Official Report 272KB pdf
We will take evidence at stage 1 of the bill. I say to the witnesses that the purpose of hearing oral evidence is to allow members to gather information to supplement the written submissions that we have received from them. That evidence will help to inform the committee's report to the Justice 2 Committee, which is the lead committee. The report that is made by our committee, which is a secondary committee, will become an integral part of the Justice 2 Committee report. That report will end up in the Parliament, where there will be a stage 1 debate on the general principles of the bill.
I am here to represent the Crofting Counties Fishing Rights Group, which represents professional river employees in the six crofting counties.
Please also introduce anybody whom you have brought with you.
I have brought John Brae from the Brora District Salmon Fishery Board and Iain McMyn from the Kyle of Sutherland District Salmon Fishery Board.
I represent the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association, which was formed on 29 November 2001 formally to represent the views of river owners on part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. We represent approximately 73 rivers in the crofting counties. We are in favour of reviewing land ownership and access by practical, inclusive and fair means. With me is John Salkeld from the Halladale and Niall Graham-Campbell from CKD Finlayson Hughes.
I am director of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, which represents a network of 52 salmon fishery boards throughout Scotland. Boards are statutory bodies with responsibility, under the Salmon Act 1986 and previous salmon acts, to protect and improve salmon fisheries. Boards have a number of specific responsibilities. We are here principally to express our concerns about the potential impact of the bill on the conservation, management and good stewardship of the salmon fisheries resource.
The Scottish Crofting Foundation represents the interests of crofters and crofting across the crofting counties.
I am the chairman of the Crofters Commission, which is responsible for the administration of crofting acts. I am accompanied by Shane Rankin, who is our chief executive. Our interest is in all aspects of crofting and in all aspects of the bill, which we welcome.
I represent the Strathspey Crofters and Tenant Farmers Association. My adviser, Stuart Dunbar, is with me here today. We are most anxious to further our ends. We feel that any small unit that is in receipt of the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme and is not on the crofting register should be put on to that register, to give us parity with the registered crofters.
Thank you all for your brevity. The purpose of today's meeting is for members to ask the questions that they feel they need to ask to ensure that our final report is better informed.
As far as I am aware—
Convener—
I am sorry, Mr Douglas Miller, could I hold you up for one moment?
I apologise to colleagues who have come along to give evidence, but I thought that today's meeting was part of the consultation. We are involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. I do not follow the question, convener.
The question has been put to me by several people, and I thought that it was appropriate to ask it to kick off this evidence session.
I thought that this was to be the first session in many weeks of pre-legislative scrutiny. I want to be fair to those who have travelled to be with us today and to give them every opportunity to present their case cogently and clearly, but I thought that—
Could I interrupt, convener?
Hold on, please.
We are consulting now, and there is plenty of opportunity.
I am not convinced that we are involved in pre-legislative scrutiny now. The bill has been published.
Well, this is part of the pre-legislative process.
If members are unhappy with the question, I will keep it until later in the meeting. However, it has been put to me by several people and I feel quite within my rights to ask it. Would somebody else care to start the questioning?
In recent weeks, we have read that there is a great deal of controversy about the inclusion in the bill of the right to buy's extension to the purchase of salmon fishing rights. I understand that those rights are a separate heritable entity under the current law—in other words, something that may be sold. I guess that many of you gentlemen are here today to offer us your views on that. I would like to hear from the Scottish Crofting Foundation how widespread the potential desire to purchase fishing rights as well as land is thought to be. What are your views about the inclusion of fishing rights in the bill?
We feel that there needs to be further clarification on the definition of fishings. There is clearly an issue around underused, under-managed and badly utilised fishings on the west coast; there is also the issue of managed fisheries on the east and north coasts. We feel that some definition of a managed river system also needs to be made. If we are considering the possibility of purchasing managed river systems, we feel it unlikely that a crofting community body would have the necessary financial impetus to do that. If we are considering possible definitions of sustainable development, it is unlikely that a crofting community body would be in a position to purchase a managed river system if sustainable development includes investment of the kind that has been made to date.
I understand that argument, but my question to you is about how widespread you think the desire is to include the purchase of fishings along with the purchase of land.
There is a desire on the part of our membership for the purchase of fishings to be included. However, given the mechanism provided for in the bill, the likelihood of that happening is very low. That is the current general opinion. We think that that applies more to the west coast, where some rivers are either not managed or underutilised. The opportunities may exist there for crofting communities to get involved. At this stage, however, the issue concerns inby land and common grazings.
Why do the gentlemen from the CCFRG and HIRA feel that the provision covering that is so disastrous? They will recognise that the bill contains provisions to provide market compensation at the market value and, moreover, that it allows for a leaseback, which must be for a peppercorn—that is nominal or zero—rent for at least 20 years. That can be registered and can therefore be used as a security. Given that those provisions are in the bill, do they give you comfort? What do you think about the leaseback and the fact that any purchase would be at full market value with full compensation? There would not be confiscation, which seems to have been the implication of publicity in the past few weeks.
I understand that the leaseback provision does not apply to fishing so I am not sure whether your comments are correct.
My reading of the bill is that the provision would apply if so directed by the ministers.
Even if the provision applied—which it does not—it would still be hard to understand how the community would benefit.
The issue is whether the provision applies. My reading of the bill is that it would apply if so directed by the ministers.
That is not our view. However, if it did apply, it would still be hard to understand how it would benefit the community. A lot of money would be spent simply to give somebody a peppercorn rent. How would that benefit the community?
Section 80 of the bill is entitled
I have.
There can be a leaseback to an owner of a sporting interest,
That takes me back to the question—
Hang on. We have established that the bill provides for a leaseback of sporting rights. Does that give you comfort? Is that an avenue that you might explore at stage 1? If there was a leaseback on fishing rights, I presume that you could carry on enjoying them. Is that thesis wrong? What are your views on section 80 of the bill?
The advice that I have been given is that sporting rights pertain to deer stalking and not to fishing—that is our understanding of the situation. However, I still do not understand how there would be a benefit for a community. What would be the point? There would be a lot of disruption.
I am simply asking for your views at this stage. The other witnesses can give their views on how communities would benefit.
I would like to take up a point. The bill clearly states that there must be benefit to the community as well as protection of the environment. Like my colleague, I fail to see how peppercorn rent could be of benefit to the community.
I have questions for Peter Quail and Robbie Douglas Miller, but I will address my first question to Andrew Wallace.
There is no doubt that certain fisheries in the country are underused and undermanaged. I take issue with Ian Rideout's comment that the west coast in particular suffers from that affliction. I have been involved in the construction of five fisheries trusts on the west coast over the past six or seven years and they have done an enormous amount of work in association with the salmon fishery boards. I can vouch for the fact that something in the region of £300,000 is being spent on the west coast that was not being spent previously.
One of the difficulties in taking evidence in committee is that we do not know much about the background of the witnesses. People tend not to send their curriculum vitae or other information. Perhaps Peter Quail and Robbie Douglas Miller can prefix their answers with some information on their organisations, such as when they were set up, how they are funded and how many members they have.
I will answer the first part of your question first. With regard to current investment it is important to understand how fishing is valued. If one makes a substantial capital investment in the creation of new pools on the river or into a conservation project such as the spring enhancement programme or other such measures, that does not in itself enhance the value of the river. The value of the asset is a simple calculation on the five or 10-year average number of fish caught multiplied by the capital value of a fish in the current market. If one spends money now, it makes no difference to the value of the asset today. The value is the capital appreciation that one may or may not get from project work now.
Okay. I am surprised by that answer. If someone is setting the value of a fishery and the owner has just spent £200,000 improving the banks and beds, surely they should count that towards the value. Are you saying that that is not the case?
I am saying that it is not. There is a misunderstanding about how fishings are valued. It is not the same as land. If one builds a building on a bit of land and it costs £200,000, that adds £200,000 to the value. There is something to show for it.
So if someone has spent £300,000 restocking the river, that would not count either?
It is not as simple as that. It is not a trout farm. It is a complex process over several years to improve a river. One cannot just chuck in a whole load of salmon—
I understand that. It is because it is a complex process that we are considering legislation.
Will you remind me of that part?
Do you get any comfort from the fact that ministers must be satisfied with a crofting body's set-up and that it is acting in the public interest?
That comes back to the point that Andrew Wallace made about the threat to the security of title of the fishing. The legislation will create uncertainty about the title of the fishing because at some point the fishing could be removed from the owner against their wishes. That would make it difficult for individuals, trustees or businesses to continue to invest. If, as I pointed out, the fishing is not valued by capital improvements but by the number of fish that are caught during a period, there is not much incentive to continue to invest in the hope of making capital appreciation on the asset during the next three, five or 10 years. So the answer to your question is no.
I feel privileged to be part of a generation of Labour politicians who are involved in implementing this historic legislation, which has been an aspiration of our party since the days of Keir Hardie.
It is of crucial importance, but other elements are necessary as well. Crofting operates in the most peripheral and sparsely populated areas in Europe, the Scandinavian countries excepted. The bill is crucial to maintaining the numbers of people in those areas. The more that emerges from within communities—instead of external answers being imposed—the healthier those communities will be. Therefore, ownership and management, if communities want it and if it is appropriate, must be beneficial to their development.
Are you saying that good landowners have nothing to fear from the legislation?
Most landowners of crofting communities are, at worst, benign. Very few of them harm communities and most have good relationships with them. Communities will not rush in to buy simply for the sake of it—there must be a reason. I believe that most cases of a community buying land will be jointly agreed and that many will be another form of partnership. We must have the mechanism to let that happen. Without it, there will continue to be barriers to overcome.
I want to scotch a myth that was in Mr Wallace's response to Fergus Ewing's question: the completely spurious idea that if fisheries are owned and run by communities, they will be diminished. This morning, I had the pleasure of leaving the isle of Lewis, where I live on the oldest democratically run estate in Scotland. It is important to put on the record that that estate has produced some of the best salmon returns in Scotland during the past 15 difficult years.
If they have done so, they have done so as individuals and not as chairmen of fishery boards.
I enjoyed Alasdair Morrison's history lesson. One hundred years ago the Labour party embraced the policy of reforming land ownership. The SNP works to a slightly shorter time scale, as I am sure Alasdair Morrison is well aware. An even more interesting historical fact is that, only a third of a century ago, I worked for a salmon fishery board. I worked for the River Tay District Salmon Fishery Board as a water bailiff, and it was my favourite student summer job.
That is up to the six witnesses.
On how much money salmon rivers make, the annual income from fishing rents on the River Brora is around £56,000. The annual river board's budget is £70,000, so there is an annual shortfall of £14,000, which is made up with private money out of the river owner's pocket. The annual budget for the River Helmsdale, which I work on, is around £110,000. We tend to just break even. We employ 10 people on the river, and that pays their wages.
There is a slight difficulty in answering the question in detail for a lot of rivers, because I am not privy to everybody's personal accounts and I am not aware that anybody else is privy to those accounts. I can give an estimate for the two rivers with which I am involved. Neither makes a surplus and both require funding from a central source—which is our business in Edinburgh.
I agree with Robbie Douglas Miller. The fragmentation of fisheries is an important issue. We enjoy an unusual situation in Scotland because fishing rights can be separated from land rights. That has been the case for hundreds of years. Logical fisheries management units have evolved as a consequence of that. Associating crofting land with fisheries could easily fragment the fisheries, which could result in damage to fisheries upstream and downstream. In addition, such fragmentation might not serve well the crofting community that made the acquisition in the first place.
We cannot answer the question about the financial viability of salmon fishings. On the benefits to crofters, we need to ask whether the bill makes it practicable for crofting communities to purchase fishings. Two indicators or sets of criteria need to be applied: one is the public interest aspect; the other is whether crofting communities purchasing fisheries constitutes sustainable development. We suggested in our written evidence that both those aspects need to be clarified.
If there is no change and everything is sustained from someone's pocket or from a company lobbing in a few thousand pounds each year to keep the salmon river going—I do not know whether that is true or not, as I do not know about the finances of salmon rivers—my worry is that it seems a rather dubious way of sustaining long-term benefits for crofting communities.
To be truthful, I cannot comment on this issue, but I feel that if the land is to be owned by the communities, they should also own the fishing rights. At the end of the day, anything that will sustain a population in the glens and hills of Scotland must be encouraged in every way possible.
Do you have any comments on tenant farmers? I understand that there are many in Strathspey.
There are units along the river banks. If people are able to buy their land, and if the superior gets to keep the fishing rights, the superior should be made responsible for the upkeep of the banks. The issue will have to be considered carefully. As the member knows, the river sits in a natural flood plain; it is not uncommon for us to have a big flood, resulting in thousands of pounds worth of damage to the banks, so who owns what would have to be clarified.
I would like to answer the earlier question on the effects on local communities. In Helmsdale, we have three communities: the community that works on the river, the crofting community and the community in the village. We have around two miles of fishing that borders crofting ground. One mile of it is fished by local anglers. If the crofting community were to make a compulsory purchase of that land, local anglers would lose out. I feel that that would completely destroy the community, with local anglers being excluded. How could a crofting community charge local anglers £23 annually, which is the charge just now? If the crofting community ran the fishing as a business, it would have to charge the highest rents and get in the highest-paying fishers. Local anglers would lose out.
Before I ask any questions, I draw members' attention to my interests in the members' register. I have a shareholding in an owning syndicate on the River Awe. I have been involved in different aspects of fishery management for 30 years. I am also a member of the Scottish Crofting Foundation.
To whom is that question directed?
Peter Quail, probably.
Mr McGrigor is right about public fishing. Within the Kyle of Sutherland, an average of 476 salmon are caught by local anglers. As I have said, when crofting communities take over those areas, what will happen to local anglers? They will not be able to afford the rents that crofting communities will have to charge. Part of almost every river in the crofting counties is for local angling. In many cases, it borders crofting ground.
Iain MacAskill may wish to address that point.
I do not know why there is an assumption that the rates for local anglers will have to change and that local communities will not recognise recreational facilities for their people. We seem to assume that if crofting communities take over—which will not necessarily be the case, if it is not in their interest—they will suddenly head towards bankruptcy, will not be able to manage the facility and will freeze out members of their community. There is no basis for arguing that and no evidence that crofting communities do that.
I do not want the witnesses to get into a debate. I am not trying to quench any desire to give evidence, but it is important that members can ask questions. We will keep going on that basis, but I will try to bring in witnesses when I can.
First, I ask Alasdair Morrison which river system he was referring to—was it the River Creed?
Do you mean the fisheries within the Stornoway Trust area? Yes, it was the River Creed.
In that case, I ask Andrew Wallace whether employment has been sustained and whether the rivers that have been under community ownership, such as the River Creed, have brought benefit to the local community? Will he comment on what I have learned recently about the Assynt situation, where—I believe—a river that was a salmon river has been dammed without a fish pass of any kind?
You are correct about Assynt. There was an order for a hydro scheme under the Scottish renewables obligation.
Can any of the witnesses comment on Glen Dale, which has been in community ownership since 1905?
My understanding of the Glen Dale situation is that there was a sustainable salmon population, but it has been fished to extinction and a fish has not been caught there since 1984, I think.
The last fish was caught in 1992.
You are trying to make the point that Glen Dale is not a good example of a community managing fishing well.
I give Andrew Wallace a categorical assurance that the River Creed in the Stornoway Trust area is run competently by the trustees, who are elected every three years. I reinforce the point that Iain MacAskill of the Crofters Commission made about the use of language in this evidence-taking session. The use of the word "fragmentation" is quite striking. The suggestion that a crofting community that took control of a fishery somehow could not work in a consensual way with other landowners is absurd in the extreme and does not reflect my experience across the Highlands and Islands.
My first question is for Andrew Wallace. I spoke to him and colleagues of his when we were considering the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. When we took evidence on that bill, the fact that land management had a huge effect on the fishery came through loud and clear. Is it beneficial for the same people who look after the land to look after the fishery?
I do not think that there is any evidence to support that. As I said, the land and fisheries are often disassociated from each other. On rivers such as the Tweed and the Tay, large habitat restoration projects are going on in conjunction with landowners—whether or not they own fishing rights. Regardless of who owns the banks, it is possible to achieve the consensus that Mr Morrison talked about and good management. It is simply a matter of approach.
So you are saying that it does not really matter who owns the land or the river, as long as everyone works together for the preservation of the salmon; and that that would have to be the case, whether or not the crofters owned the river.
Ultimately, yes. However, I keep returning to the same questions. Is policy being delivered? Will the fishery generate a surplus to benefit the community and, if so, will there be any attempt to reduce investment in it, given the effect that that would have on the protection of the environment? That is my sole and principal interest in the matter.
That leads me on to my next question, which concerns the surplus. Many witnesses today seem to take the view that any money going into—or indeed being earned by—the salmon fishery would be pushed into other developments in the community. No one has addressed the point that a healthy salmon fishery would mean other benefits for tourism, such as cottage rental and sale of fishing equipment. Such benefits are the reason why a crofting community would consider taking on a salmon fishery. It would see that even a badly managed fishery would attract inward investment by bringing high-spending tourists into the area and so would invest in that fishery to ensure a knock-on income from other sources.
Is that point directed at anyone in particular?
It is directed to anyone who will answer it. I want to hear both sides of the argument.
I cannot argue with that point. When any community that thinks carefully about its acquisition considers such matters, it should take into account the current situation and the benefits that are already accruing, that might continue to accrue or that it might be able to generate because of salmon fishing activity.
Rhoda Grant makes a good point. However, although there is nothing to suggest that what she says could not happen, it is important to understand that the situation for a community north of Inverness is not the same as the situation for a community along the Tweed or the Tay. There is neither the same volume of people nor the same length of season. Unless a compulsory acquisition includes all the assets that go with fishing—such as the lodge or the hotel and other elements of the infrastructure—I do not really understand how the same level of service could be maintained. I am not saying that that could not be done; I am just saying that it would need to be financed.
You emphasise my point precisely. The crofters would want to buy the fishery in order to provide the accommodation and facilities on which high-paying customers can spend their money.
Who would finance that?
I am sorry, but I must allow the member to ask the question. I shall then ask you to come back in.
Mr Miller has thrown me off my train of thought. The reason why crofters would buy a fishing right is so they could provide hotel and shop facilities and the like to encourage tourism and encourage people into their community. They would not buy it for the income from the fishery and it would not stop them investing in the fishery. In fact, it would encourage them to invest in the fishery.
Unless the crofters are able to buy the whole river system, or such part of the river system as is attractive to high-paying tourists, which may or may not be on or contiguous to the crofting land, they will not attract that tourism. If the fishing starts to be fragmented, the other river owners will not get the tourists either.
In the Strath of Kildonan, there are six lodges that provide accommodation for high-paying visiting anglers. The wives and daughters of most workers in our strath work in those lodges. We already provide that service. There are plenty of people who fish the local angling club water and stay in hotels in Helmsdale. A new hotel has just been built there. The jobs of many people in our strath are dependent on the rotating beat system that is in place. As Robbie Douglas Miller says, fragmentation would stop that rotating beat system.
In answer to Robbie Douglas Miller's point, I find it strange that crofters would consider buying a river system if it was not going to make money.
The landowners who own the beats on the rivers.
Do you have any idea what income they get from those lodges?
I do not have any figures.
I would like to thank Mr Douglas Miller, because I think that his arguments have helped to reinforce what we are about. He has helped to emphasise the importance of including fisheries in the land reform package.
Any community could deliver that; it would not have to be a crofting community. It could be a tenant farmer, a local landowner or a member of the local church. Anybody could do it; it is a question of financing it. If there is not the finance behind it, it will not work. If standards are allowed to slip, it will not work. If the people are not employed, it will not work. There needs to be a business plan that demonstrates that the enterprise will work.
I have three questions to three individuals. My first is to Mr MacAskill from the Crofters Commission and relates not to salmon fishing, but to the wider issue of the crofting community right to buy. The Crofters Commission's written submission talks about the people who exercised the right to buy under the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 and says:
Giving exact figures is almost impossible. If a community wants to buy, it will have developed a plan. People have a considerable incentive to develop their community. Some things, such as joint marketing, can be operated better collectively, as well as being operated in individual ways.
That is notwithstanding the fact that people who have exercised the right to buy have said that it seems to have little economic impact.
You must remember that the people who have exercised the right to buy have continued to do what they did before. In many ways, they have frozen themselves out of a subsidy system, or at least they must prove that they should rejoin it. They still run a croft, which remains the same size. In itself, the right to buy did not change the situation.
On economic benefit, it is our view—much evidence supports it—that self-determination in communities is accompanied by a spirit of interdependence in those communities, which directly benefits the social economy. That may not be what is being considered for the general economy, but the social economy in those fragile rural communities is benefited by self-determination.
I have two other questions about salmon fishing rights. My first is to Robbie Douglas Miller of HIRA. I understand from your written submission and from what you said today that your principal concern is that if the bill is passed with the crofting community right to buy salmon fishings, that will prevent private sector investment, which will be to the Highland economy's detriment. Have you had any evidence, or has it been suggested, that the publication of the proposals has had a detrimental impact on likely investment in Highland rivers?
I received a letter from the membership of HIRA which contained an indication that, across the 73 rivers that are represented by HIRA, a total of £2.35 million has not been spent, or will not be spent, in the next financial year to 6 April. It is also worth pointing out that Highlands and Islands grants total only £1.3 million. That means that twice as much as is handed out in grants to the community by Highlands and Islands has not been spent on those rivers. I have some clear facts and figures for the committee and would be happy to circulate them to anyone who is interested.
Thank you. Am I correct in saying that your concern is not that the rights would be exercised but that, if the rights exist in law, investment will be deterred?
That is exactly right. If the security of title remains threatened, no individual, trustee or business will continue to invest, making a loss as they do at the moment, in order to, in theory, increase the value of their future asset. They will not do so if they do not know whether they have a future asset.
I would like to comment on security of title. One river worker on the Brora, because of insecurity of title, had to find employment elsewhere. He has four children. He cannot say that he will be in a job for the next five years, yet he has to provide his family with security. That is the same for all of us. We have no security. How do we plan families? How does Iain McMyn from the Kyle of Sutherland get a mortgage to buy a house? What bank will touch him if he does not know whether he will be in a job for the next five years?
I have one last question for Peter Quail. In correspondence, newspapers and elsewhere, I have seen your organisation characterised as being simply, if I may say so, a collection of laird's lackeys or Highland Uncle Toms. How do you react to those criticisms?
The people that we work for are businessmen, just like any others. Yesterday, when I was in Inverness, I was asked the same question by—I think it was—The Herald. If members were to ask who owns any business in a city such as Inverness, they would find absentee owners. That happens everywhere.
Could one solution be that you and your fellow workers are given the opportunity to buy the fishings? Is part of the problem with the legislation the fact that it is confined to crofters?
I live about 20 miles away from any crofting ground. The legislation is not relevant to me.
What I am saying is that the debate is about the ownership of the fishing rights. Do you and fellow-workers in your community want the opportunity to buy those rights, or are businesspeople the only people who can run the fishings?
When you start to look at the ins and outs of things, you realise that that is not a viable proposition. From where would we get the money to pay for any shortfall? Over the past 100 years, the Helmsdale has employed 10 people and it continues to do so. Where else is that type of employment to be found?
When Robbie Douglas Miller referred to competitors overseas, he mentioned Norway, Russia and Iceland. Are the ownership patterns in those countries different to that in Scotland? Is it not the case that Scotland is just about the only country in Europe where the fishings are owned privately?
There is public ownership in Norway. People will go elsewhere if it is cheaper. If we cannot provide the standard that we are providing at the moment to the people that we have at the moment, many of them will go elsewhere. We need the annual investment of people coming to us and putting money into the local community.
If Norway can have successful fishings that are owned publicly, why cannot we have that in Scotland?
I am not sure how much Richard Lochhead is aware of fishing in Norway. I fish there quite a lot. In the past 50 years, Norway's 147 migratory salmon rivers have gone down to 23.
Is that not to do with international climate change or for other reasons?
No.
That is a bit of a misleading comment. It is the same situation with 90 per cent of the River Clyde. If Robbie Douglas Miller does not mind my saying so, that is a bit of a red herring.
We will take a brief comfort break. Coffee is available for members and witnesses. We will reconvene in 10 minutes.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I welcome members and witnesses back to the meeting and thank them for returning promptly. The adjournment lasted longer than the anticipated 10 minutes owing to a delay in the dairy section. Some members managed to get late milk with their coffee, but the black stuff will keep us awake. Before the adjournment, I was about to ask Mike Rumbles whether he had a question.
It is interesting that three of the six witnesses who are giving evidence to the committee have direct fishing interests. This afternoon, the evidence session is on the general issue of the crofting community's right to buy and not just about fishing, although that is important.
You first asked who loses.
Yes: I can see who gains, but I cannot see who loses.
The river owners lose.
In what respect?
They lose their asset.
They are fully compensated for it; they do not lose in a monetary sense.
If you had your house taken off you, would you consider its market value to be satisfactory compensation, despite the fact that you did not want to move from it? I do not think so. I think that you are jumping to a conclusion on that.
So there is nothing to be concerned about, following your logic and from your perspective.
I am concerned: I think that the interim period presents a huge number of vagaries and uncertainties. We either get a damp squib or funding is sought from another area to make the capital purchases.
What evidence do you have for that?
I can give you evidence to the tune of £2.35 million, which has not been invested into the fragile communities in the north of Scotland that would otherwise have gone ahead with purchases. That is a significant sum of money.
I want to nail this issue down. Your line of argument is completely unconvincing as far as I am concerned. You have told us in evidence this afternoon that a huge number of fishings have been on the market over many years. Why should things be any different now? Why should there be any difference in the market?
If someone does not know whether they will own an asset next week, next month or next year, that makes a material difference to their decision as to whether—
But owners can sell any day of the week. Peter Quail spoke about this earlier and perhaps we should hear from him directly—I would certainly like to. As I said, owners can sell their land and fishing rights at any time. Does that not make things even more insecure? I do not see the connection.
If someone's house is in a potential motorway corridor, there is a blight effect and the threat of compulsory purchase is considerable. If your house was under a specific threat of compulsory purchase, would you paint the window frames or build a conservatory? The answer is no, you would not.
Yes, I would, because I know that I would get full market compensation for it. I do not understand the argument.
The wider point is that the effect of the legislation—its footprint—will cover the crofting counties area, although the bill might be applied only in specific instances. The policy memorandum to the bill states:
Life in general is uncertain, but if the compulsory purchase provision hangs over people's employment, it will be even more uncertain.
I want to pursue that point because I do not understand it, given your response. The minister will allow a crofting community to exercise its right to buy only when there is a sustainable development impact, investment and a public interest. That is more secure than the current situation—which applies to you and many of your colleagues—in which private landlords or owners can sell any time, meaning that you are out of a job.
Where will the investment come from for the rivers? That question has not been answered. Where will the money come from to make up the shortfall? The accounts for most rivers show that there is a shortfall. Is there a guarantee that the same number of jobs will be maintained after the bill is enacted? Companies that are sold are streamlined, which means job losses. Will a crofting community guarantee my colleagues full-time employment?
The bill will enhance your job security rather than taking away from it.
No, it will not.
The issue is about employment. I understand that purchases of assets, companies or organisations involve the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. If a crofting community body purchases a fishery, it will be obliged to adhere to the TUPE regulations, which means guaranteeing the continued employment of the people who work in the company.
I would like to pick up on a point that Ian Rideout made. Ian, were you consulted on the inclusion of salmon fishings—
I am sorry. I cannot allow a debate between witnesses.
This is important.
The subject of consultation has become dear to my heart since the start of this meeting.
No one was consulted.
I will return to consultation later in the meeting, so you will have a chance to comment then.
Thank you.
I would like to pick up on a point that Andrew Wallace made. Judging by most of the correspondence that I have read pertaining to part 3 of the bill, I think that the crux of the issue is the confrontational aspect of the compulsory right to buy without any appeal by the owner of the asset, be it land or fishings. I wonder whether a less confrontational way of approaching the matter would be to treat part 3 in the same way as part 2. In other words, the right to buy would become a right of pre-emption, so that when the land comes on the market the crofters have a right to buy either the land or the fishing. Would not that remove the confrontational aspect of the bill?
I should point out that the people in Strathspey whom I represent are tenants of the Seafield estate. To be fair, we have a good landlord. We pay our rent and the estate never bothers us—we do not see its representatives except when there are rent reviews. However, when the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was published, we had great hope for the future. If we are to have land reform, let it be radical.
You took my breath away for a minute there. Would Ian Rideout and Iain MacAskill also like to comment?
Part 3 of the bill is different because the situation is different in respect of existing crofting law. The more one tries to fit the two together as if they are both the same, the more complicated and less satisfactory the situation becomes.
The bill also says that fishings should be "contiguous to" croft land. Furthermore, if, as has been suggested, the fishings are in the hands of a separate landowner, the bill would require a separate application to be made. Although it has been suggested that the right to buy could be reduced to the right of pre-emption, we would not accept such a measure. We would perhaps want the right of pre-emption after the first year; it forms the basis for the general community right to buy, which does not have a time frame. With the crofting community right to buy, there is a year's limit on compulsory purchase, but there is no indication whether there is a right of pre-emption after that year. We have heard statistics for fisheries coming on to the market. When they do, crofting communities are likely to want to use the right of pre-emption after the prescribed period; under the bill, the one-year period restricts the possibilities for crofting communities to exercise that right.
I call John Farquhar Munro.
Thank you, convener. We are only an hour and 40 minutes into the meeting. Just for clarification, have we moved away from the debate on fishing?
It would be useful if we could do so, but there is nothing to stop you asking questions about fishing.
I just want to make a brief point to the fishing delegation. I find it difficult to accept its suggestion that if salmon fisheries were publicly owned they would immediately go into decline. Sufficient evidence from Assynt, the Stornoway Trust, which my colleague Alasdair Morrison mentioned, and other areas shows that publicly owned fisheries have been managed very successfully. I know of individual estates with fisheries to which the public have been given access; those fisheries have been successful and have not been damaged in any material way.
I am not sure whether you asked any specific questions, John, but you made an excellent statement.
I waited so long to get in that I lost the thread of my question.
I do not blame you at all. I call Jamie Stone.
Convener, it is very good of you and your colleagues to give me the opportunity to ask a question, as I am not a committee member.
Not at all. I am pensive, but on another subject.
The CCFRG wants the compulsory purchase provision to be removed and part 2 retained. We have no problem with a buyer-seller relationship.
Yes, but what if that provision is not removed? How would you tweak part 3 to safeguard your job?
There is no way to tweak part 3, except by getting rid of the provision on compulsory purchase.
Okay. You see the matter as pretty black and white. Next, please.
Peter Quail is right. It is very difficult to tweak something that is absolute. Either we have compulsory purchase or we do not. If we do, we have a problem, and simply requiring the person who takes on the concern to keep the same number of employees does not stack up and will not work out. As a result, I am rather inclined to agree with Peter. The issue is black and white: either the bill provides for compulsory purchase or it does not.
I endorse that position. However, if the bill is passed as it is, we would be happy to engage in further dialogue with the Scottish Executive to ensure that non-legislative safeguards are in place and that proper technical expertise is provided to crofting communities. There should also be some form of arbitration mechanism in the event of disputes over what was and was not good for a fishery.
Every member has now had the chance to put and follow a line of questioning. As I realise that other questions have now emerged, I am quite happy to allow another round of questioning. Fergus Ewing was the first member to catch my eye.
I want to address some questions to Hamish Jack—
With respect, convener, I think that the other witnesses want to answer my question.
I beg your pardon. I thought that no one else wished to comment. Please feel free to comment on Jamie Stone's question.
Our position is the same. Compulsory purchase is an absolute; it cannot be reduced to a right of pre-emption. However, although we feel that that the provision should be included as part of the right to buy, the bill contains adequate safeguards. I agree with Andrew Wallace that many more additional non-legislative safeguards could be introduced, particularly on the subject of technical expertise. However, the basic principle must remain—the crofting community right to buy must extend to all aspects of what that land is made up of, which includes rivers, the land, minerals and sporting rights.
I, too, agree that that is absolute, in the sense that that must remain the principle. I am almost totally confident that the problem is solvable at the point of decision and ultimate control. We must remember that if a community intends to buy, it will be required to take considerable steps to prove that its proposal constitutes a sustainable development. I am sure that any community would want to preserve employment for its people. It must show that buying is in the interests of the community as a whole.
I want to direct questions to Hamish Jack and to follow the line of questioning that John Farquhar Munro almost initiated, which gave us a clear and helpful statement of Hamish Jack's case. I begin by asking Mr Jack how many farmers in Strathspey he represents here today.
It is between 30 and 40 at the moment.
How long have those farmers been tenant farmers?
Their families have held the tenancies for 70 to 100 years.
In some cases, I believe that they have done so for hundreds of years.
That is correct.
That is so in your case—although not for you personally.
No.
I am glad to clarify that. You all have in common that you lack security of tenure. Is that right?
Most definitely. Many of those farmers have the old agricultural tenancies. Any farm that is given up nowadays is usually amalgamated with its neighbours. Of two farmers at home, one has nine places and the other has seven. Any small place that is likely to come up on the market will be amalgamated. We want that decline stopped. We want the families who have made those places to have the right to stay there.
At the moment, any tenant farmer who invests and improves their farm stands to receive no compensation.
They receive minimal compensation.
So the problem is that you and your colleagues are not registered as tenants of crofting land.
That is correct.
I believe that that is the case because although Inverness-shire is a crofting county many tenant farmers there chose not to register when they had the opportunity prior to 1955. Is that your understanding?
Some of the older tenant farmers tell me that many were inhibited because they did not want to offend their landlords. That is possibly why many of them did not take the opportunity to register.
I understand that if you registered you would have automatic access to the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme—the CCAGS.
Yes, that would be a follow-up. However, even without being registered we can apply for CCAGS grants. To achieve that we have to sit a means test. The Scottish Executive does not tell us what the figures are but, should we pass that means test, CCAGS grants are open to us for two and sometimes three years. We are designated by the Secretary of State for Scotland as having the same economic standing as a registered crofter. Our argument is that if we are deemed to be of the same economic standing as a crofter, could the law not be amended to allow those units that are in receipt of such grants to go on to the crofting register?
As has been pointed out by Mr MacAskill and John Farquhar Munro, the part of the bill that we are considering today is not designed to consider the interests of Strathspey in particular. Nonetheless, I imagine that we all wish to ensure that tenant farmers in all parts of the Highlands benefit from the policy, which should not be a blanket policy but should take account of all the circumstances. In short, are you seeking the right to register as crofters, so that crofting law would extend to your situation in the same way as it applies to registered crofts?
That is correct.
Does the Scottish Crofting Foundation supports Mr Jack and his colleagues?
Yes, we totally support them. We would welcome the inclusion of tenant farmers on the register, so that they can come into the crofting fold.
Finally, I understand that the Executive's policy is to encourage the extension of crofting outwith traditional areas and that there has been some success on that front in areas such as Balmacara. I am grateful for Mr Jack's evidence.
I will raise a follow-up point with the Crofters Commission before I ask a question to which I want some answers.
It is a cumbersome process. For example, it took two years at Balmacara, even with a willing landlord, the National Trust for Scotland. The land must be completely adjacent to existing croft land—a common grazing in Skye was extended because it was adjacent to croft land. There might be problems in Mr Jack's case as matters stand, although I totally understand his concern about the unfairness of a situation in which identical units that are side by side in the same county are treated differently. Perhaps we will have to wait for the new crofting act, which I understand is around two years away, to amend the existing procedure. I am quite happy to look into Mr Jack's case, but I am pretty sure that I would find that we could not apply the procedure in his case.
In the Scottish Crofting Foundation's submission, you mention that you want to change from a simple majority to 75 per cent the number of crofters who would have to be in favour of a buy-out. I am a little concerned about that proposal. Why do you want to make that change?
Initially, during the consultation, we asked for the figure to be 100 per cent. We understand that, under the European convention on human rights, that cannot be the case, but having a simple majority—or 51 per cent—could cause division within crofting townships, if 49 per cent were opposed to a buy-out. We are talking about the majority of crofters voting at the beginning in favour of starting the process. A larger majority gives a better mandate. Our concern extends from that point, as we feel that a similar majority should be required in the constitution of the incorporated entities, in respect of both directors and members, to ensure that the interests and voice of crofting are heard by the management of those companies.
I am sorry—I had difficulty following your answer because of the conversation that was going on beside me. Could you explain why a 75 per cent majority would lead to greater harmony? Great problems could be caused in a community if, say, 60 per cent of crofters voted for a buy-out, but they were prevented from going further by the remaining 40 per cent.
Our point is that we would like a minimum of 75 per cent in favour of a buy-out, as that would mean that, potentially, only 25 per cent would be opposed. There would always be the possibility of harmony if those percentages were adopted, as people would find that a majority of 75 per cent voting in favour of a buy-out was acceptable. If the majority vote in favour was 51 per cent, with 49 per cent voting against, there would be a difference of only 1 or 2 per cent and greater disharmony would be caused in townships than would be the case if there were a 75:25 split.
I still feel that a minority preventing the majority from doing what they want to do—for example, if 74 per cent of crofters want to exercise the right to buy and a small minority say that they cannot—would cause more disharmony than operating a simple majority. Could a situation arise where absentee crofters and the like were persuaded to vote against action when they had no interest, which could prevent the community from progressing?
In my understanding, absentee crofters would not be included in the vote.
I have two quick questions, the first of which is for Hamish Jack in particular. Would he recommend that his proposal for tenant farmers in his area be offered to tenant farmers throughout the rest of the country, not just the crofting counties? That would not relate to part 3 of the bill.
Naturally, I would like to see it offered to everyone. However, it is a must for everyone in the crofting counties who is in a similar position to ours.
My second question is for the Scottish Crofting Foundation and relates to the powers that the crofting communities will have if part 3 of the bill is enacted. Some people are concerned that under that part of the bill, the crofters would have a lot of power, which might be to the detriment of the wider community.
The definitions of public interest and sustainable development in the bill continue after incorporation. Ministers reserve the right to review that at any stage. If ministers are not happy with what is happening, they have the option to compulsory purchase from the community body. My understanding is that the terms of the bill require criteria to continue to be met after the set up.
So you would not want a situation to arise like in the example that I gave, where crofters could take a simple vote against the wider interest?
I do not think that it would occur. Generally speaking, in such townships there is a sense of harmony at this stage. The bill takes adequate consideration of the wider community interest—people who are not directly involved in crofting—within a township. Townships are largely based on crofting. One of our concerns following much of the debate is that, as crofters are able people and are educated in the university of life, it is absurd to portray them as unable to make appropriate decisions or to manage such entities. I am not suggesting that Mr Lochhead is saying that, but it is a view that has been put across and it is totally untrue.
We have carried out some pilots on community decision making—in other words, passing our powers to communities. In the areas where we have tried it—we have focused on our responsibilities, which are largely crofts—the communities themselves decided to change and to involve other members of the community who were not crofters, thereby strengthening what they did.
I have two questions for Hamish Jack. What do you find attractive about moving to crofting tenure? Is it the added security or do you have an eye to coming within the provisions of part 3, which would give you a right to buy at some future point?
Security is the greatest asset of all. If we have the security, we will invest in a property and our families will succeed. Whether we buy is optional. I believe that, if we are to keep communities in country areas, they must have a sustainable future. Our schools must be kept open and our post offices must be kept going. The security afforded by croft registration and, when we have that registration, the ability to diversify will help our cash flow and lead to new ideas and a new energy coming to the countryside.
Thank you. I have a brief follow-up question. If you do as you propose and re-register the land as crofting land, that would require a change in the landlord-tenant relationship. Under the ECHR, compensation would have to be paid to the landowner. Would that compensation come from the pockets of the new crofters or from the public purse?
People may talk about human rights now, but they did not talk about human rights 100 years ago when the land was cleared. Maybe this is radical, but it is how I feel. Given the rents that the tenants have paid over the years and the improvements that will need to be made, I do not think that the landowners will require any more compensation than 15 times the annual rent as payment for the property.
We are not here to right the wrongs of 100 years ago, but I thank you for your answer.
In Scotland, we should look towards the future instead of always remembering the past and giving payback for it. Many wrongs were done all over the country. If we start righting wrongs now, we will be in big trouble.
I have two questions for Andrew Wallace and Peter Quail. The water framework directive, which will be introduced quite soon, will designate Scotland as a super catchment—I presume, out of respect for the number of salmon that we still have. Do you consider that the compulsory purchase power will affect that in any way? What would be the effect if rivers did not meet the targets that are set by Europe in that directive?
The compulsory purchase power will affect investment, which will affect the number of returning salmon. Can you repeat the second part of your question?
What will happen to Scotland if rivers do not fulfil their targets under the directive?
Under the legislation, the owners will be heavily fined.
Does that mean that Scotland will be fined by the Commission?
Yes. If the number of salmon declines, the owners will be legally responsible.
The water framework directive, which proposes the division of Scotland into three large catchment areas—not one, although that decision is still pending—will have a profound impact on the management of the freshwater resource. I am not convinced that it is sufficiently fine-tuned to address some of the issues that we are discussing.
My second question concerns the involvement of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which I presume is the body that will produce the funding for some of the proposed buy-outs. I gather that the Crofting Counties Fishing Rights Group wrote to the directors of HIE, asking for their views, and received only one reply. Nonetheless, that resulted in your holding a meeting yesterday with Dr Hunter and Sandy Cummings. How did the meeting go and were any of your fears addressed?
Dr Hunter gave us absolutely no answers to the questions that we asked him on funding and security of title. I think that the compulsory purchase part of the bill has been shoved through with no thought for afterwards. Although the money is there to buy the rivers, I do not think that anyone has sat down and thought about what will happen afterwards. Has anyone worked out whether rivers are viable? Where will the shortfall come from? Dr Hunter could not answer any of that. Can anyone at this meeting say where the money to support the existing jobs will come from?
Do you not accept that the nub of the question is in section 71(1)(j)? It states:
I accept that, but the compulsory purchase aspect is still there.
Yes, but surely for you the nub of the issue is that the minister has to be convinced by the crofting community that it has a viable plan for sustainable development of the fisheries for the future. According to the bill, if the crofting community does not have such a plan, the minister cannot give consent. I do not understand the point that you make. Will you clarify it further?
Perhaps I can help. I take your point—there are safeguards and we welcome those, although I would like more of them. However, as I have said, the impact of the bill extends beyond any acquisition, which means that there will be countless circumstances around the crofting counties on which the minister's view will be neither here nor there. Investment will be pulled and, as a consequence, jobs might be lost.
The minister must be convinced that the crofting community has a sustainable development plan for the future that involves investment and enhancement of the area for the purposes of sustainable development. Are you saying that that is a blight?
No, you are not listening to what I am saying.
I am listening now.
Although the minister's decision is based on an acquisition—where a bid is made by a crofting community—the extent of the effect of the bill goes well beyond that, into areas where there might not be any proposals for acquisitions and where investment and expenditure is reduced because of lack of security of title. We have just heard Ian Rideout say that security is the best asset of all and that people and their children benefit from all the investment, expenditure, time and effort that they put into owning and managing a resource. Precisely the same argument applies for people who own salmon fisheries.
It seems extraordinarily strange that we are having a debate on these two subjects: the creation of new landlords and the abolition of other landlords. That does not make any sense.
From where I am sitting, we are talking about the redistribution of wealth in some communities. Mr Quail, what is to prevent the proprietor or proprietors—I have no idea exactly who you work for, but it is not relevant—selling the fisheries before you get back to Helmsdale tomorrow?
What are the chances of the Scottish Parliament closing down, or something like that? Life is a gamble. My proprietors could sell up and go tomorrow. They could ship out now. With the threat of compulsory purchase, who is to say that they are going to stay? They are obviously not wanted.
You keep talking about compulsory purchases. The bill is about empowering the local community in their local areas.
No, I do not accept that at all. The bill gives me no security.
That is strange.
The Crofters Commission submission states:
On the point about perceived threat, Assynt, which moved because of uncertainty about a landlord who had gone bust and was in liquidation, Eigg and various other places have reacted to threat. The bill gives us the opportunity to react to opportunities as well as to threats.
Unless I have picked you up wrongly, you have virtually said that the success of crofting ownership depends on asset stripping.
The crofters who have realised substantially higher sums are the ones who have basically become property developers, which is not what crofting is about. There has been no particular gain outwith that. Others have moved into having other small businesses on their crofts and developed in that way. By and large, owner-occupiers have not particularly gained financially.
I quite understand what you are saying, but does not that give weight to the argument that Peter Quail, Robbie Douglas Miller and Andrew Wallace are mostly making about maximising the economic capability of the asset that the crofter purchases? In other words, if the right to buy fishing rights was exercised, that fishery would have to be used to its maximum economic effect, which might not be in the best conservation interests of the river.
I do not think that what I said gives weight to that at all. We are not talking about an individual crofter buying the salmon rights on the estate. We are talking about a community—a collection of crofters and other people living in that community—coming together to form a proper company with proper goals to meet requirements before acquiring the rights. The two are totally different—they are apples and oranges.
I accept that the debate could have had a better balance, but the fact is that most of the controversy centres on the right to buy salmon fishings. That is why the questions have been weighted in that direction.
Convener, you started the meeting two and a half hours ago on the subject of consultation. We have not yet returned to it.
I was just about to finish off the session by asking whether you believe that the Scottish Executive conducted sufficient pre-legislative consultation on this section of the bill.
My apologies.
We feel that there was a good deal of consultation on the draft bill, which is something that we would commend. Indeed, some of the recommendations that we made at that stage have been included in the bill.
I have a point of clarification concerning Iain MacAskill's comments about how individuals have benefited from buying their crofts. Was he seeking to make a contrast between individuals buying their individual crofts and crofting communities buying their community, with the greater benefits that that would bring?
Indeed. There is a substantial difference between those two aspects. Our subject today is the community, which is a very different animal from an individual with a few acres.
Does Robbie Douglas Miller in particular accept that there was a huge amount of consultation on the draft bill, which has resulted in some quite radical changes in the bill that we are now discussing?
Yes, if you take the bill as a whole. However, if you mean the inclusion of salmon fishings in part 3, I have to disagree with you.
I note that paragraph 6.48 of the draft land reform bill consultation paper, which was published in February 2001, explicitly refers to
I can further assist Mr Miller. As has been rightly pointed out, there have been 3,500 respondents to the consultation on the draft bill, and they have helped to inform the bill that the deputy minister published on 27 November.
They came through before the draft bill.
We have also heard from Mr Rideout, whose organisation represents 4,000 to 5,000 individuals. They seem quite satisfied with the consultation process.
I say again that they came through before the draft bill.
On a point of clarification, no one would dispute that the draft bill was presented as a consultation. Indeed, it was preceded by three very competent consultation processes, which I believe were identified by different colours. I cannot recall the names of the documents, but they were amber, purple and green. However, the consultation process extended over the past three years, and none of those papers gave us an opportunity to address the subject. It would have been profoundly helpful if we had been allowed to do so.
How does that square with what Stewart Stevenson has just said?
I will read from "Land Reform: The Draft Bill", which was published on February 2001. The document says:
Absolutely. However, I wanted to ask the question because of people's concerns that, prior to the publication of the proposed bill, there had not been much consultation on this aspect of the bill, whereas there had been considerable consultation on its other aspects.
I do not want to lengthen the discussion too much. I am merely making the point that it has been very nearly a year since the issue was raised and comment specifically invited, and that we are in this situation because of what has happened.
Frankly, I do not believe that it is helpful to draw out this discussion any longer.
Although we did not discuss it in great detail, the one point that I would add is support mechanisms for the period after compulsory purchases are made. The committee should return to that issue.
I think that I mentioned that when I mentioned the need for funding to replace current investment. However, that is fine.
Convener, I think that I will need a red flag or something to get your attention.
Yes, you might need it occasionally.
We should also add to the report the suggestion that the community right of pre-emption should be extended to the fisheries right after the one-year limit is reached. The point is valid because the measure is available to other communities.
Thank you for that.