Jamie Halcro Johnston
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“I know that colleagues from across the chamber will miss his consideration of and commitment to the issues that he was most passionate about. Beatrice Wishart, too, will be giving her last speech, and I particularly thank her for all her efforts on the CPG on islands, for making it the success that it has been and for the strong voice tha…”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business. I thank all those who have signed today’s motion, allowing me to bring the debate to the chamber.”
“Meanwhile, the ferries crisis continues, with the Scottish National Party Government coming face to face with the consequences of two decades of neglect, while islands and ferry-dependent communities pay the price.”
“There, too, costs for operators in the visitor economy are escalating, while the Government sees this as a good time to impose more regulation and more tax. In addition to economic woes, small rural communities are increasingly seeing services moved further away.”
“[Laughter.] However, I have served with John on committees, most recently the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and I know how diligent he has been in conducting the vital scrutiny required of MSPs. Last but not least, the cabinet secretary will be giving her last speech, too.”
“That has practical consequences—whether it is the young family facing another year of being unable to afford a permanent home for their children; the small business owner who seems to be sacrificing more than she gains, but who keeps going; the working person who is trying to make ends meet; or the older person on a fixed income who is af…”
The complete record
Every one of 429 lines we hold for Jamie Halcro Johnston, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“It may be simply be that, in the rush to get ahead of the queue, applicants completed the forms quickly— and incorrectly. Douglas Ross will know that, during the members’ business debate, I queried the guidance that was on the website and which applications had been rejected. In that regard, the minister gave a helpful answer to a written question from Liam McArthur on 4 December that listed some of the reasons. However, no farmer or tenant will be looking at answers to parliamentary questions. I understand that the minister is busy, but I think that it would be relatively simple for him find a cure for when the fund comes around next time. Douglas Ross would agree that it is a good fund; it almost doubled in size because of demand, which is good.”
“Christine Grahame: I do not demur from anything that I said in the members’ business debate; I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Anyone can have a look at it, since it is a wonderful contribution. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to include the proposal in an amendment to legislation. There are many ways to deal with the issue—I have said that before about other amendments. For example, committees could undertake to ensure that there is an inquiry, and there are parliamentary questions and debates. To me, those are the ways in which members should deal with ensuring that the scheme does what it says on the tin. There may be innocent reasons as to why something went wrong. I agree that 47 per cent is high—how on earth did that happen?”
“It can back my amendment 169 and Jamie Halcro Johnston’s amendments 156 to 158 in order to finally put the issue to bed, accept where errors have been made, make improvements going forward and restore trust in a system that clearly needs it to be restored. There remain far too many questions about the scheme, and those questions will not go away. More questions will be posed to the minister, and there will be more members’ business debates on the issue. More questions will be raised, I am sure, at hustings in the coming weeks and months, ahead of the election. Therefore, I suggest that it would be better for all of us across the political spectrum to support the amendments in order to get the answers for our constituents who have been calling for them for so long.”
“I do on the other hand believe that the people (or possibly AI—although this has been point blank denied in parliament) doing the scoring did not have the correct training or information available to make these assessments.” She finished by saying: “We need a breakdown of why each ineligible application was ineligible—and if the government refuse to provide this then that raises greater concerns on transparency and the accuracy of the assessment system.” I do not want those concerns to continue any longer. The Government has an opportunity to ensure that there is accuracy and transparency within the system.”
“I will finish with a quote from a constituent from Moray whom I quoted in committee and who I think deserves to be quoted in the chamber. As an agent, she was involved with many of the applications in my area and was seeking to get the best for those she was working with. She said: “The biggest red flag and huge concern to the industry is the 3,537 applications that did not meet the eligibility criteria—we need more information on this, and we need it whilst the civil servants who have dealt with the scheme are still in their current jobs.” She continued: “I simply do not believe that 47% of applicants were ineligible—I do not believe this possible.”
“To go back to Christine Grahame’s questions on my gull amendments, there is nothing in here that would cost the Government any money. I have gone through it very carefully since the last group was discussed. There is also nothing in here that would mean any SNP member who represents a rural or island constituency could not proudly go back to that constituency and say, “I supported amendment 169 to get the answers that our farmers, crofters and tenant farmers want.” I cannot understand why SNP ministers would not want to be open and transparent on a scheme about which many of us were positive in relation to what it delivered for those who were successful. However, we do have questions about those who were not.”
“Perhaps, when she was seeking to intervene, she was going to tell me that she will support amendment 169, so I will accept her intervention. Christine Grahame: Instead of being called to intervene, I will take this opportunity, if I may, to speak to the amendments in the group. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Grahame, this is an intervention. Speaking to amendments is different. Christine Grahame: I will leave it until I speak to the amendments in the group, if that is convenient, and then I will— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Douglas Ross. Douglas Ross: The member asked to intervene, but I can handle the suspense for a few more minutes. I say genuinely that there is nothing in amendment 169 that SNP members should be concerned about.”
“is a breakdown by parliamentary region and more detailed data on new entrants, farm types and so on for both successful and unsuccessful applications”.—[Official Report, 22 January 2026; c 112.] At that time, I urged Christine Grahame to support my amendments this week, because, in sections (4)(a) and (4)(b) of amendment 169, I call for Scottish ministers to “inform all applicants whose application was rejected the reason for their application being rejected” and to “inform all applicants that were considered ineligible the reason why they were considered to be ineligible.” I do not know whether we have some telepathic relationship going on, but, before Christine Grahame uttered those words last Thursday, I had lodged an amendment that would achieve exactly what she was calling for.”
“If I can finish my point, I will give way to Christine Grahame. Christine Grahame: I informed the member— [Inaudible.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Hello? Is Mr Ross accepting an intervention from Ms Grahame? Douglas Ross: I will, in a moment, if I can finish my point. I highlighted Christine Grahame because, when she took part in the members’ business debate on the future farming investment scheme, less than a week ago, she said: “What is missing ...”
“Is there any way back from this to ensure that, if what is in the paper is not good enough, people can still get the information that they need?”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 10 December 2025; c 95-96.] It is very clear that the information that was ultimately published by the cabinet secretary was not good enough, because people still do not have the answers that they are looking for. I quoted Rhoda Grant in the hope of garnering Labour’s support. I mentioned Liam McArthur in the hope of garnering support from the Liberal Democrats. Now, I come to one of my favourite members on the SNP benches: Christine Grahame. I can see that she is overwhelmed by that. Less than a week ago, she took part in the members’ business debate on—[Interruption.] Yes, I know.”
“She was very clear that we did not need to support amendments such as amendment 169 because material would be provided before recess, which was only a couple of weeks away. At that point, I and others tried to intervene, but Rhoda Grant of the Labour party made a very telling intervention. She said: “There is a huge amount of concern about this, and there have been statements and questions on it, but we do not seem to have any better information, and I think that there is a lack of confidence that the information will come out.” She then asked Mairi Gougeon: “When does the cabinet secretary plan to publish the paper that she referred to?” Rhoda Grant, who is an Opposition politician to me, continued: “I am minded to support these amendments, because I am not confident that we will get the answers.”
“People being unhappy about not getting a grant is understandable, but their now being wary about applying in the future is unacceptable. If there is money available, we should encourage our new entrants, tenant farmers and those in island communities to apply for it, as priority groups in the scheme were encouraged to do before they were left with nothing—not the money that they looked for for the investment that they needed, nor, crucially, the answers to the questions that they posed. 19:15 I will highlight a point that will, no doubt, come up in summing up. Ministers will say that they promised at stage 2 to provide all the information that was required. The cabinet secretary, Mairi Gougeon, made that commitment at committee.”
“Speaking of the industry, I am sure that the minister or the cabinet secretary who responds to the debate on this group will say, “Well, the scheme was co-designed with NFU Scotland.” However, the same NFU Scotland said: “Initial feedback from our members has focused around perceived inconsistencies”. I know that many members will not want to take that information from me or from others on the Conservative benches—they might not even like to hear it from members on any of the Opposition benches—but they cannot ignore the body that represents our farmers in this country, which was involved in the scheme but is saying that something went badly wrong here. It is important that we do not repeat these mistakes in the future. It is important to insert confidence back into the system.”
“I would have thought it a basic courtesy to tell people who are applying for funds that they believe are vital for their farming or crofting operation why they were not successful. Was it because too many people applied for the same thing? Was it because their geographical area was oversubscribed and some people had to be rejected while others were fortunate? What happened to those ineligible applications? The minister has outlined, both in letters and in written answers, a series of reasons why he believes applications were rejected. Many of those reasons have been dismissed by those in the industry.”
“Liberal Democrats lodged the members’ business motion last week, Labour MSPs have been raising the issue in the chamber and their MP colleagues have been raising it in the House of Commons, and the Conservatives have been regularly seeking updates and answers on this point. What should have been a positive has turned into a negative for the Government, and it really risks undermining the thought process that people will go through should they have the opportunity to apply for a scheme in the future. Months on, they are still unsure about what happened here. They do not know why their application, which they spent a lot of time on, was either rejected or deemed ineligible.”
“No one can tell me that they believe that this scheme was a success when 47 per cent of applicants—let us remember that more than 7,500 people applied for the scheme—were not rejected but were deemed ineligible. If we have a scheme in which almost one in every two applicants is deemed to be ineligible before even being considered, there is a problem with the scheme. There is a problem with how the scheme is articulated, how people are invited to apply for it or how it is reviewed when it comes back in. The scheme has been the subject of considerable debate in the Parliament—whether through questions in the chamber, stage 2 amendments or the members’ business debate that we had less than a week ago—and that has come from all sides of the chamber.”
“The amendment also includes a requirement to consult “persons with knowledge, expertise and experience of farming and agriculture” and to inform all applicants who were rejected or were ineligible of the reasons why their application was not accepted. I urge members to support amendment 169 as well. I move amendment 155. Douglas Ross: I am very pleased to speak to amendment 169, because it is crucially important. I will start where I started in committee when I moved the same amendment. I welcome the quantum of funds that went to farmers and crofters, and I welcome the scheme. It would be churlish to dismiss the significant investment, but something went wrong here.”
“If the cabinet secretary is satisfied to give that advice, I suggest that she should make that clear by supporting amendment 157, which would provide that applicants would have the right to access such information in that way. Amendment 158 is a consequential amendment that would provide safeguards for protected and confidential data. Douglas Ross’s amendment 169 covers similar ground to my amendment 156 and would require transparency around the operation of the FFIS, with the publication of an annual report containing information about the nature of the applications. Amendment 169 differs in that it includes specific requirements to set out whether internal consultants or computerised programmes were used and to provide information about potential learnings for the Scottish Government.”
“Amendment 156 seeks to deal with the broad issue of the operation of such schemes by requiring data to be published to provide a credible overview of their operation. That is vital if we are not only to fix the FFIS but to ensure that such chaos does not happen again with future schemes. The publication of the data that the amendment would require would be relatively straightforward and would assist with not only applicants’ but the public’s understanding of the scheme. Amendment 157 seeks to address the issue at the level of individual applicants. It reflects the words of the cabinet secretary, who told the committee that applicants might wish to contact their local rural payments and inspections division office if they want to know why an application has been rejected.”
“That is a relatively small change from the point of view of the number of hectares affected, but it would avoid the massively disproportionate impact that the Government’s change will have on island communities that are least able to implement it. Amendments 156 to 158 aim to provide transparency on the operation of the future farming investment scheme and any similar funds that are established for environmental farming support. Members will not need to be reminded about the anger that surrounded the launch of the future farming investment scheme. We know, for example, that almost half of applicants were deemed to be ineligible before even being considered. When the minister has been challenged on the matter, his answer has been that he does not know whether those applications were ever reviewed by a human.”
“Future changes could have an even greater impact, potentially increasing the number of affected farms to unsustainable levels, according to some local farmers. Island farms face particular difficulties in implementing EFAs, which is why they have benefited from a position in which very few have had to do so in the past. Amendment 155 would reapply the two former 75 per cent exemptions exclusively to farm businesses on inhabited islands. Given the challenges of implementation, it would also reduce the proportion of a holding that would be required to be under an EFA for the small number of farms concerned from 7 per cent back down to 5 per cent.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a partner in a farming business and a member of NFU Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates. Through the Rural Support (Improvement) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/59), the Scottish Government removed two exemptions that allowed a number of farmers not to put ecological focus areas into place. That is the focus of my amendment 155. The removal of those exemptions will have the effect of increasing the number of farm businesses that are required to put an EFA in place. In the islands, it will have a particularly disproportionate effect, because, according to the island communities impact assessment, the number of affected island farm businesses will rise from 15 to an estimated 282 in the first year.”
“That causes a great deal of frustration, particularly for farmers in my area, where they see resources being spent on the stoat eradication scheme but not so much being spent to deal with their issues with geese. Amendment 177 would not change the protected status of geese and would not weaken licensing. It would simply give ministers the power to support and fund co-ordinated goose management, treating that as a public good activity instead of leaving individual farmers to bear the cost alone. That would be a proportionate and practical response to an unintended pressure and I urge members to support the amendment.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a partner in a farming business and a member of NFU Scotland and SLE. Amendment 177, in my name, recognises that successful conservation brings management responsibilities. In parts of Scotland, particularly in the island and remote areas that I represent, goose populations are causing significant damage to agricultural land and especially to grazing land used for livestock and have been doing so for some time. Farmers and land managers are already expected to deal with that under existing wildlife law but, in practice, controlling goose numbers is time consuming, costly and often controversial, with the burden falling almost entirely on individual businesses.”
“It has become just another example of a policy created here in Edinburgh that fails to meet the needs of the rural and island communities that I represent. Although I know that ministers will keep defending the scheme and their management of it, I hope that, at least behind the scenes, they will be humble enough to accept that some serious lessons must be learned from its failure to deliver what it promised for our farmers and crofters. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister, Jim Fairlie, to respond to the debate. 17:28”
“I do not doubt that the FFIS was conceived with good intentions, and we know that a great many farm businesses expressed an interest, but the volume of rejections and the lack of any transparency about why applications were rejected has left a legacy of resentment, anger and frustration in our rural communities. The cabinet secretary has said that the FFIS is “a powerful example of what can be achieved when we come together”, but I am not sure that the sector feels at all as if we are working together with the Scottish Government. For many farmers and crofters, the scheme is yet another example of what happens when ministers and their officials at St Andrew’s house or Victoria Quay in Edinburgh rush out policies that they have not properly consulted on.”
“I want to know whether applications could be deemed ineligible, and therefore unable to progress to the formal assessment stage, despite having had no human assessment whatsoever. I would be happy to take an intervention from the minister. Jim Fairlie: You had your answer yesterday. Jamie Halcro Johnston: I did not have an answer yesterday, which is why I have asked again today. I am disappointed that the minister will not answer that question, because it is one of the concerns of farmers and crofters, not only because their applications may have been rejected solely by a computer program in that instance, but because the same thing might happen again in the future. We want clarification of that.”
“We are bringing back those amendments, along with others on the subject, at stage 3 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill next week, and I urge members of all parties, and certainly those who want to stand up for our farmers and crofters, to support those amendments. Only yesterday, during rural questions, I asked the minister—or tried to ask the minister—to what extent the process had been automated. I did not get a clear answer, so I will ask him again now and I am happy to take an intervention if he is happy to make one. Although the minister stated that artificial intelligence had not been used in the verification and eligibility process, we know that an Excel-based program was used.”
“We recognise that harvests fail, livestock die or are injured, and fuel and other costs go up. Some of the challenges that we face, including the family farm tax and increases in employer national insurance contributions, to name just two, are beyond the control of this Parliament, but Scottish ministers have a great deal of power to change things for the better and, in this case, the Scottish Government fell short. As I mentioned previously, my Conservative colleagues and I have tried to get the answer that the sector wants. As Douglas Ross said, both he and I have tried to bring transparency to the FFIS through legislative amendments, but the SNP and others have combined to vote those down.”
“Those flaws, which I am sure that Scottish ministers would prefer to call “challenges” or perhaps “teething problems”, were baked in from the very start because, as is far too often the case, the Scottish Government failed to consult properly or to listen to the concerns of those who know best: our farmers and crofters. Since the rejection emails started hitting inboxes, including that of our business in Orkney, which I mentioned, the Conservatives have tried to get the answers that individual businesses and our wider agricultural sector have sought, the simplest of which is on what basis applications were rejected. We need to know that because we need to know how to apply better when the next scheme comes around. Those of us in the farming community know that farming throws up many variables.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business and an applicant to the future farming investment scheme. I congratulate Liam McArthur on bringing the debate to the chamber and on providing members with another opportunity to raise concerns about what is a major issue for many farmers and crofters in communities in the Highlands and Islands. The future farming investment scheme promised much to those communities but, unfortunately, as we have already heard today and as has been raised here many times by me and by colleagues such as Douglas Ross, Tim Eagle and others across the chamber, its development and implementation were flawed.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether local authorities should increase council tax, reduce public services, or a mixture of both, to meet any gaps in local government funding as a result of the draft budget. (S6O-05406)”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In my efforts to accommodate your request for brevity, I neglected to draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Halcro Johnston. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business. Health and Social Care The Deputy Presiding Officer: The next portfolio is health and social care. I remind members that questions 3 and 5 have been grouped together, so I will take any supplementary questions after both substantive questions have been responded to. I advise members that there is considerable interest in asking supplementary questions. I will try to get in as many as possible, but that will require co-operation from members regarding the brevity of questions and responses.”
“However, if the question is about whether the assessment process used more machinery and AI than human involvement, the answer is no, it did not.”
“The update on the future farming investment scheme, which the Government sneaked out on the very last day before recess, still leaves farmers in the dark on why their applications were deemed ineligible or unsuccessful. Although the minister stated that artificial intelligence was not used in the verification and eligibility process, we know that an Excel-based programme was used. Could applications be deemed ineligible and therefore not progress to the formal assessment stage without any human assessment whatsoever? Jim Fairlie: The member is now talking about the FFIS, which is kind of going off topic, and an awful lot of such questions will be answered in the debate that we will have tomorrow.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure transport links remain open during incidents of severe weather. (S6O-05381)”
“I am in regular correspondence about the interests of individual constituents—not least with the First Minister and other members who have constituency interests along the A9.”
“Community involvement is essential, and I have been asked by a number of members to look into issues for individual constituents. The point about energy and planning is important. That is why I, as Cabinet Secretary for Transport, have been encouraging Transport Scotland to engage, and ensuring that it does so— particularly with our renewables sector in relation to different plans. Jamie Halcro Johnston is perhaps talking about actual delivery, whereas I am talking abut transportation requirements, but it is an essential part of our infrastructure planning, and I am very cognisant of what he said. Jamie Halcro Johnston can write to me to explain what, in particular, he is seeking me to do.”
“Communities living alongside the A9 have endured years of uncertainty about when work will start, which has often impacted on their ability to properly plan for the future. Many are concerned that, when work finally starts, little consideration will have been given to taking into account existing or planned work on major energy infrastructure projects in the area. Does the cabinet secretary recognise those concerns, and will she agree to come to the Highlands and meet my constituents to hear those concerns first hand? Fiona Hyslop: In relation to the A9 and providing certainty, we are trying to set out for the constituents of Jamie Halcro Johnston—and, indeed, for the constituents of all members across the Highlands—what the work will mean for their area and what will happen locally.”
“I am well aware that, historically, there has been a lack of faith in the Crofting Commission across crofting communities and counties. However, under the current regime, Andrew Thin and Gary Campbell are absolutely determined that the board will make the right assessment of the duties and will ensure that crofters carry out those duties. I would have liked to touch on many other points, but I am running out of time. Should members agree to support the general principles of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill, I commit to working with members right across the chamber to better the lot of our nation’s crofters and to deliver for our people and communities an effective bill that they can be rightly proud of. Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill: Financial Resolution 17:01”
“I hope that that gives some comfort. If a crofter owns more than three crofts, they would have to go through the process, but that does not mean that they would not be able to take on other crofts—they would simply have to go through the same process as everybody else. The proposal in the bill is that family assignations should be done far more easily, and I think that that has been widely welcomed. I absolutely agree that the commission needs sufficient resources and staff based locally to monitor and enforce compliance. I regularly meet the commission’s chief executive officer and chair to discuss the commission’s performance, and the commission is increasing its enforcement work. Last year, through taking some form of regulatory action, the commission commenced engagement with 215 crofters and resolved 134 breaches of duties.”
“At some point, an issue was raised—I do not know whether it was raised by a member in the chamber today—regarding the three-croft limit for family assignation and how that might disproportionately impact crofters who have multiple crofting interests. We want to reduce the burden of crofting regulation where it makes sense to do so. The Crofting Commission’s resources need to be freed up through the change that we are bringing forward, so that it will have more time available to deploy elsewhere—for example, in enforcement duties. I will come back to that in a moment. We settled on a limit of three crofts because we felt that that struck the right balance between the policy intention, which is to improve the efficiency of the service that is provided to customers, and the concerns that it could result in croft collecting or land banking.”
“The crofter can dig peat and cut or plant trees on their croft, so the landowner could not claim the carbon credits. If they were to claim carbon credits for peatland restoration, say, and the crofter decided to start cutting a new peat bank, they could not do it—they have no control over the trees or the peat on their land. The credits must, therefore, lie with the crofter. Jim Fairlie: There we see the complexity of crofting law and who owns what. That is why we need to take our time and fully consider the proposals so that we get it right. The issue that Rhoda Grant highlights is one of the matters that should be considered in the next crofting bill.”
“That has been mentioned by a number of members, and I will touch on it just now. We have to avoid a situation in which crofters are unable to access future funding schemes that incentivise certain environmental uses, and that is one of the issues that the bill picks up. Members have talked about carbon credits. We do not yet fully understand who owns those carbon credits, and I think that it would be premature to state in crofting legislation whether those carbon rights sit with the landlord or with the crofter. In the meantime, I absolutely encourage crofters to go into joint ventures with their landowners and other crofters in order to bring mutual benefit. Rhoda Grant: I think that it is quite clear where those carbon credits sit.”
“We should not rush things but I take Mr Carson’s point that we need to move on to the next process, because today has shown the complexity of crofting law. Anybody who is listening to the debate and is not absolutely embedded in crofting will not have a clue what most of us are talking about. When we go through the process of dealing with the current complex crofting law, therefore, we need to ensure that we have done the work and have engaged with stakeholders, and that we understand what it is that crofting is going to deliver for the people of Scotland and, more importantly, for the crofters. That is a vital piece of work that we will need to undertake in the next session of Parliament. The bill provides crofters and landowners with a legislative framework to help them to address environmental issues.”
“Jim Fairlie: Before I take the intervention, I should point out that such reform would also need to be cleared by any future Governments, Cabinets and Cabinet sub-committees. Finlay Carson: I am surprised to hear the minister talk about not “rushing” into crofting reform when there has been talk, debate and consultation over future crofting policy for decades. Sadly, we hear the excuse about not rushing into reform from the SNP all too often. We accept that this bill is intended to address some of the technicalities, but the majority of crofters out there are calling for radical change, and that change needs to come sooner rather than later. Jim Fairlie: We almost got through a consensual debate without any dispute at all.”
“However, the bill was never intended to deliver fundamental reform—it is technical in nature, and it provides the improvements that we need while enabling crofters to take greater control of how they use their land. Although reform will be necessary in the future, I would caution against rushing straight into it. We first need to establish what crofting policy should be in the future, and—to continue the approach that we took to this bill—we need stakeholders to consider that question, too. Although it is ultimately the Government’s responsibility to deliver that policy, that should not be done unless we have good evidence from stakeholders. Finlay Carson: Will the minister give way?”
“However, the bill and today’s debate still leave an important question unanswered: what is the Government’s and the Parliament’s vision for the long-term future of crofting? 16:54 Jim Fairlie: I thank members across the chamber for the consensual way in which we have debated the bill today. That goes back to the point that I made in my opening statement, about the extensive amount of very good engagement that the bill team and my officials have done to ensure that we bring the crofting community along with us. I will address a number of points that members have made—I am sorry, but I will not be able to associate names with all those points. A number of members said that there is not enough in the bill and that more wholesale legislative reform is needed.”
“He also rightly noted the several outstanding issues that will now need to be tackled in the next session, as well as the indications that the Scottish Government gave that those issues would be recognised in this session, too. There is a broad consensus in favour of reforming crofting law and ensuring that we have a framework that will work for the future. There is a collective will in the chamber to get the legislation right while looking forward to the future and perhaps more extensive reforms. It is my hope and belief that positive work can happen as the bill progresses if the Scottish Government is prepared to take on board a number of the issues that have been raised today.”
“Tim Eagle said that the bill is a step forward but that there is a need for a more comprehensive review that answers some of the bigger questions, as well as a need to ensure that people are not priced out of local crofting. He also highlighted the need for crofts to be in active use—an issue that was raised by Dr Allan and Edward Mountain and that was hinted at by Rhoda Grant when she highlighted the concerns around second homes and holiday accommodation, which the bill will not address. Edward Mountain welcomed the committee’s report and spoke about its content, but he framed the bill clearly in terms of a missed opportunity.”