'm not convinced that there is a need for new legislation unless we're going off in a completely different direction a big high level legislation of the type that Patrick talks about saying that we need legislation for the sump report stuff it would be farcical frankly to have the sump having come up with all these ideas where legislation needs to be changed for everyone then to ignore it that would be nonsense so we do need that legislation immediately unless there's a big idea I'm going to come to Peter and then Gail's got a question to bring it together it's actually quite unusual I would have thought to have a 57 clear items specified for a bill externally parents got a very clear guide on that and whether it's the 57 or the priorities within that the nine things that need to be dealt with Government have to decide that because dealing with that 57 amendments that's not an insubstantial amount of drafting time that you're taking up with all of that maybe less policy time but there would also be policy time as well and if the Government decided to only do that then they would have made progress against the agenda that people think is a very real agenda but you'd still be making 57 changes based on 57 items to what is still a hugely complex system and the bigger, wider question about is there some other way of narrowing down protecting the fundamentals of crofting about secure tenancy about independently setting rents about succession but leaving an awful lot of the detail to more discretion potentially by a decentralised system you might be able to think about a decentralised system within the next four years and think the entire crofting system within four years it's a big ask, I would have thought Getting the 57 out of the way first Part of me says it would tidy up the system but you're still left with a hugely complex system and it's not addressing what is unquestionably a debate that is emerging about do we need all this regulation and I mean there's not just do we need different legislative framework leaving aside the 57 and tidying up but it's also how do you administer that system and it's interesting the slate crofters who have produced this paper which I think would require a lot of work before it was an implementable system nonetheless it postulates a scenario that sets out a different way of looking at the world but they are looking at the world at how you administer what is essentially the same crofting regulation so the bigger questions are very big questions existed for over 100 years and was set up for very particular reasons to fundamentally change that would require a lot of thought that's not a reason for saying that thought shouldn't be given and governance can have to decide ultimately where do we put our effort do we put our effort into tidying up the complex system or do we put our effort into rethinking the system to the problems for us the final question if I may is from the Deputy convener thank you and it is very final unless Stuart wants to jump in again he's not going to be allowed to I just want to tidy everything up by saying thank you we've covered a lot of issues and you've certainly given us a lot to think about and consider that's for sure and it was good to hear differing views but quite a lot of consensus as well I think as to how we should go forward and we've talked about enacting the recommendations of the Sump report but just to wrap up are there any further priorities that you think future Crofting Bill should address and just to help you all and focus your mind just while you're thinking about that I would ask you to limit your answer to one and from each of you in turn if I may and if I could go to Peter to identify the most important one that you would like to bring to our attention we think if our warning work shows that there's legislative change required to assist the creation of new crofts and we suspect there might be it would be about creating new crofts and then I'd put greasing committees next Peter made the comments about is the legislation driving the policy or the policy driving the legislation but I think it has to be the policy driving the legislation but I think legislation it's just so huge that it's got to be it's got to be looked at Okay Donald It's difficult to pick one out but I would actually agree with Peter that it's the creation of new crofts that is the most important thing to be looked at Okay Patrick Well because they've already said it I don't need to say it so I'll say something else Um that the crofting asset mapping participatory work within the communities is absolutely fundamental to taking anything forward with crofting Okay Murray That's not a legislative priority that's a funding priority that Patrick just mentioned I'll accept a funding priority I would agree if I had to pick one because I've already given you another about owner occupation if I had to pick one and I'm not necessarily pushing this from an SLE point of view but common grazing is an issue Okay I think as Gail promised and as I promised that I wasn't going to let Stuart in that is all the questions that we'd like to ask you I would ask you though if there's any information that you feel that we ought to consider as part of what we're doing at the moment to correspond with us through the clerks and we will make sure that that goes out I would like to thank you all for coming here and giving evidence I particularly like to thank everyone in this room for making this a conversation and an inquiry about actual problems rather than personalities and I think it's important that we keep it that way so thank you very much for your time that really concludes today's meeting and our next meeting on the 9th of November of the committee we'll hear further evidence on the crofting in the form of a crofting law panel of experts thank you very much and I'd like to now close the meeting