 Fuddo duenas Nutrick- будемen. I have some time in hand so, I can say to members in the open debate. You may have speeches of five minutes, isn't that exciting for you? Next item of business is the debate of motion 5245 named by Edward Mountain. You're working hard today Mr Mountain. On behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Details Committee, on its report on a review of priorities for crofting law reform, ddechrau i gyllisedeidio i gynnig ar y cyfnod i gyllewin, ac mae'n cwrs oedd i bwysigio i ddainoedd i gyfnod i gyllewin iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn Why Mr Mountain is generally a statement. I praise you. I do work hard every day just for the record. As I realized it as soon as I said it, it was rather unkind. I welcome the debate on the review of priorities for crofting law reform and I would I would like to move the motion in my name. I would like to thank all those who gave evidence, both oral and written evidence, to the committee. I would also like to thank the members of the committee for their very positive approach, which I believe has resulted in a positive report. Furthermore, I would also like to thank our clerking team, who have accurately reflected our deliberations in the report that has been published. I would like to note that the cabinet secretary has written a response to the report and I look forward to his comments on the specific recommendations within the report in due course. I should point out that the committee in carrying out its review acknowledged the significant amount of work that has been already undertaken in this area, including previous reforms of crossfing legislation, identification of priorities for further legislative reform by the Crofting Law group and work by the Crofting legislation stakeholder consultation group. All that has highlighted the fact that, despite several recent pieces of crofting legislation, there remain a large number of issues within crofting law that need to be addressed. I should point out that during the evidence session that it became clear to the committee that crofting is not a happy place to be at the moment and to do nothing or to prevaricate is not an option. Turning to the report, the first issue that I think the committee is clear on is the need for a new and clear crofting policy. From the evidence that we heard, it is clear that Scotland needs a policy for crofting to make it fit for the 21st century. The Government and stakeholders need to develop this policy expeditiously. Once a policy has been identified then and only then do we believe that the Government can design legislation to achieve this. Policy must be delivered by legislation and not the other way round. Legislation to protect the crofters in the 1800s may not be suitable for today and, in some cases, it probably isn't. When considering the crofting policy, the committee heard the following issues needing to be addressed. First of all, crofting development. We heard that there has been very little development of crofting happening under HIE. Some felt that, since the responsibility for the development of crofting had been passed to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Board under the Crofting Reform Scotland Act 2010, HIE's focus was primarily on crofting community development, rather than on providing support for individual crofters or promoting wider crofting interests. We heard that evidence, that development function should sit with the regulation function with the commission. What we are clear on is that, given the importance of the development function to the future of crofting, the Scottish Government must seek further views on where that responsibility should lie. We also heard a lot about crofting commissioners. The role of crofting commissioners was raised by more than one person. Indeed, the very first email that I received when I was elected to this Parliament was on that very subject. We heard that there was some confusion as to whether electric commissioners were required to act on behalf of the whole commission or if they were simply delegates representing their constituencies. We also heard concerns about the role of electric commissioners with one witness, Sir Crispin Agnew, stating that, given the crofting commission's part in the regulatory system, that they were effectively a court with elected judges. It is also clear that the crofting community has concerns as to the role of commissioners. We heard that a delegated decision making process was being developed for the commissioners. That means that staff of the commission will be tasked with making decisions in individual cases with commissioners having a wider overview of policy. We felt as a committee that the non-executive role for commissioners should be further developed as a priority. As to the future, it is clear that the role and responsibilities of elected commissioners should be carefully considered, to say internal division and, in some cases, setting crofters against each other. We also heard about the crofting register. The committee heard concerns relating to the register, which was introduced as part of the 2010 act. The committee feel that the register is important as, when it is complete, it will be a definitive record of all land in the crofting tenure in Scotland. The cost involved in registration, in particular the cost of meeting public notification requirements by local press advertisements, is a concern. The committee believes that there should be a move towards a suitable online solution, removing the need for costly advertising. It welcomes the fact that the cabinet secretary is prepared to look at this. The committee also heard that the mapping of common grazings had ground to a halt due to a lack of funding. The committee feels that the completion of this important exercise should be prioritised and calls on the Scottish Government and the Crofting Commission to consider how that will be achieved and resourced. We also heard about absenteeism and the neglect of crofts. That is a naughty issue. We heard from some issues that the process for managing cases of absenteeism under the 2010 act is complicated, time-intensive and difficult to implement. That fact was acknowledged by the cabinet secretary who said that he is willing to look at it, and we believe that it needs to be streamlined. The committee is also surprised to learn that the legal requirement for grazing committees to produce annual reports on mutters such as absenteeism and neglect is not being complied with. That is not acceptable and raises the question whether they should be required and thus enforced or removed. The committee also heard about the need for new entrants to crofting. If crofting is to flourish, it needs new entrants, and we welcome the input from the young crofters. It was clear that there are significant barriers to new entrants to crofting. We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to introduce new entrance scheme for crofting. We also welcome the cabinet secretary's agreement to explore the potential for areas of common grazing to be used in the creation of new crofts as part of the development scheme. We also heard about owner-occupied crofts. The issue of how they are to be treated proved interesting. Some said that they should be treated as crofters. Some said that they should be taken out of the crofting scheme altogether. We heard two different schools of thought on how they should be treated. The committee believes that the issue needs to be examined further. We also heard about common grazings. The committee heard from several witnesses that common grazings, in some cases, have been separated from crofting with common grazing shares in the hands of some who no longer own crofts—slipper crofters, if you will. We also heard that there is a very narrow agricultural context to common grazings under the crofting legislation, and that might not be fit for purpose. We are in no doubt that the legislation and guidance covering grazing committees needs to be updated to reflect the modern circumstances such as subsidy payments, environment and renewable opportunities can be grasped and ensure that the income from those schemes goes back into the crofting community. Finally, to look at the legislative approach, what the committee heard loud and clear was that the crofting sector is blighted by outdated legislation and policy. We will all agree that we must play a part in ensuring that crofting and the crofting community can move forward with confidence towards a successful and sustainable future. The proposed crofting bill and plan for crofting must therefore be comprehensive and address the modern needs for crofters and crofting. It must deal with all the issues that have been identified. We need to move away from the piecemeal approach of bringing forward crofting act every few years, which will make limited changes. We believe that the Scottish Government must commit to ensuring that the timetable for a new bill allows sufficient time for detailed parliamentary scrutiny and that the passage of the bill is completed comfortably before the end of the current parliamentary session. I look forward to this debate and hearing the responses to the points that the committee have raised. I thought I moved it at the beginning and I moved the motion in my name. Thank you very much. I may have missed it. I now call Fergus Ewing, cabinet secretary, to open to the Government. Generous, six minutes please. Presiding Officer, I would like to start by thanking the committee for considering crofting so early in the parliamentary session and for taking the time to prepare and publish their report. The Scottish Government supports crofting. We support the crofting way of life. We do so on policy and we do so financially. We do so indeed, Presiding Officer, as well as words. The support comes from a package of measures that, as well as that through pillar 1 of the common agriculture policy, include the following. Around £28 million of less favoured area support for over 6,400 claims in the crofting counties. The Croft House grant scheme, £15 million since 2007, helping to build and improve 800 croft homes, with £2 million allocated for 2017-18, and some £948,000 of that shared amongst 29 crofters so far. Something that many members have lobbied me hard on, for example, Dr Allan, particularly in his constituency. The crofting agricultural grant scheme, with £10 million since 2010, approved for over 3,550 applications for capital items such as fencing, sheds and drainage. The crofting cattle improvement scheme, a £3 million state-of-the-art bull stud, officially opened in 2013, with over 400 beneficiaries each year. The Scottish rural development programme support, with £8 million available to help young farmers and crofters set up. Veteran support of £760,000 per annum. Farm advisory support, with around £650,000 per annum, specifically being available to crofters and small farmers in addition to general advice. Much has changed in crofting law, but it is still based on the Crofters Holdings Scotland Act 1986. We shall consider modernisation of crofting law within this parliamentary session, but this will be no easy task. The issues are complex, the opinions are diverse and there are no straightforward answers. Our aim in legislation is to get the best outcomes for crofting. Compromise will be required. The report raises many important issues, and I cannot respond to them individually today. The Scottish Government shall be considering the report in detail as part of the legislative development process. In considering legislation, we must work out what we want crofting to deliver. I am pleased to note that the committee's report supports that view. We must consider legislation from an open perspective. For example, legislation can take different forms. It could be a tidy up, it could be a consolidation exercise or it could be a clean sheet approach. I agree with the committee that matters such as common grazings, owner-occupied crofts, encouraging new entrants, crofting regulation and tensions around small holdings all need to be considered. The committee's report also makes recommendations on non-legislative aspects of crofting policy, and I welcome that. Legislation is not necessarily the best way to make improvements. For example, we have made clear that we shall engage with crofting stakeholders to undertake the drafting of a national development plan for crofting as part of a sustainable rural economy. That plan will help us to identify issues that do not necessarily require legislation to address, for example loans for croft houses. Additionally, new entrants are crucial. With new blood comes new practices, innovation and an enthusiasm that energises that sector. Of course, the crofting house grant system and the hundreds of young people that that has enabled to establish a house in their own part of Scotland is a good way to encourage and enable young people to be new entrants in crofting. Work has already begun within the Crofting Stakeholder Forum to identify what a new entrance scheme for crofting might look like. Of course, there are existing support measures already available to new entrants. We also wish to consider woodland crofting, too. On Friday last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Loch Harcayg, where I had a very useful dialogue with the local community and the woodlands trust about that topic. Many will be interested in the timing of any future bill. As previously advised, the decision on the timing of legislation will be taken within the context of the Scottish Government's many legislative priorities. It is important that we take our time to consider what is best for the future of crofting, and it is essential that we get that right. We aim to do so within the lifetime of this Parliament. In conclusion, the process of creating new legislation should always be an open one. I know from my own experience that the best solutions are arrived at working together in collaboration after a great deal of thought and discussion. I am grateful for the committee's work in this area, and I look forward to hearing members' views on the report this afternoon. For many months, I have sat on the rural economy and connectivity committee listening to a range of evidence on the future of crofting. Of the 20,500 crofts in Scotland, only one is in my region, but, nonetheless, what has become evidently clear is that the current framework of legislation is not fit for purpose. The Scottish Conservatives welcome the REC committee's report, and in particular any measures set out to support new entrants to the industry. I am also encouraged that the NFUS has also welcomed the report. We want to see an overhaul to the existing framework that not only simplifies legislation but addresses the issues of what crofting really is in 21st century Scotland. Now, crofting has been part of the fabric of Scotland's rural economy and the way of life for centuries. Whilst the economic need for such a localised, self-sustainable way of life has reduced, it is important to preserve this unique way of farming. In my view, preservation must also mean modernisation. Successive Governments have tinkered around the edges of the law, but the current plethora of legislation applying to crofting is quite mind-boggling. Evidence that we took on the status quo made it clear that it is nothing short of a legal minefield. If this Parliament is really serious about a long-lasting solution to a century-old debate, then we should be bold. We should not be content with any bill that creates more tape or causes any more confusion. Historic Administrations have fallen into the trap of topping up legislation to fill in gaps, so be it on ownership, registration, mediation, common grazings, mapping, financing and CAP, much really has changed over the years. It is a complicated regulatory environment, but it is also a difficult trading environment. This is a very passionate debate, but it is very nature that our crofting communities are small, character-led and lack no shortage of points of views and opinions, but whatever those views our crofters need to know that the Government and this Parliament is on their side. At the heart of what we do must be the aim of nurturing and supporting new talent, new entrants and young farmers. The committee reports summarised that well by saying that there is a need to move away from the piecemeal process of legislative development, which has seen several crofting acts being passed in recent years. As a Parliament, we have some choices ahead. Consolidation, simplification, modernisation, a new bill, a clean slate. Today, I won't suggest which of those options is the best course of action because I believe that greater minds will deal with that, but the point that I want to make today is that clear policy and strategy must come first, not legislation. This debate should be about shaping the future of crofting, not dealing with problems of its past. The average age of a crofter is 59, so it is absolutely vital that we shape a system and, therefore, legislation around what modern crofting is all about. The Crofting Commission's Colin Kennedy highlighted that, of the 44 tenancies that were temporary in the last couple of years, 30 crofts are still lying vacant, with access to finance being a main barrier to entry. You cannot get a mortgage on something that you do not own. Dave McKinnon of the SCF young crofters gave a similar testimony to us, stating that if access to neglected crofts was eased, then it could attract new entrants and new young crofters to the industry. Crofting policy will need to address how we can open up crofting and make it a viable option for new farmers. As the committee recommends, we need to address the structure of the Crofting Commission. Sir Crispin Agnew told the committee that the tribunal aspect of the commissioners should be removed. Should commissioners be appointed or elected? Do they represent the interests of their regional constituencies or the interests of the wider cause? Should the commission take back responsibility for crofting development, there are many questions to be answered. However, the impetus now is on the Scottish Government to produce a clear set of policies on modern crofting. In doing so, it must address the outcomes of the Sump report first and foremost. Legislation is not the only way to address many issues, nor should we wait for new legislation before we take some action. The CLSCG recommended in the last session of this Parliament that nine high-priority issues should be taken forward before the end of session four of this Parliament. My question is, have they? If not, why not? In summary, crofting legislation is crying out for simplification, and crofters are crying out for clarification. This groundhog day of piecemeal legislation simply must end. My message today is simple. No is not the time for tinkering, no is the time to be bold. If the Scottish Government comes forward with a sensible strategy, the Scottish Conservatives will support them. In the meantime, every day that passes is another missed opportunity to help our crofters. Crofting has developed over years since the very first crofting legislation. It now reflects what is required by each distant community. In some cases, it is simply a house site with a little land for some livestock or vegetable growing, and in others, it is a working farm providing a livelihood to a family. The governance also differs between areas. In some communities, the Graves and Committee manages activity and crofters work collaboratively, but in other areas there is little or no collaboration and a croft is viewed as someone's private land to farm in any way that they wish. Therefore, when looking at legislation, any small change can have dire unintended consequence is for others. That is the challenge with new crofting law. The Scottish Government legislated in 2010 to change crofting law. It rushed it through at the end of the Parliament and did not listen to concerns about unintended consequences. Therefore, the 2010 act created more problems than it solved. The Scottish Government, to give it its due, has recognised that and announced that it will bring forward crofting legislation in this Parliament. However, it has not indicated and neither has the cabinet secretary indicated today what form that that will take. Will it be right in the wrongs of the 2010 act using the Sump as a guide to drive the pressing problems that the legislation has created? The Sump is a list of issues put together by crofting lawyers and specialists that highlights the problems with crofting law as it currently stands. Some of those are tidying up, but others need urgent attention because they are stopping crofters doing what they need to do to secure their home and livelihoods. Will the new legislation be a consolidation act simply putting the current law into one act but changing nothing? Again, that is something that has been called for because the original act has been amended so many times and many of the problems that are arising are because those pieces of legislation do not fit well together. The third option is to start from basic principles and create a new crofting act. On balance, that is what the committee has supported. However, can I say that that is not without its own challenges? I said earlier that crofting has evolved differently throughout the crofting counties and, for the most part, my constituents value their own form of crofting and how it works in their area. There are indeed areas where there are challenges that need to be met, areas that are pressurised, where land values are high, where holiday homes are sought after. That has led to crofts being allowed to fall into disrepair, where the croft house has been purchased at a price a way above the pocket of local people but the land is not required. There are also areas where work is hard to come by and people have been driven away from their crofts to seek a likelihood elsewhere. They have kept their crofts and the family home. Leaving was not their choice and they long to return. Meanwhile, those crofts are either sublet on an informal basis or work back as a new friend and the house sits empty other than at holiday times. Those are the people that are being pursued over absenteeism now. They feel unfairly treated. First, they let down by the lack of provision for the local economy that forced them out in the first place. Now, they are being seen as a problem for holding on to what they see as their own heritage. In truth, they are unlikely to be able to return until they retire and probably at that stage do not want to be large-scale crofters. Surely, there must be a way in which to meet their aspirations to return home and have access to a little land while allowing the bulk of the croft area to be led to a local person or indeed a new family or a young crofter. None of that can be dealt with by a broad-brush legislation. Every person, every family, everyone is different and what will work for them will therefore need to be a very personalised solution to their own situation. It may be that there needs to be legislation, it needs to be stripped back to the very basics. The very basics, in my view, are security of tenure, security of inheritance and the right to buy. In return for all of that, the crofter is expected to work their croft and ensure that it does not fall into disrepair. There could also be the ability for localities to look at enhancing the legislation with local regulations that work within their local community to tackle their particular issues and build the economy and thereby leading to greater use of crofting land. What crofting has been successful in doing is slowing down depopulation in many of the crofting counties. That is what it was set up to do and that is what we must protect and enhance. We need to fight depopulation and recognise that people need to be supported to live and work in those communities. Crofting alone will not halt depopulation but it is an economic driver and it is therefore essential that we protect crofting and ensure that the legislation is not a barrier but indeed it is a driver for repopulation of the counties. We now move to the open debate and speeches of five minutes, please. Stuart Stevenson to be followed by John Scott. Canya Avor, Tew, Descarin, Croftair achat. For the anglophones and for those who cannot interpret my mispronounced Gaelic, I thank our clerks and others for ensuring that key parts of the report have been rendered in the native language of most of our crofting areas—in other words, in Gaelic. We should remember, of course, that the first act that the crofters holding Scotland Act of 1886 required that one of the three commissioners spoke Gaelic, and recognising the legal complexities that one of the commissioners may be a Scottish advocate of at least 10 years standing. That is indeed a complex area of law, drawing on rural agricultural tradition, court cases and many generations of parliamentary consideration and legislation. It is frankly a pretty substantial guzzle, but we simply mustn't let the complexity and contentious natures of many of the issues in crofting to be another reason for only moving forward by limiting the Government's response to cherry-picking some of the easy bits. The Sump report to which Jamie Greene and Rhoda Grant referred at least gives an opportunity for action in areas where there is as complete an agreement as there is likely to be for us to be able to reach, but we need some big-pitcher stuff as well. Let me start with some governance and oversight. My personal hand sits on this to some extent as the minister who signed the Crofting Commission election, Scotland regulations 2011. It is the Crofting Reform Act 2010 schedule 1 section 75A that proves that we can be radical. It provides for the election of the Crofting Commission of people aged 16 or over and follows a similar provision in the 2009 act covering elections to health boards with broken new ground in empowering 16 and 17-year-olds in this way. I don't believe that that's been done anywhere else in a similar way in legislation elsewhere in the UK. Fundamental question is what are members of the commission there for? Firstly, they are not, repeat not there, to manage the work of officials, but they are absolutely there to hold them to account and to set policy. In doing so, they are there to represent the interests, I believe, collectively of all crofters and people in crofting communities. It should not be a surprise that responsibility must extend beyond crofters. In fact, one does not even have to be a crofter to stand for election for the commission, albeit that a non-crofter must be nominated by a crofter. Elected members are there because of votes in the six constituencies, but it's vital that collective positions are reached by the members of the commission and then taken forward on a unanimous basis. They are not there. It's not useful if they think that they are there simply to represent the area that elected them. That's a substantial challenge that's laid down, but I hope that it's one that members of the commission will rise to. We must, as others have referred to, complete proper, accurate mapping of crops and shared grazing. As transport minister, I was partied to a dispute about where the boundary was between crofting land and Bimbicula airport. The diagram that was in the register of satians was a pretty small diagram with a China graph line. When you mapped it up, that line was 100 metres wide, you began to understand where the dispute came from. It was a recipe for argument. We have also heard reference and I support that we must simplify the administration of common grazings and create a better structure. Before the 1886 act, which recognised the rights of crofters, the act opened security of tenure that brought to an end the forced ejection of people from the land that it occupied for generations. It ended the clearances, but life on the croft remains somewhere precarious. I look forward now to the Government's planned legislation. Trust this work by the committee helpfully augments their and other research. I call John Scott, who is followed by John Finnie. I begin by declaring an interest as a landowner and farmer, albeit with no crofting interests. I also welcome this debate and the review of priorities for crofting law reform. I note that, like many less favoured area farmers, most crofters are struggling to make ends meet in the current financial climate. The recently published net farm income figures are further proof that what historically was a difficult way of life has in recent times become still more difficult than financially unrewarding. However, it has been my long held view that crofting communities are a vital part of Scottish life and culture and communities going where otherwise they would not exist and should be supported wherever possible. Others have noted at different times that crofting is an island in the sea of legislation, and in that regard I was a member of the Rural Affairs Committee which helped to create the crofting reform Scotland Act 2010 seven years ago. I regret to note that the problems highlighted in the recent committee report are depressingly similar to the ones identified almost 10 years ago in the Shooksmith report and more recently in the 2014 SRUC report. I know how much went into the 2010 act and I would support the view that if the 2010 act and the subsequent Croft Amendment Scotland Act 2013 are regarded as not being fit for purpose, Parliament should endeavour to improve on the legislation. However, I remain to be convinced that a completely new bill is required, as has been suggested. The 2010 bill has hardly had time to bed in yet, never mind being regarded as not fit for purpose. This is because so many of the problems associated with crofting are not about the legislation as Rhoda Grant has said, but are much more about the viability of crofting and the commitment to crofting itself as a way of life. In my view, succession and the viability remain the biggest threat to the future of crofting and no amount of legislation will overcome those fundamental and structural problems. Not in my view will the creation of new legislation address most of the barriers to entry and occupancy of crops, which include the cost of purchasing assignations, the lack of knowledge of vacant crofts, the difficulty in obtaining finance to buy assignations, the high capital cost of establishing enterprises or the cost of returning neglected crofts to use or the lack of financial return from crofting. However, if there is a perceived need for change, the committee should undertake post-legitim scrutiny of the 2010 act as a precursor to further action. If post-legitim scrutiny of the 2010 act finds areas that are universally—I stress the word universally—agreed as needing to be improved on, then secondary legislation, perhaps by statutory instrument, if such powers exist in the act or even just clear our guidance if appropriate, should be considered to achieve that. Failing that further amending primary legislation could be considered, but not until it becomes clear that it is absolutely necessary or that it will make a fundamental difference to the problems that are facing crofting, most of which, in my view, are not a function of legislation. Some of the changes in the 2010 act were foreseen as taking perhaps a generation to make a real difference and were delivered after much consultation with leading crofting and legal practitioners at the time. Delivering legislation, agreed by all, is never easy, but amending that legislation should be considered if a clear and unequivocal need can be identified and a consensus built around it. I congratulate the committee and its clerks on the production of the report, but given our Parliament's track record on the production of crofting legislation, I am certain that the Government will want to approach the creation of new legislation, of course, with enthusiasm and with an open mind, but also with extreme caution, as a huge amount of parliamentary time and resource has already been spent on crofting legislation since our Parliament came into existence 18 years ago. I wish the Government and the committee well in whatever it sees as the appropriate way forward. I call John Finnie to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As has been alluded to by our committee chair, the committee took on this piece of work at a time when there was a lot of controversy, particularly around grazing committees. It was a timely piece of work, and it was a very clear signal that was given by the committee of the priority that was placed on crofting that it took place. However, it is important to say, as is evident from some of the contributions already, that this is just going to be part of a process. The committee report said that the committee considers the Scottish Government's proposed bill provides a legislative platform that fits the reality of modern crofting practices. That is true, but, as we have already heard, that is a very complex mesh of situations. Crofting epitomises the reality of the challenges that are faced by rural communities. Many of us would like to thank the witnesses who have caused an informed debate, because, as ever, it is better if you have the participation of people who are going to be directly affected. I thought that that was very helpful. The report talks about the sustainable crofting sector. I would say that that does not stand in isolation from the future of all our rural communities. Questions around the role that crofting can and should play in the future of our communities. Depopulation has already been alluded to, and, although primarily it is Argyll and Bute that is affected by that, within each of the local authority areas, there will be particular places where there has been depopulation and the age profile is such that it certainly would not lend itself to being considered a sustainable long-term community. The report that we produced has to be relevant to the needs and aspirations. The cabinet secretary alluded to the importance of housing. That is absolutely key to everything. Any member of this Parliament would be surprised that housing was not as significant if not the largest part of the workload. It is key in any community, and of course there are particular challenges in rural communities. In fact, I cut and pasted from a press release from the cabinet secretary, which gave the figure of £16 million rather than £15 million. However, lots of millions are now welcome and £2 million for the coming year, which said that it was about attracting people, particularly young families, to our remote and rural communities, and that it is essential for the long-term sustainability. That is key to everything, so I commend the investment that goes into that. People have used the term from the report about moving away from piecemeal legislation, and I would again pose the question, what is the purpose of legislation? It is not to tie us down in endless arguments, and we certainly know with endless legislation about crofting. In my view, it is rather to facilitate the delivery of what is the subject of the legislation. It has the view of the committee that the bill should be comprehensive, and the arguments have been had about consolidation versus new legislation. We all agree that this is not ever to be seen as an opportunity to remove the issue off into the long grass. The committee seeks to address a number of very current issues, and as many have alluded to, we have been here before the Sharksmith report. In relation to that, we say that the recommendations contained in the SUMP report should form the starting point for further consideration of legislative reform proposals. We talk about—it should be accompanied by comprehensive and accessible guidance documents to allow those involved in crofting to more easily understand and implement the provisions. Yes, I absolutely agree with that, but lots of legislation on little guidance, or modest legislation on lots of guidance, I think that the reality is that we can say that crofters do not want reams of paper. They want some clarity about the direction, and that is the clarity of the direction that we want about all our rural communities, and of course there is Brexit to be figured into that because of the sums of money that come from Europe. Yes, we want sufficient time for scrutiny, because it is important that it is done right, but, as has been said by a number of speakers, legislation is not required to address everything. As has been said, we are very keen that the issues do not await, that do not require legislating upon, and that do not get lost in the process. I noticed that the cabinet secretary mentioned the national development plan. Obviously, a longer term plan is absolutely key, and we heard frustrations about crofting development and the role that high now play. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. We all in this chamber talk about the Christy principles of local public bodies working together. I do not think that it is necessarily down to any one agency that has to be a collaboration across local authorities, the government agencies and some of the injuries that are directly involved in crofting. Given the time, I think that I will leave it there. I call Mike Rumbles to be followed by John Mason. Deputy Presiding Officer, I first heard the definition of what a croft is from Charles Kennery, who told me that a croft is a piece of land surrounded by legislation. Maybe it was not an original definition, but I thought to describe the whole issue exactly. That is a very welcome opportunity to debate the future of crofting in advance of the Scottish Government's expected legislation later in the parliamentary session. That is why I am in favour of a clean slate approach to the legislation. John Finnie has just spoken about the need for clarity. If the Scottish Government decides to go down the route of adding a piece of legislation to already vast amounts of legislation that cover crofting, it will be far better, in my view, taking from the evidence that we have heard that we have a clean slate approach, so we get that clarity for the future. I think that the committee has worked well together to produce a unanimous report and, hopefully, the evidence that we have received will help to inform the Scottish Government of the best way to proceed, because everyone on the committee felt that it was. Those phrases have been repeated. I make no apologies for repeating them. It was of fundamental importance that the proposed bill fits with the reality of modern crofting practices. It is relevant to the needs and aspirations of crofters and aims to deliver a sustainable crofting sector. If we get that right, it will be dramatically important for the crofting community. We all agreed on the committee that there is a real need to move away from the piecemeal process of legislative development. As I say, we believe that the proposed bill should be comprehensive and seek to address all those issues. Now, not everything needs legislation to be reformed, and we made that clear in the report. There are urgent reforms, and the Scottish Government needs to take action on them as soon as possible. Many of those issues can be found in the so-called Sump report on page 29 of the committee's report. I think that there is general agreement that the Government needs to tackle those issues directly and relatively quickly. The committee looked at many issues that are either causing problems or that are in need of reform. I have a whole list of them. We could actually have a debate on each and every one of them, but we obviously do not have time to do that. From absenteeism and the neglect of crofts, it is heartbreaking for many to see absentee crofts not utilised properly. The support for new entrants to crofting, particularly over the difficulties of attaining a mortgage on what is rented land, and I noted the minister mentioned that in the opening remarks. I think that he would get support from across the chamber if that particular issue could be addressed relatively quickly. The issue of owner-occupied crofts, and that might sound strange, but that is an issue of whether they are crofts or not. Common grazings, we found that the law on common grazings is not being upheld. It is interesting passing legislation, but if you pass legislation, we actually do need to uphold it. The crofting register, the role of the elected members, has been mentioned a lot about the crofting commission. Edward Mountain mentioned the crofting development, the role of Highlands and Islands development, the issue of small land holdings elsewhere than in the crofting counties. Jamie mentioned that he had one in his region, and the relationship that he might have with crofting is important. What is a croft? Is it down to just geographical location? If we had time to say that we could debate all of these, I realise that I am running out of time. Suffice it to say that the 11 members of the rural economy and connectivity committee have worked together constructively to produce a report on those issues, which I hope that the cabinet secretary will take on board. I believe that it is constructive and well-thought-through report that the minister and his civil service team will, as a result of the work, know exactly where committee members are coming from when we examine the forthcoming crofting bill when it is laid before the committee in due course. We now move to the last of the open debate speeches, and that is John Mason. A crofting is clearly a key part of Scotland's heritage and continues to be key in our national use of land. I am relatively new to crofting legislation and clearly it is a very complex area, as others have said. However, it is worth saying that many people in the cities and the lowlands more generally feel very much a strong warmth and commitment towards crofting and the struggles that crofters have faced over the years to achieve many of the rights that they have today. One of the purposes of crofting, as Rhoda Grant has said, is to maintain population in the remote rural areas. That is not just a concern for the people of these areas or for the Highland or Western Isles councils. I consider that to be a national concern. Cities are great and I love living and representing a city, but Scotland cannot consist just of cities. The whole nation suffers if we do not have a strong and thriving population in the highlands and islands. One of the key questions that the committee has faced was whether there should be speedy tidying up legislation focused on the Sump report, or whether we should recommend moving straight to a major consolidation and simplification. Clearly, we have heard already today words like clean slate and clarity from Mike Rumbles, but I think that John Scott disagrees with moving quickly at least into that approach. I think that, as a committee, we realised that this was going to be potentially a controversial area as to what kind of legislation we should recommend. At one stage in the committee, we had thought of really side-stepping this issue altogether and not coming to one agreement. However, I think that we were all somewhat surprised perhaps that, as committee members, as we listened to the evidence, we were all pretty well independently convinced and therefore convinced as a committee that we could make one recommendation on that. That was, in the second bullet point of this summary, the committee is also of the view that there is a need to move away from the piecemeal process of legislative development, which has seen several crofting acts being passed in recent years. The proposed bill should therefore be comprehensive and seek to address as many of the issues identified. We did actually disagree, I think, over this word piecemeal, which Mike Rumbles liked, because, previously in the draft, it said, iterative, which I personally did prefer, but will not lose too much sleep over that. Link to the question of what kind of legislation has been the question of timescale, and that has also been mentioned today. Again, in the fifth bullet point, it says, the committee calls on the Scottish Government to commit to ensuring that the bull timetable will be structured in a manner that will allow sufficient time for thorough and detailed parliamentary scrutiny, and the passage of the bill is completed comfortably before the end of the current parliamentary session. If I understood the cabinet secretary correctly, he committed to that, so I very much welcome that. We believe that it should be possible to have a major piece of legislation going through during this Parliament. That means that it should happen by May 2021, but it also means that it should be well through its process by the summer of 2020, which is not really that far ahead. I do not think that we want to be rushing into the last year of this Parliament with a major piece of legislation, as happened with land reform and repeat that process. The committee also agreed that there needs to be a clear statement on crofting policy. If there is such an overarching policy, it will help to guide us in considering some of the difficult areas, like whether those who are owner occupiers of crofts should be treated in the same way as those who are renting. We certainly spent time considering common grazings and points included the need for mapping to be completed. Clearly nowadays there is a wider range of options for the use of such land, for example wind farms, and the current legislation was not anticipating that when it was written. As a relative newcomer to crofting legislation, I and others may struggle to understand why the croft itself and the related share in common grazing were ever allowed to be separated from each other. We also looked at crofting development and whether or not there should be a transfer of responsibilities away from HIE. The jury still seems to be out on that one, but part of me does wonder if crofting, which has such a traditional route to it, does fit well with an agency like HIE, which is perhaps emphasising other matters. I look forward to the bill when it comes and engage more in the detail of crofting at that time, but I would just re-emphasise as a city MSP in closing that crofting in our remote areas is extremely important to our cities, Glasgow and the whole of Scotland. We now move to the closing speeches. I call on Rhoda Grant around five minutes, please, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been a short debate, but I think that it has been a useful debate covering many of the issues that the committee looked at. We all smile when we hear the definition of crofting being a small piece of land surrounded by legislation. That was one thing that was proved to us in the committee as we started to look at the legislation and what it was going to do, but surely it must need legislation to protect it, but that legislation can be simple. I think that it can be greatly simplified without damaging crofting. It needs to make sense to crofters. It needs to be easily understood. I suppose that if we achieve that, we might put some lawyers out of business, but I think that it would be to the benefit of crofting. I think that it was Edward Mountain that talked about the annual reports, and I just want to make a point about that. When the 2010 act was going through, many of us were really concerned about the reporting functions and annual reports that were put on grazing committees, making them police their colleagues. The clerk of the grazing committee is elected by the shareholders of the common grazing, and they were then supposed to report back on the misdemeanours of the shareholders. We warned about it, and I think that that has been borne out, because I do not think that one annual report has been received from a grazing committee. I would not say that something has to be done about it. I would say that the provision must be removed because it was wrong. We said that it was wrong in the first place, and that has been proven to be the position, so it needs to go. People should not have to police their neighbours. I will accept that the intention at that time was to do nothing other than to encourage active crofting, and that has not yet happened. I remind members that, for the purposes of the official report, we really need to see who is about to speak. Rhoda Grant Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that John Scott is maybe aware, given his previous roles, of that he may have forgotten that he should wait until he is announced by the Presiding Officer. I agree with him that that was the reason for that provision, but that provision was not going to make that happen. As has been borne out, it has not happened. We still have crofts that are not worked, and we have no way of reporting on them or encouraging crofters to do that. I think that that just bears out the point that I was making that that provision has not worked in the legislation. A number of speakers talked about the strategy and the need of a strategy, and I think that the whole committee were agreed on that. John Finnie said that it needs to fit the needs and the aspirations of crofters. I think that that really has to be the aim of the strategy, and it needs consultation to make sure that it is right. We need to look at the economics of crofting, as John Scott talked about in his speech about the cost of buying and improving land, but also about the lack of financial return from crofting. I think that that is a long-standing problem, not just for crofting, but indeed for all the land-based industries that we have been reading in the press lately. We need to look at how land-based industries work economically and make sure that they provide an income or indeed support an income. At the moment, I have heard a lot of crofters say that they are involved in a very expensive hobby, but that is not an economic generation. We need to make sure that there is a return for that in order to keep people in the glens. Many speakers talked about the development function as well. The development function had gone to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, but that was crofting community development. The Crofters commission had done previously to develop individual crofting businesses and, indeed, to graze in committee businesses, encouraging them to take on different projects to make their crofts more viable. That is the bit that has gone missing, and we need to make sure that crofters have business development support. There are a number of other issues. Jamie Greene said that there is an action plan on the Sump report. What needs legislation and what can be dealt with through subordinate legislation or ministerial direction? That would be a good place to start to deal with some of those issues that are coming forward and the more urgent issues that are there. The same with grazing mapping. Is there going to be more funding to the Crofters commission to get this completed? I think that everyone who spoke to the committee said that it was necessary and needed to be finished. Indeed, what is most crucial is the timing of the legislation to make sure that it is carried out in enough time to allow us to go out and consult again if there is to be new legislation rather than to put things through, hope them for the best. I think that I have come to the end of my additional time that I was granted by the Presiding Officer. Just in conclusion, I think that we have to build consensus around the changes that are required, not just consensus by those who speak the loudest but those crofters should go quietly about their business trying to make a living for themselves. I think that we need to bear them in mind and indeed thank everybody who contributed to the committee report. I call Peter Chapman again around five minutes, please, Mr Chapman. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I refer members to my register of interests as a landowner and farmer. I welcome this debate and I am delighted to be speaking in it, and it has been a useful debate. Crofting, as we know, is not just a vital part of a rural economy, it is an important part of Scotland's heritage, particularly in the west of Scotland and the Highlands and Islands. With over 20,000 crofts registers with the Crofting Commission, it is clear that a significant number of crofters will also be waiting to see what the Scottish Government does on this matter. Bluntly, in my opinion, and it is a personal opinion, we cannot duck the question of serious reform any longer. I am afraid that I have to disagree with my colleague John Scott on this and agree with Mike Rumbles. Does something happen, Mike? I urge the Scottish Government to come forward with a comprehensive bill to address the maximum number of community concerns in a new, simplified format. In short, I believe that we need to start with a clean sheet and draw up simple and clear rules for the governance of crofting, rules that the layman can understand without the need of expensive lawyers to interpret. We have seen over the years amendment after amendment of crofting law that has only created more bureaucracy and confusion. We heard Sir Crispin Agnew say that the crofting legislation is not fit for purpose because it does not have an underlying policy theme that is appropriate to the present day and age. I could not agree more. I welcome the promise from the cabinet secretary that a new bill will be delivered during the lifetime of this Parliament. There are lots of problems right now. For example, the cost of registration and notification is a problem that was highlighted by Colin Kennedy, as not only being overly bureaucratic, but he said that he represents a huge amount of money coming out of crofting. Edward Mountain referred to that as well. As the rec committee has set out, we also need to tackle the issue of mapping of common grazings. That exercise is stopped due to lack of funds, and I hope that ministers will give this the high priority and funding that it deserves, because I believe that we cannot make progress on crofting as a whole without having accurate mapping in place. We also need to consider whether commissioners should be appointed rather than elected. That was brought up during their evidence sessions. There is also the question of the commission being responsible for crofting development rather than high. Again, Edward Mountain and John Mason both referred to that as something that we heard during the conversations. We also face similar challenges in crofting, as we do with farming as a whole, namely a lack of new entrants and a lack of profitability. With crofts, it can be smaller and more dependent on cap payments than non-crofters, getting the new legislative framework right will be incredibly important in securing a sustainable future for crofting. Indeed. Marie Todd Thank you for taking the intervention. In the interests of my constituents back in the Highlands and Islands, I wanted to ask if you still consider that crofters are not real farmers. I can allow time for the intervention, Mr Chapman. I do not think that that was actually very appropriate. I accept that crofters do a fantastic job in their own area. There is also the question of whether we face similar challenges in crofting as we do profitability. The cabinet secretary outlined in detail some of the extra grants that the crofting areas can receive, such as the croft house scheme, the bull stud and alfass monies, et cetera. Donald MacKinnon of the Scottish Young Crofters has raised the prospect of allowing increased access to neglected croft, potentially providing an opportunity for new entrants and young crofters. Jamie Greene also highlighted that issue. Furthermore, Mr MacKinnon has also pointed out the opportunities from Brexit. Indeed, with more focus on environmental issues post-Brexit, there could be a better way to support crofting. There is no doubt much to be said for such an idea. I hope that the Scottish Government will look closely at it. I am in no doubt that we need a clean slate for crofting. That is doubly important now as we prepare to leave the EU. On leaving CAP, we will have the opportunity to include specific measures to support crofting under our own system. That is an opportunity that we need to grasp with both hands. It is incumbent on every MSP here to help to deliver that opportunity for our crofting communities. I now call Hamza Yousaf up to seven minutes, please, minister. I would like to thank the committee, the clerks, for producing an excellent report, along with the contribution from committee members. Today, I think that it has been an excellent debate—a little shorter debate—many interesting issues have been raised, and perhaps I will touch upon them during the course of my speech. Much like John Mason, who spoke in this debate, myself representing Glasgow Pollock do not have much in the way of crofts at all. That is why it was incredibly important for me when I was first appointed as minister for transport and the islands during my island tours to make sure that I went out to croft and spoke to crofters to hear some of the issues that have affected them. Many of them, if not all of them, have almost been raised in this debate, so I thank members for a very good debate. Crofting is so important to the long-term sustainability of many communities. That is particularly true in the islands where there is a depopulation issue, which I think that Rhoda Grant touched upon. Depopulation on our islands is an issue that is particularly affecting the western isles and many other island communities. There are many reasons for that—housing, education, jobs, healthcare but undoubtedly crofting could provide a solution to reversing some of that depopulation. Today's debate highlights the importance that we all place in crofting in the islands and our collective desire to make that a success. From the recommendations that are made by the committee and from the discussions today, we see that there are a number of issues and often there is an agreement on how to necessarily tackle those issues. We will, of course, work in a consensual approach in the consensual way as much as we possibly can to try to get and take the Parliament with us once we get to the legislative solution to that. Importantly, as many members have said, that is not just about legislation. On the point of differences of opinion, the debate has helped to demonstrate what I have found, what the cabinet secretary has found and what other members have found when they speak to crofters. There are a multitude of opinions among crofters about how to tackle those very important issues. We have seen it today, to the extent that, of course, Peter Chapman has disowned his own colleague and, in fact, he has agreed with Mike Rumbles. He shows himself that there are many, many differences of opinion across the chamber. Some have asked for a clean slate approach when it comes to legislations, others have said that perhaps we should add to the legislation, others have said that we should perhaps tweak existing legislation. That goes to show that there are a number of different opinions and therefore we have to take our time. Importantly, when it comes to policies, we should come forward with the policy intent and then the legislation should follow thereafter. We have heard today about the importance of crofting to rural Scotland in the special place that it has for our heritage. As we have heard, issues such as Colin Grazings's right to buy, owner occupation, absenteeism, neglect and future support from crofting are all important aspects of crofting policy. Perhaps I can just touch upon one or two of them, Presiding Officer. In terms of support for new entrants, that was a common theme mentioned by almost every single member. That new lifeblood within that comes innovation, comes an impetus, comes energy as well for that particular sector. I would like to thank the committee for its recommendations on that. As members have already noted, work has already begun within the crofting stakeholder forum to identify what a new entrants scheme might look like. There are already, of course, some grants and some support that is available for new entrants and for crofting startups as well. In terms of absenteeism and neglect, it is important to make the point that these are two separate issues that are often used synonymously, but that would be wrong for us to do so. In the context of new legislation, absenteeism and neglect of crofts, our officials are engaging with members again of the forum, but they are looking at those issues in great detail. Again, as members have already mentioned in their own contributions, there is not a simple solution to each of those issues, I think that they are very complex. When we come forward with solutions, of course, I will have to be compliant with legislation, both domestic and, of course, even European as well. Addressing those issues is not all about making new legislation. Again, as members have said, in parallel to examining those issues that require new crofting law, we need to see what we can do now in relation to current crofting policy. What else might we do without the need for legislative change? The point that John Finnie made on that was very important. What does not require legislation should not be lost while we are very firmly focused on what legislative solution we can bring forward. I will not go through the entire list in detail of all those things that we are doing that are outwith legislation, but it is worth reiterating that we have the Croft House grant, the less favoured area scheme that has been mentioned by my colleague the cabinet secretary, the crofting agricultural grant scheme, the crofting cattle improvement scheme, Scottish Rural Development programme, young farmers' start-up grant, new entrance start-up grant, crofters and smallholders' skills boost 2016. There is also veterinary support available for our crofters, as well as all the support from the farm advisory service. It would be ungenerous to suggest that the Government is not providing support to our crofters, with the understanding that we are looking to see how we can go further. That will require time. The questions and issues raised are ones that do not come with a very simple solution, so I urge some level of patience, which members across the chamber have already said that they understood. The committee has said that we should start from a position of having a clear overarching crofting policy. That is a very eminently sensible suggestion. I agree that we need to have clarity on the future of crofting going forward and work such as that that is being undertaken by the national development plan for crofting will help us to achieve that. There has been little reference to community-owned crofting areas. Is the minister of the view that it continues to be a valuable part of crofting ownership in operation? I know that some members took a little bit of aim to HIE for not getting involved. I would say that HIE has been instrumental when it has come to community-owned ownership, and perhaps the point that Mr Stevenson is making. I am sorry that there is no more time for that. I will wind up by saying that our engagement with stakeholders will continue with crofters, with land owners, the NFUS and young crofters. I would say that the sump report that was mentioned by members in almost every contribution is also a very good report, which we will look to examine in greater detail as we move forward. In conclusion, from our discussions today, there is a wide range of actions that we might undertake in support of the future of crofting. I look forward to engaging with crofters, crofting communities, the REC committee, of course, and this Parliament as we take a legislative process forward. I now call Gail Ross to close the debate on behalf of the committee, which name I can't remember off the top of my head. Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Can you take us up to five o'clock, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try my best to make sense of all the scribbles that I have here. As the convener stated in his opening remarks, we have been working towards this report and the subsequent debate as a committee for a number of months and taking evidence from numerous expert witnesses. I would also like to put my thanks on record to them, to my fellow committee members and the clerks and also the team from Spice. We have spent a great deal of time on what is a very complex and technical area, and the evidence that we have received has helped to inform this report and today's debate. The report had three main objectives to inform the activity that is already undertaken by stakeholders in the Scottish Government in working towards a reform of crofting law, to allow the committee to make an assessment of the priority action that has so far been identified and to make any recommendations on action considered necessary to progress that reform process. We also note the 57 issues in the crofting law sump that was published by the crofting law group in 2014, a lot of which are priorities for the sector, and we have stated that those should underpin any future legislation. Many members mentioned today that there are some issues that can be resolved without legislation and that they must be addressed, and those are the ones that we talked about in the sump report. Rhoda Grant suggested that that would be a good place to start. That has been an interesting and worthwhile, if short, to be on an issue that is of huge significance to our crofting communities and to rural Scotland more generally. The convener Edward Mountain started off by suggesting the need for new crofting policy. He is absolutely correct that legislation made in the 1800s is probably not relevant for today. In fact, most members who spoke in the debate, Jamie Greene, Rhoda Grant, John Finnie and John Mason, asked the question that we asked as a committee. Do we build on what is already there or do we start again? I note that there was some division about what we do. John Scott spoke about the 2010 legislation that he helped to put together. Thank you. I know that I am sitting beside you and I could probably ask you later, but it might be worth getting this on the record. I have been listening to the debate this afternoon about crofting legislation. As a member from the south-west of Scotland, we have 104 small holdings instead of crofts, so I am curious as to what the committee's view is on the suggestion that crofting and small holding legislation should be combined. There are differing opinions on whether the legislation should be combined, and the committee took no opinion on that quite sensibly. We are going to leave that to a wider consultation. Back to what John Scott was saying about the 2010 legislation, and his opinion is that it needs time to bed in. It is only a perceived need for change, but I must say that most, if not all, of the witnesses that we spoke to during the evidence sessions were also of the opinion that there needs to be some sort of change. We did talk about whether that was a clean slate or whether we do build on what is already there. I think that, as a committee, we came to the conclusion that the bill should be comprehensive and that we should try as much as we can to start again. Jamie Greene talked about what crofting is in the 21st century, and Rhoda Grant spoke about the need for a definition. Rhoda also spoke about the divisions even within the crofting community about what the definition of crofting is. It would be a good place to start to get the definition and decide what it is that we want crofting to do for us in this day and age and move on from there. I also note that Jamie Greene used the words mind-boggling in regard to the legislation. I think that, when our committee began this process, certainly I was a bit overwhelmed with the amount of legislation and what it would all actually meant, and it was interesting to take evidence from some law professors who were also, I would not say confused, but they also agreed that maybe it was a little bit of a mind field, which is also a word that Jamie Greene used. Jamie Greene also spoke about new entrants, as did Mike Rumbles and the access to mortgages and finance, and that is certainly a barrier to new entrants. It is something that the cabinet secretary has said that he will give due consideration to. Stewart Stevenson gave a fantastic introduction in Gaelic, and I was so engrossed that I nearly forgot to take notes. For his Jamie Greene used the words mind-boggling, Stewart Stevenson said that it was a boorich, and I think that the committee would not disagree with that as well. He gave us a good insight into the overview of elections to the Crofting Commission. He spoke about 16 and 17-year-olds being elected and laid out what the role of a Crofting Commissioner should be. A few members, including Stewart Stevenson, made the point about mapping, and it is completely valid about the thickness of a line on a map that can make all the difference on the ground. We need to make sure that the mapping of the common grazings in particular is completed. John Mason, a city boy, talked about land use and said that people in cities had a sympathy with the issue of facing crofters, as did Minister Humza Yousaf. He made the point, which I think was completely valid, that a strong population in the Highlands and Islands benefits the whole of Scotland, which I think is fantastic. He also touched on the internal debate about what language should be used. I think that getting the right words is very important in a debate in a report like this. John Finnie spoke very quickly about housing and depopulation and what is the purpose of legislation. Mike Rumbles also touched on that it is all very well for us to pass legislation, but we need to make sure that it is enacted. I think that we would all agree with that. I do not know whether I have managed to cover everyone. I hope that I have done, but we hope, as a committee, that this report and the debate have been helpful in setting the scene for the huge amount of detailed work that lies ahead. We call on the Scottish Government to commit to ensuring that the timetable will be structured to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny will be completed comfortably before the end of the current session, because we must ensure sufficient time for thorough and detailed parliamentary scrutiny. We have a commitment from the Scottish Government to a national development plan for crofting. We must send the message that our crofting communities are valued and that we will support them. I commend the report to the chamber. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on the rural economy and connectivity committees report on crofting. We are moving to decision time. The first question today is that motion 5351, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, on deer management, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The second and final question is that motion 5245, in the name of Edward Mountain, on the rural economy and connectivity report on a review of priorities for crofting law reform, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move to members' business, the name of John Finnie on ship-to-ship oil transfers. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.