Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will speak to amendments 176, 39 and 40. The bill will limit the number of crofts that a crofter may normally hold. There was discussion in the committee about the appropriate number of crofts, given that they can vary significantly in size, especially where crofts have been subdivided in the past. A hectarage threshold might be a more realistic gauge of what may be seen as excessive, and amendment 176 would set the quite high threshold of 500 hectares. That would be a substantial amount of land to be held by one crofter. It is the limit that Mercedes Villalba sought to put into the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to signify a substantial holding. It seems fair, but I will listen to members’ and the minister’s thoughts on that approach.

Amendments 39 and 40 seek to slightly tweak the provisions in section 11, which amends sections 23 and 26J of the 1993 act to provide that, where the commission has let a croft to a crofter under section 23(5C) of the 1993 act, it may not be assigned during the 10 years following the date of the let. Under the bill, the commission may not consent to the assignation of the tenancy of a croft and the Land Court may not make an order authorising the acquisition of the croft by the crofter. Amendments 39 and 40 seek to allow the Crofting Commission and the Land Court discretion to waive the 10-year ban in exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances could include someone becoming unwell and being unable to work the croft any more, or someone having a change of circumstances that leads to them having to leave and being in breach of their obligations under the crofting acts. In exceptional circumstances, the Crofting Commission and the Land Court could look at the individual circumstances and waive the requirement if necessary.

I am happy to accept that reassurance, and I have nothing more to add.

I just want to make a short intervention to agree with a lot of what has been said. People were expecting there to be a substantive bill in the previous parliamentary session, and now, in the current parliamentary session, they have a bill that does not really meet aspirations, although the changes that it makes are welcome. We have to find a way of binding the next Government, whoever it is, to consult widely and introduce legislation, while recognising that crofting has evolved in different areas. That will not be easy, but, because of what is happening to crofting, it will not survive if legislation is not amended substantially in the next five years.

Is the minister willing to have discussions ahead of stage 3 on amendment 189? I know that the amendment is not the finished article by any stretch, but there is an issue about people being absent but not really being absent and instead using it to enable abandonment. If we could tighten up the rules on that, that would make the situation better. I am not suggesting that people should wait to be reported, but the circumstances in which people can leave their croft for a short period should perhaps be tightened up.

I will speak to amendments 178, 179, 183, 184 and 187, which try to address a problem created by the right to buy and seek to make it clear that ownership of a croft does not circumvent the obligations of a crofter.

Amendment 178 is a paving amendment, and amendment 179 would add an extra condition that a person must meet to be considered an owner-occupier crofter—that the commission be satisfied that they can meet the owner-occupier crofter duties. The bill introduces an alternative way in which a person can be considered an owner-occupier crofter, via new section 19BA of the 1993 act, by which the commission makes a determination that the person is an owner-occupier crofter. Amendment 183 would provide that the commission cannot make such a determination unless it is satisfied that the crofter can meet the crofter duties.

Amendment 187 would add a new section to provide that, if the commission is not so satisfied that the person can meet the duties, it must direct the person to let the croft to any person as a crofter. It would also provide a regulation-making power for ministers should they need to create other substantive provisions to make this operational.

Amendment 184 would provide that subsections (3) to (7) of section 58A of the 1993 act, which deal with notification and objections, will continue to apply to determinations under proposed new section 19BA of the 1993 act.

Apologies—I could not unmute, and the host disallowed me. Obviously someone was snoozing somewhere.

Will the assessments have any impact at all? I have been closely watching island communities impact assessments, which are being rolled up into the new system, and I cannot think of one thing that looks as if it has changed as a result of them. Therefore, it would be really good to have an example of any practical changes in the way that things are funded under the new system.

Thank you.

I have an overarching question on all the instruments. In rural areas, including the Highlands and Islands, which I represent, there are legal aid deserts, and for all sorts of cases people have to go to Glasgow, for example, to get a solicitor to represent them.

Will any of the proposed changes take account of geography, the additional costs of travel and the like in order to make it easier for local solicitors to take on that work and represent folk more locally?

My sound is working.

Would you consider rural proofing future policy in this area, which would involve looking through a rural lens at areas where it is really difficult to get access to legal representation?