Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Official Report 476KB pdf

---

Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Agenda item 3 is the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Paul Wheelhouse, who is the member in charge of the bill, and the officials who are accompanying him.

We have no amendments to deal with but, under the standing orders, we are obliged to consider each section and schedule and the long title, and to agree to each formally. We will take the sections in order and consider the schedule immediately after the section that introduces it and the long title last. Fortunately, the standing orders allow us to put a single question when groups of sections or schedules are to be considered consecutively. Unless members disagree, that is what I propose to do.

Can I ask a general question before we begin the formal process?

A general question on—

A general question of the minister. Will that come up in the process?

It will not come up during the process. If it is a short question and the minister is prepared to take it, I am happy for Alex Fergusson to ask it.

12:00

I can assure you of a short question, convener.

Good morning, minister. I am sorry to complicate the process. Given the issues that have been raised by Sir Crispin Agnew, in particular, about some parts of the bill not matching up with others, if I can use such loose terminology, why have you not seen fit to lodge amendments to address his concerns?

We are aware that there are a number of alternative views about the form and content of the bill, as was discussed during the stage 1 debate. We are aware of those views and respect the opinions of Sir Crispin Agnew and Derek Flyn and others, including Brian Inkster, but we believe that the bill provides the necessary clarity and legal certainty that the owner-occupier crofters and other stakeholders are looking for to allow them to decroft their land. The commission will have the power to consider such applications after the bill is enacted.

The Scottish Government considered the detailed drafting issues that were raised; I can promise the committee that we have gone over them in some detail. However, as it is drafted, the bill achieves its purpose. A number of key witnesses to the committee, such as Sir Crispin Agnew, and the Crofting Commission, through David Balharry and Derek Flyn, all agreed that the bill delivers on the purpose that the Government has set out of giving owner-occupiers the ability to decroft.

The Scottish Government is committed to drafting in as plain and accessible a manner as is consistent with achieving the necessary outcome. We all know that crofting law is horrendously complicated: that message came across loud and clear at last week’s debate, and I do not disagree with that conclusion, which was reached by many members. As I said during the stage 1 debate, the key issue is that the provisions in the bill, in its current form, are as close as we could get them to the provisions for tenant crofters. That will enable us to deliver similar treatment, which we all want. I cannot prejudge what the committee will say, but the nature of the debate so far seems to indicate that we want to give owner-occupiers provisions that are similar to those for tenant crofters where appropriate. Obviously, some aspects, especially on land tenure and right to buy, had to be modified, but we are talking about the general provisions. In order to do that, we have kept as close as possible to the original wording of the provisions for tenant crofters.

The bill has therefore taken a particular form. I appreciate that some people are concerned that it could have been simpler, but then there might have been more room for doubt that the provisions were meant to be the same as those for tenant crofters. By taking the view that we have, we have managed to minimise that possibility. I hope that that answers Mr Fergusson’s question.

It does, and in much more detail than I was expecting; I thank you for that. I just want to clarify that my reason for raising the point was not to question the purpose of the bill or its likely outcome but to look for confirmation, which I think you have given me, that you looked at the technical drafting points that were raised by Sir Crispin Agnew, which were not really questioning the outcome of the bill but questioning whether separate parts of the bill worked together in a way that goes beyond my ken. You have told me clearly that you have looked at all that and are satisfied with the way in which the bill is drafted, and I am quite happy to accept that. It is good to have that on the record.

As there are no further questions at the moment, we will move on to the stage 2 process.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to

Sections 3 to 7 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the minister and his team for their brief visit, and I am sorry that you were kept waiting, but we think that it is important. I hope that we are not going to have any arguments with the business managers and have a two and a half-hour debate on the bill at stage 3, as members, even with their knowledge of crofting, might be stretched to fill that time.

I concur with your view, convener.

Thank you, minister.