My amendment 177 seeks to remove the crofters’ right to buy. Many believe that the right to buy is the reason for crofts becoming much more marketable and, as a result, the costs of crofts going up. Unpicking that right will mean other consequential amendments, which I have left the Scottish ministers to do by regulation.

The proposal will be controversial, so I do not intend to move the amendment today, but I believe that it is something that we have to consider. Given the time constraints that we face, it might not be something that we are able to do with this bill, but I do want the Government to give some thought to how we do this and stop the market in crofts locking young people out of becoming crofters.

My amendment 188 seeks to change the reasons for resuming a croft to ensure that it is for the good of the community and in the public interest.

I will speak to amendments 193 to 195. As the minister said in his speech, amendments 193 and 194 do largely what his amendments seek to do. I do not intend to move them, so I will not speak to them in detail.

I am not convinced that amendment 195 is covered by his amendments. Amendment 195 would provide ministers with powers to make provision enabling grazing shares to be reunited with the croft they originally pertained to. It is clear that that would be desirable, given that owners of grazings shares might not be aware of their status. Those who might be holding on to those shares may also be looking to benefit financially from the work of grazings committees. That was creating a deal of angst for crofters where grazings shares were held by someone with no attachment to the community.

As I say, I do not think that the minister’s amendments deal with that issue. If they do, I would be happy to take an intervention. If not, I will move amendment 195.

I will speak to amendments 166, 173 to 175, 189 and 190.

Too often, we hear about people using their croft house as a holiday let or a second home. That theme runs through a lot of the amendments to the bill, because we must find ways of making sure that crofts are used for their intended purpose. At the moment, many so-called crofters are not crofters; they are people who bought a house and some land. Crofting land is fundamentally different from other land in that the land must be put to agricultural use. Over the years, diversification has infringed on that purpose—often for good reasons, because few crofters make a living from the land on their croft.

Amendment 166 would tighten up the “ordinarily resident” criteria to ensure that the

“crofter’s sole or main residence”

is on or near the croft, as opposed to the crofter being “ordinarily resident”. That definition would make it easier for the commission to identify those who are not ordinarily resident on the croft.

Amendment 173 would allow Scottish ministers or any Scottish Government department, such as the rural payments and inspections division, to be able to report breaches in the residence criteria to the Crofting Commission, which would then be required to instigate an investigation.

Amendment 174 would enable the person who is reporting a breach to request that they remain anonymous and to have the Crofting Commission keep their details anonymised if they live in the same township as the person who is being reported. It can cause tensions and splits in the community if the name of the person who has reported a breach becomes known.

Amendment 175 would limit the scope for people to make vexatious complaints by allowing the commission to take previous vexatious complaints “into account” before proceeding to investigate a breach.

Amendment 189 is a probing amendment. Currently, crofters are able to apply for consent to be absent from a croft. There are legitimate times when someone would require to be absent, such as for short-term work commitments or caring and family responsibilities. However, anecdotal information suggests that the ability is being misused and that people are using it to be permanently absent. I am keen to work with the minister and the bill team to explore how we can stop the abuse of consent for absence without putting people’s homes and livelihoods at risk should difficult circumstances occur.

Amendment 190 seeks to deal with the issue of someone who is buying a croft or an assignation needing to be aware of the duties that they are taking on. All too often, people believe that a croft is a house, but it is not. Where a house is attached to a croft, that is a croft house. However, there cannot be a croft house without it being attached to croft land, and it is the land to which obligations are attached. Crofts are changing hands for huge amounts of money, and I do not believe that that would happen as it is doing currently if people understood what they were taking on. My amendment proposes a way in which to enable that to happen, but I am open to discussion if there are better ways of doing it.

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?