Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 20 Jan 2010

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Official Report 296KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Crofting (Designation of Areas) (Scotland) Order 2010 (Draft)

Item 2 is evidence taking on an affirmative instrument, the draft Crofting (Designation of Areas) (Scotland) Order 2010. I welcome from the Scottish Government Roseanna Cunningham, Minister for Environment; Magdalene Boyd, solicitor, rural affairs division; Phil Burns, policy officer, crofting branch, rural directorate; and Iain Matheson, head of crofting branch, rural directorate.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee has made no comments on the order. Members may ask questions about the content of the order before we move to the formal debate under item 3. Officials can contribute under item 2, but they may not participate in the formal debate.

I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.

Good morning, everybody. I am happy to be here to discuss the draft order, which will extend the benefits of crofting tenure beyond the seven crofting counties to the whole of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area. The order proposes to designate the part of the local government area of Highland that is currently outwith the crofting counties; the local government area of Moray; and Arran, Bute and Great and Little Cumbrae.

I will speak briefly about the background to the order and what it will mean in practice. Section 3A of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, as amended in 2007, provides the means for the Scottish ministers to designate areas where new crofts can be created.

The proposal to designate new areas was opened out for full public consultation between December 2007 and March 2008. Approximately 65 per cent of respondents agreed that new areas for crofting should be created to align crofting areas with the boundaries of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Most of the interest expressed to me and to officials has come from Arran, as it happens; the correspondents feel that crofting tenure will bring them more security than their present tenancy arrangements. While that will perhaps not always be true, how people feel is extremely important to them. A number of private citizens in both geographical areas that are to be designated participated in the consultation, and all were in favour. Since the consultation ended, about a third of those who are estimated to have small landholding tenancies on Arran have contacted the Government seeking information on progress towards their becoming crofters.

North Ayrshire Council is also considering ways in which crofting might deliver its rural development outcomes and ensure thriving rural communities. The Scottish Government's response was published on 6 October 2008, and noted the expected move to designate new areas. The order takes that step to its conclusion.

If the Scottish Parliament approves the order, under the small landholders acts of 1886 to 1931, landowners and tenants will be able to apply for new crofts to be created in the designated areas. Under the acts, tenants in designated areas may, without the need for a landlord's consent, apply to the Crofters Commission to have their holding converted to a croft.

The Crofters Commission may allow conversion to crofting tenure only after the tenant receives certification of their holding from the Scottish Land Court and pays any due compensation to the landlord. After the conversion, the tenant has access to the full benefits of crofting, including the statutory right to buy their croft. The Scottish Government has already received European Union approval for assistance from the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme to be available to crofters in the designated areas. We also intend to open the croft house grant scheme to crofters in the designated areas and will be preparing the necessary secondary legislation to that end over the coming months.

I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has on the order. If I cannot answer a question, I hope that one of the officials will be able to do so.

Good morning, minister. As ever, I declare an interest as a farmer. I seek clarification on a number of points. First, how many holdings that are currently let under the small landholders acts will be affected by the order?

I take it that you are asking how many landholdings there are. The only landholders who will be affected by the order are those who choose to apply to convert their landholding to a croft.

But you must have some idea of how many that is.

In absolute numbers?

Or even ballpark numbers.

Do we have a rough figure?

About 20 or 30.

At the moment, about 20 or 30 have written to us, but we anticipate that the number will increase once the order is approved.

In whose ownership is the land, by and large? Is it Arran ownership or Government ownership?

Most of the land is in private ownership—it is owned by one private landlord or another. Since I do not know about the individuals who have written to us thus far, I cannot possibly say which landowners are affected by the current requests.

Will funding for the various schemes from which crofters currently benefit be increased proportionately, or will the pot remain the same as for the existing crofting community?

That is a fair point. The EU has agreed with us a 10 per cent uplift in the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme for new tenants and for those who are under 40. We made that application to the EU some time ago, and it was granted. We intend to extend the croft house grant scheme to crofters in the areas. As members may know, we are considering very carefully the croft house grant scheme, as well as the rural housing grant scheme, and we have not yet finalised our decision on what will happen.

On a more philosophical point, do you regard the current crofting model to be working well within the existing six crofting counties?

I think that the vast majority of crofters, like the vast majority of farmers, from time to time have complaints about aspects of what they do. I would not expect 100 per cent satisfaction 100 per cent of the time—and indeed we do not get that—but anyone who speaks to crofters will find that they are very content with the philosophy of crofting in general and in particular. Although there are many debates about aspects of crofting and there is rarely unanimity in any of the specific debates, it is interesting that there is broad general agreement about, if you like, the ideological or philosophical basis of crofting.

If the crofting model is working well, why is further legislation being introduced to improve it? I do not think that crofting is working well. Would it not have been more appropriate to make the order after we had passed the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, which it is hoped will make crofting work better?

The order does not depend on the bill. The order was envisaged by the previous Government and has been gladly adopted by this Government. The order does not depend on the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is a separate piece of legislation that is beginning its way through the parliamentary process. In my view, the order stands alone and will provide a sensible option to align crofting with the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area. Given that HIE is now responsible for the development of crofting, it makes sense to do that.

Of course, there are those who would like the crofting counties to be extended even further. That debate might still be had in the future, but for the moment, in my view, the order will introduce a perfectly sensible progression that is widely supported. It does not depend one way or the other on any other piece of legislation. The order arises out of the previous crofting bill that the Parliament passed.

If there are no further questions, we will move to the formal debate on the motion. I remind members that officials may not participate in the debate.

I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.

I move,

That the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommends that the draft Crofting (Designation of Areas) (Scotland) Order 2010 be approved.

I want to raise two points of principle.

First, I am dismayed that crofting, for whatever reason, has not been regarded as working well—notwithstanding the minister's preamble earlier—since it began in the 1800s. In the early days, landlords exploited the people who became crofters. That is beyond doubt. The famines of the 1840s led to further misery. Today, it is self-evidently impossible to make a living from the average croft of 5 hectares. For entirely understandable reasons, we now have problems of absenteeism and neglect. From its beginning until now, crofting as a business model does not appear to have ever worked well and it is not currently working well, so I cannot understand why the Government has introduced an order that will expand crofting to other parts of Scotland.

Secondly, the order will extend to people in the proposed areas who are currently tenants under the small landholders legislation the absolute right to buy their properties. Along with my party, I oppose that extension. The methodology for achieving that is clearly outlined in the policy objectives that are provided in the Executive note to the instrument. Notwithstanding the current and proposed compensation payments to landlords, I object to land being taken from possibly unwilling sellers and purchased by tenants who had no expectation of being able to do so on entering their initial tenancy agreements.

In conclusion, I cannot see the logical justification for extending crofting legislation into the new areas. There will be no real benefit from doing so, because many current tenants will not wish to become crofters, as that would only increase their burden of bureaucracy. Such people would need to cope with a greater, rather than reduced, level of bureaucracy, whereas most people in rural areas seek to reduce the burden of red tape. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support the motion.

I confess that I am surprised at John Scott, who is normally a genial and accommodating colleague. I am afraid that we have seen the Tory party revert to type in protecting the landowners.

John Scott asked for justification for the order. Just two and a half years ago or so, Parliament passed a bill that made provision for what we are discussing. All that the order will do is implement that enlightened piece of legislation. That will help current individual smallholders to make a free choice about whether they want to become crofters. They will have a choice, which I would have thought the Tory party would support.

I am happy to support the order, and I am sure that the committee will recommend that it be approved. I hope that it will.

As members know, I am on a steep learning curve on crofting, but the more I learn, the more attracted to the model I become.

I welcome the order and extending the ability to croft beyond the traditional crofting counties. The minister is right: if we begin to move things forward and see crofting develop again in areas further south, there may be demand in other parts of Scotland for a model in which people can croft and do other things while they live on the land. As we discuss food security and climate change issues and issues that the Tories are keen on in their new, enlightened days, they seem less keen on giving people the right to buy the land on which they live. People can buy their council house, but God forbid that they should take a house off a landowner who perhaps never owned it in the first place many centuries ago. I am content with the principle behind the order and hope that committee members will support it.

I share the sentiments that Karen Gillon and Peter Peacock have expressed. The fact that we are looking at a bill to address issues in the crofting counties should not suggest in any way that there is a movement to unwind crofting in those counties—indeed, quite the reverse is the case. A legitimate attempt is being made to address problems with a view to safeguarding crofting over the longer term. John Scott's party will make proposals for amending national health service and education structures, but I hope that they will not be made, because his party believes that the NHS and our education system are fundamentally flawed and need to be unwound.

I share the astonishment of Peter Peacock and Karen Gillon at John Scott's position. The order is a fairly enlightened response to demands in areas—indeed, I recall from the consultation that the demands go beyond the areas that are covered in legislation. Karen Gillon and the minister are right: the provisions will probably incentivise others who see crofting as a way forward to deliver agriculture and extend a way of life in communities. Therefore, I support the order.

The basis of John Scott's objection is not clear to me, other than its wholly ideological basis, so it is not really an objection to the specifics of the order. I reiterate the point that Peter Peacock at least made: the Parliament agreed to what is being proposed in 2007. We are carrying forward its wishes in the way that was envisaged when legislation was being considered. If the Tory position is to promote the abolition of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, I look forward to the debate on that. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Expressions of interest have already been made by individuals who want the order to be approved so that they can get on with converting holdings to crofts.

For the avoidance of doubt, minister, I am more than happy to see crofting in the existing crofting counties being made to work—and being made to work well and better—through the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, because all are agreed that the existing legislation is shambolic. Many of the difficulties that crofters currently face are a result of the shambolic legislation that has preceded where we are today. I want that legislation to be developed and improved on. However, until it is improved on, I can see no justification for extending a system that, essentially, does not work well.

Yes, I have an outright objection to the extension of an absolute right to buy. That is my philosophical position, but it is a perfectly valid objection to this debate.

Other members of the committee have made the point that can be made about the right to buy. The fact is that people are expressing interest in converting to crofts under the existing legislative framework. Whatever changes might or might not be made as a result of any future legislation, people are interested in and attracted to crofting and intend to convert their smallholdings to crofts. That in itself is sufficient.

The question is, that motion S3M-5505 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)

Against

Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommends that the draft Crofting (Designation of Areas) (Scotland) Order 2010 be approved.

The minister will stay with us for items 4, 5 and 6, but her officials will change. I thank the present officials for their attendance and invite the officials who will attend for the next item to come to the table.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

---

Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs (SG 2009/279)<br />Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cats (SG 2009/280)

Item 4 is on guidance that is subject to approval. The codes of practice are not Scottish statutory instruments, but in accordance with section 37 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 they are subject to parliamentary consideration under the affirmative procedure.

I welcome the Scottish Government officials Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre, who is the principal legal officer in the rural affairs division; Ian Strachan, who is branch head of the animal health and welfare division; and Andrew Voas, who is a veterinary adviser in the animal health and welfare division.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee made no comments on the codes of practice. Members may ask questions about the content of the codes of practice before we move to the formal debate on each code under items 5 and 6. Officials can contribute under item 4, but they may not participate in the formal debate.

I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement on both codes of practice.

The codes have been made under section 37 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which allows the Scottish ministers to make codes of practice for the purpose of providing practical guidance on animal welfare. The aim of the codes is to provide guidance to owners and keepers of cats and dogs on how to care for their animals. The codes contain information and outline good practice on the welfare of cats and dogs, and give advice on how to meet the duty of care and the welfare needs of those animals, as set out in section 24 of the 2006 act.

Welfare problems can arise not just because of deliberate cruelty but as a result of ignorance. Examples have included gross overfeeding, which can be a serious problem, particularly for dogs, as it can all too easily cause obesity and lead to heart problems. In severe cases, dogs have been so overweight that they have had difficulty walking.

Another example is the use of flea powder. Not all flea powders are the same, and flea powder that is suitable for dogs must not be used on cats, as it would be an overdose and could cause serious complications. A further example is travelling in cars. As many people know but some still do not understand, leaving dogs in cars on sunny days, even for a short time, can be fatal. Transporting unrestrained dogs in cars can have serious consequences because, in an accident, an unrestrained dog can be seriously dangerous to itself and other occupants of the car.

Many owners do not understand that treats such as chocolate, raisins and grapes are poisonous to dogs. There have been cases in which owners believed that it was better to feed their dog with a quality—that word should be in inverted commas—home-prepared diet rather than use commercial pet food. However, without a complete understanding of essential nutrients, dogs and cats can become seriously ill if people feed them wrongly.

The codes were developed with the assistance of the main animal welfare and veterinary organisations in Scotland, which were consulted at all stages during their preparation. About 500 organisations and individuals were formally consulted on the draft codes. A total of 41 organisations and individuals responded to the draft dog code and a further 32 responded to the draft cat code. The overwhelming majority of respondents welcomed the codes and considered that the information that they contained was helpful and sufficiently detailed.

The codes will provide practical advice and guidance to pet owners. They will also be a useful tool for those who are charged with investigating animal welfare or cruelty cases, as they set the expected standards for the care of all pet cats and dogs. My officials and I are happy to answer any questions that members have on the codes.

It is a good idea to make guidance available for people who keep cats and dogs, because there is a lot of mythology about what it is appropriate to feed to cats and dogs and it is not necessarily backed up by fact. How will people get the guidance? How will the guidance be distributed to people who buy a new pet and to existing cat and dog owners who need the advice?

Perhaps Ian Strachan could detail the communication strategy.

We will not prepare a huge number of hard copies of the documents. We have set aside about £10,000 for each one. As an example, I have here a copy of the finished version of the horse code, which the committee approved last year. People will get the guidance mainly through the internet. We expect them to download it. However, copies will be given to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—its officers will be the main way of getting it out there. We will get copies into veterinary practices, and local authority animal health and welfare officers will be given copies to distribute.

I expect that most people are likely to access the codes either through the internet, if they have internet access, or through vets. That is the most likely route, as that is when they will come into contact with those who are likely to hand out the information.

My only problem with that is to do with the irresponsible cat or dog owner who does not look after their animal properly and does not go to the vet regularly to have their animal vaccinated. There is an issue about getting the message across to the people who really need to know it, rather than to the responsible owners who vaccinate their dogs every year.

That will always be a challenge. I cannot sit here and say that we will be able to transmit the codes in their entirety to every existing and potential dog or cat owner. That would happen in an ideal world, but I do not think that we will achieve that. However, much of what happens to dogs and cats is inadvertent, and is due to those who perhaps love them too much and do not truly understand what is best for them. Vets and others may already attempt, with some difficulty, to address much of that inadvertent behaviour, and the provision of the hard and fast information in the codes will allow access to good and incontrovertible information for those who wish to access it.

The vast majority of dog and cat owners will be open to that. Whether we can achieve total success with every owner is a different matter, but I remind members that the codes of practice will provide the basis for any investigation in connection with offences under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. When offences are investigated, the expected standard of behaviour will be the one that is set down in the relevant code, which therefore will be an additional tool for enforcing good behaviour. Indeed, the codes could equally be quoted by persons who are under investigation in defence of what they do. The codes will become the standard and will become better known as the years go by.

Motions moved,

That the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommends that the Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs (SG 2009/279) be approved.

That the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommends that the Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cats (SG 2009/280) be approved.—[Roseanna Cunningham.]

Motions agreed to.

I thank the minister and her officials for attending. I suspend the meeting for the changeover of witnesses.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

---

INSPIRE (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (SSI 2009/440)<br />Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (SSI 2009/443)

---

Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles) (Western Isles) (Scotland) Order 2009 (SSI 2009/444)<br />Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2009 (SSI 2009/447)

Item 7 is consideration of four negative instruments. The Subordinate Legislation Committee commented on the INSPIRE (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and the relevant extract of its report has been circulated to members as paper 8. No member has raised any concerns on any of the instruments and no motions to annul have been lodged. Do members have any comments on any of the instruments?

The Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles) (Western Isles) (Scotland) Order 2009 seems to be a sensible measure, but paragraph 11 of the regulatory impact assessment is rather ambiguous. It starts:

"Responses to the consultation have been generally supportive of the proposed introduction of a minimum size",

but goes on to say:

"Some concerns were raised about enforcement",

a point that is also picked up in paragraph 15. It would be helpful to have set out for us what those concerns were. I do not necessarily question the approach that has been taken, which looks to be proportionate, but if there are concerns on enforcement, it would be helpful to have a bit more detail on what they were.

We are happy to get some further information on that for a future committee meeting. Are you happy if we get a letter back?

Absolutely.

Do we agree not to make any recommendations on the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.