Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a number of amendments in the group. I will speak initially to amendments 180, 181, 182 and 138, which relate to section 9, on owner-occupiers. One of the disappointments of the bill is that it does not do much in the way of cooling the marketisation of crofts. That situation is locking out people who are longing to take on a croft and put it to use, and it also threatens to hollow out townships. We need to move away from treating crofts as another land asset to be bought and sold. With a minor tweak to section 9, we can do something to at least remedy some of those issues while also saving the commission and the crofting community time by avoiding the need for long-winded breach of duty procedures.

Amendment 180, which I worked on with Community Land Scotland, would add a fourth condition to the owner-occupier definition as it is set out in the 1993 act. It would mean that someone applying for owner-occupier status would need to provide satisfactory evidence up front that they would live on the croft and put it to permitted use. Those are the same requirements that tenant crofters face, and there is no good reason for owner-occupiers to be treated any differently.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 179 has a very similar intent to my amendment, so, from my perspective, it is clear that we need to do something about it.

Amendments 181 and 182 would give the Scottish ministers the power to determine what evidence would be permissible to allow someone to meet the additional condition that would be required to receive owner-occupier status. Those amendments would go some way towards addressing the intent of the 2010 act, which sough to get parity in status between owner-occupiers and tenants.

Before I speak to amendments 185 and 186, which relate to section 10, on the transfer of crofts to people who are not individuals, I would just like to say that I whole-heartedly agree with the intent behind this section. Too often in society, we see ownership hidden behind obscure corporate or legal structures that prevent scrutiny, and the Scottish Greens will support any move to bring ownership out into the open.

My two amendments to section 10 seek to add a bit of nuance that I think is needed for a very specific purpose. They would provide for an exemption for local community groups and non-profit organisations, which is necessary because section 10, as it stands, could have unintended consequences for rural housing bodies and community organisations that wish to buy croft land for housing and to attach a rural housing burden.

My amendments, which were drafted with the support of Community Land Scotland and have the backing of the Scottish Crofting Federation, would ensure that crofts can be used to meet pressing local needs, such as the need for housing, and I believe that such an approach will support the cross-party effort to slow rural depopulation and maintain thriving communities across crofting counties. For that reason, I cannot back amendments 29 and 31 to 33, in the name of Beatrice Wishart. In my view, they do not recognise that there are some instances in which non-natural persons should hold a croft.

My amendment 138 would require ministers to set out the number of crofts that one crofter could own and what should happen if that threshold were to be passed. There is evidence that some crofters are collecting multiple crofts, which is not in the spirit of crofting and is damaging the crofting community. The situation is especially galling for the almost 800 people who are actively looking to take on a croft via the land matching service. As long as we leave the market for crofts unregulated, those with the deepest pockets will be able to hoover them up, and amendment 138 would help to mitigate that. I acknowledge the conversation that was had with the Government prior to stage 2 about local people wanting to gather crofts for families, but I think that there needs to be some balance in the process.

I am just trying to understand your points with regard to those amendments, so that I can consider whether I should change my approach and potentially support them.

It is good to hear your recognition that this is a contentious issue and that something needs to be done about it. I am minded not to move amendment 138 if I can have some assurance that, as the minister has said, the Government is willing to take forward some level of consultation and get to the bottom of the matter. It is a problem in communities if there is an imbalance, although I recognise that there is history to take into account, as well as familial relationships with places.

However, it is an issue that we need to consider. As I said earlier, there are around 800 people who really want to croft, but they cannot access one. We absolutely need to have more people on the land. As Andrew Thin said, we must transform the way in which we use our land and move from the current suboptimal approach to one that ensures that our land flourishes and thrives.

That is something that I wanted to get a better sense of. Perhaps there is a communication issue here if there are measures in place that people can access, but it is good to hear that you are looking at revising CAGS to make it more accessible for crofters to do the things that they want to do, especially given the big push for the ecological restoration that needs to be taking place across our land. I will keep track of these developments and what you are looking at with regard to CAGS.

Expanding the practice of crofting into other counties in Scotland has been talked about for quite a long time. Can the minister give any assurances about what work might be done in that area? It would be nice to get to a point at which we are not just talking about it but doing some work on the ground.

I appreciate what the minister said about a commitment to do further work, but I am minded to press amendment 154.

I share Rhoda Grant’s concerns. I have not referred specifically to carbon markets, but I would appreciate being part of those conversations, because it is really important that the efforts of crofters on the ground remain. As I said, we need to reward the efforts that people on the ground are putting in, and we need to get away from the extracting of wealth and keep it in the community.

It has already been reflected in committee sessions that the crofting market is running too hot for new entrants, which threatens the future of crofting, and that needs to be dealt with. People who want to be active on a croft by managing the land or producing food are the lifeblood of our crofting communities. In the face of the climate and nature crisis, people producing food for local consumption will be crucial. Restricting decrofting for residential purposes is a must, but we must also ensure that we do not create unintended consequences.

My amendment 139, which I worked on with the Scottish Crofting Federation, states that decrofting orders for residential purposes may be given only in connection with a “rural housing burden”. Such a policy would allow us to maintain stocks of affordable housing in our rural communities, which would slow rural depopulation and ensure that crofting communities can continue to thrive into the future.

You have said that you support Beatrice Wishart’s amendments on the rural housing burden. Can you remind me why you have confidence in those amendments? I have said that I am not going to support them, but I would just like to get some reassurance.

Will the minister give way?