Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
For item 2, I welcome the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Paul Wheelhouse, who is here to lead his team of officials from the Scottish Government, who are Richard Frew, policy adviser; Kenneth Htet-Khin, senior principal legal officer; David Barnes, deputy director, agriculture and rural development; and Joseph Kerr, head of crofting services. Welcome, gentlemen. Minister, I invite you to make brief introductory remarks.
Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the Scottish Government’s Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced in the Parliament on 9 May. Richard Frew gave the committee a detailed account of the bill’s provisions last week, so I will cover the key points briefly, because I know that members want to ask questions.
I was interested to read the Official Report of the committee’s meeting on 15 May, when Scottish Government officials and key stakeholders gave evidence on the bill. I hope that it will assist the committee if I respond to some of the points that were raised in the meeting, in advance of your questions.
As you know, the main purpose of the bill is to allow owner-occupier crofters to apply to the Crofting Commission to decroft their land in a way that is similar to the way in which landlords and tenant crofters may do so under the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. Currently, an owner-occupier crofter can apply to decroft only when the croft is vacant. That does not sit well with section 23(10) of the 1993 act, which provides that a croft is vacant
“if it is occupied otherwise than by”,
among others,
“the owner-occupier crofter”.
The existing legislation clearly does not work as it was intended to do. Although some crofting lawyers, such as Brian Inkster, disagree, the concern that I have expressed is shared by others, including Sir Crispin Agnew and Derek Flyn. The commission’s legal advice appears to have drawn the same conclusion.
The bill will remove any legal doubt on the issue. The bill therefore amends section 23(12A) of the 1993 act to remove the reference to owner-occupier crofters being treated as landlords of vacant crofts for the purposes of decrofting. It also moves away from the vacant croft provisions by inserting into the 1993 act free-standing provisions for owner-occupier crofters to decroft, effectively replicating the provisions for tenants seeking to decroft, and that is why the drafting takes the form that it does.
The bill also allows the commission to give, or to refuse to give, decrofting directions to owner-occupier crofters, and provides that the commission may not consider a decrofting application if it has already required the owner-occupier crofter to submit proposals for letting the croft. That applies when action is being taken against a breach of duty under section 26J of the 1993 act, and mirrors the current legislation when the commission requires letting proposals from landlords of a vacant croft.
I note the suggestion that the phrase
“the Commission need not consider the application”
in proposed new section 24B(2) of the 1993 act could be amended to
“The Commission may refuse the application”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 15 May 2013; c 2206.]
There are two reasons why the bill is worded as it is. The first is for consistency in terminology with the equivalent provision in section 24(3A) of the 1993 act. Secondly, it would be premature in the enforcement process for the Commission to consider rejecting a decrofting application in advance of knowing the outcome of the section 26J enforcement action requiring letting proposals. The intention is therefore for the application to be suspended, rather than rejected, at that stage.
The bill inserts new sections 24A to 24D into the 1993 act. I have considered various options for addressing this decrofting issue, and I believe that those additional sections set out clearly, beyond doubt, that owner-occupier crofters can apply to decroft their land. Other options that I considered included a public services reform order, which requires a 60-day consultation period and would therefore have delayed remedying the problem. I also considered the order-making power in section 54 of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 but, unfortunately, that power is limited to specific circumstances not applicable here.
The bill applies section 25 of the 1993 act to owner-occupier crofters as they apply to tenant crofters and landlords but disapplies parts of section 25 that relate only to tenants, such as references to a crofter’s right to buy the croft under section 12(2) of the 1993 act. The bill also provides the same right to owner-occupier crofters as that afforded to a tenant crofter to decroft the site of a dwelling-house on the croft, where they have not already decrofted a house site.
It was suggested last week that further consideration be given to whether the intention was for each subsequent owner-occupier crofter to have a right to decroft the site of the dwelling-house following transfer of the croft. The example given was a transfer of the croft to the crofter’s wife so that a further decrofting right applies. The intention is to align tenant and owner-occupier crofters so far as possible, and as that right passes between tenant crofters on the transfer of the croft, it follows that the same should apply to owner-occupier crofters.
Also, decrofting a house site is different from decrofting whole crofts for speculative purposes. The latter would be subject to a decrofting application for a reasonable purpose under section 25(1)(a) of the 1993 act, which allows the commission to refuse decrofting if it would be detrimental to the sustainability of crofting in the locality or to the crofting community, or for other reasons, so there are safeguards that the commission can deploy to limit the effect of speculation.
Even then, it may be appropriate to approve the application if, for example, there is much need for affordable housing in the area, which an application would facilitate. The legislation is therefore drafted to reflect the intended policy. I am not aware of any such difficulties with that right in relation to tenant crofters. However, it can be considered further if it becomes a problem. As the right would cover both tenant and owner-occupier crofters, it is outwith the scope of the bill.
In the event of a breach of conditions relating to a decrofting direction, the bill provides for the direction to be revoked. The sanction in the 1993 act for tenant crofters is that the croft is declared vacant, but that is inappropriate for owner-occupier crofters, because section 23(10) of the 1993 act provides that a croft is not vacant if it is occupied by, among others, an owner-occupier crofter.
Section 2 and the schedule to the bill make consequential amendments to the 1993 and 2010 acts, as a result of new sections 24A to 24D, mainly to add cross-references to the new provisions. Retrospective provisions in section 3 allow the 159 decrofting directions already issued by the commission, and the 50 applications held in abeyance, to be treated as if the legislation had been in place from 1 October 2011, when the definition of owner-occupier crofter was introduced. The 50 cases presently held at the commission can then be fully processed as soon as the legislation comes into force, and these provisions simply place individuals in the position they expect to be in.
Section 4 will allow a further right of appeal to those who might have been dissuaded from appealing a decrofting decision within 42 days before the commission intimated on 25 February 2013 that owner-occupier crofters could no longer apply to decroft.
Section 5, “Transitory provision”, will ensure that the crofting register provisions in the 2010 act will apply to decrofting applications from owner-occupier crofters as they apply to decrofting applications from others. That will allow registration to remain voluntary until 30 November this year.
Sections 6 and 7 are self-explanatory. Commencing the legislation on royal assent will allow the decrofting issue to be addressed as early as possible.
Finally, the bill is tightly focused to justify the expedited procedure that is being applied to it. I am aware that other issues outwith the scope of the bill need to be considered, but I also recognise the very real impacts of the failure of the 2010 act to deliver the policy intent in this case. There is a desire on the part of stakeholders and MSPs of all parties to address this specific decrofting issue quickly. I am grateful to all who have contributed to bringing us this far in such a short timescale, not least the committee and its clerks.
I am happy to take any questions.
Thank you. First, we consider the effects of the cessation in approving decrofting applications.
Good morning, minister. Given that 50 decrofting applications from owner-occupier crofters have been suspended—presumably, other owner-occupiers who were planning to make such an application are holding off—how mindful are you of the difficulties that the delay may be causing? Do you believe that everything that can be done is being done to ensure that, if the bill is passed, as surely it must be, the Crofting Commission is ready to hit the ground in seeking to clear the backlog?
Graeme Dey is absolutely right that the issue presents real difficulties for individuals. As far as I am aware, we have had no estimation of the financial impacts that have been placed on individuals, but people may face practical difficulties with obtaining a mortgage, be unable to secure equity release on an existing mortgage or be unable to progress plans to assign a croft to their children or others in their family and build a house for themselves to live in. Those kinds of real practical issues can affect individuals at this point in time.
We have asked the commission to continue, in so far as it can, to process those applications that it received prior to its announcement in February, so that those can be oven ready, if you like, to be taken on following the passage of the bill. I understand that the commission is doing everything that it can in that regard. I believe that we are as far forward as we can be at this stage.
I realise that there can be no exact science for the timescale, but if the bill is passed in the next few weeks and receives royal assent, roughly when can people anticipate that applications will be able to proceed?
For new applications, I imagine that the commission will be able to open up the process immediately. The 50 applications that have already been submitted will be at different stages of processing, so some might need very little to facilitate a decision from the commission, whereas others might have further to go. I am confident that, if we can get the bill passed before the summer, the provision in section 6 will enable progression thereafter to be as rapid as possible once royal assent is received. I hope that, in the course of the summer, people will be able to continue to operate as they had originally intended to do.
We turn to timescales and the solution proposed in the bill.
Good morning, everyone. On the issue of speed, if I heard you correctly, you said that you are looking to get the bill signed, sealed and delivered before the beginning of the summer recess. However, the bill has not been subject to a formal consultation, which is quite unusual for any bill. In your view, has the Government consulted sufficiently to ensure that we cover all the potential issues? As you will know, people have various views on the right way forward. For example, the Scottish Land & Estates submission is a little critical of what is being done, so I would be interested to hear your views.
11:45
Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the consultation. One reason why we are keeping the bill so tightly focused is that we are mindful that we are having to expedite procedures as far as possible and strike a reasonable balance in the timescale for the passage of the bill. Jim Hume raises an important point, so I will set out for the committee what consultation has taken place. We appreciate the input from key stakeholders and others. There was considerable input to the Scottish Government and the Crofting Commission in the immediate aftermath of the commission’s decision. Indeed, specific issues that impacted on constituents were raised a number of times by colleagues from across the Parliament.
Unfortunately, there is insufficient time to have a full consultation process, because of the desire of colleagues from across the Parliament to deliver a solution before the summer recess. However, there has been on-going engagement with stakeholders. Key stakeholders who have been consulted include the Committee of Scottish Bankers, the Council of Mortgage Lenders in Scotland, the Crofting Commission, the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on crofting, which I attended to discuss the issue, the crofting law group, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Registers of Scotland, the Scottish Crofting Federation, the Scottish Land Court, Scottish Land & Estates, which Jim Hume identified, and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
So, there have been opportunities. I believe that some stakeholders were at last week’s meeting, and that the representative of the NFUS, Mr Murray, was happy that his organisation had had an input. He said:
“we have had ample opportunity to respond. We have been invited to several stakeholders meetings”.
He continued:
“the consultation with regard to the draft bill has been fine.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 15 May 2013; c 2203.]
I appreciate the point that Scottish Land & Estates has made, but others feel that they have been appropriately consulted and are mindful of the necessity to move swiftly in this case.
I note that Scottish Land & Estates stated that it “accepted the view” from a stakeholder meeting
“that the legislation was necessary and had to be retrospective to deal with those who had taken action already.”
Given that you are dwelling on some of those points, do you share the bill team’s confidence that the Government’s lawyers have had the time that they need to consider all the aspects of the problem so that it is solved in a way that does not lead to unintended consequences?
That is an important point. There have been suggestions that the Scottish Government could have had a shorter bill or neater or more simple wording. I respect the views of the individuals such as Sir Crispin Agnew and Derek Flyn who have made such comments. As I alluded to in my opening statement, in the drafting of the bill, we have tried to replicate as closely as possible the decrofting provisions for tenant crofters, so that there can be no doubt about the intent of the Government and Parliament’s will that owner-occupiers should be able to decroft on a similar basis. The bill might not be the shortest one that we could have produced, but I hope that it gives the greatest possible clarity about the intent and therefore less room for an alternative interpretation to emerge.
We hope that we have struck the right balance and have produced a bill that is reasonably clear for people to understand, albeit that crofting law in general could hardly be described as clear, as I think everyone round the table would acknowledge. In the specific provision, we wanted to amend the 1993 act and make the provisions as similar as possible so that there is absolute clarity that the intent is that owner-occupiers should have similar treatment to tenant crofters in respect of decrofting.
Notwithstanding that, Sir Crispin Agnew and Brian Inkster have made detailed critiques of the bill. You have made some comment on those, but do you have any other comments?
I would prefer to respond to specific issues as they come forth.
Okay, well how do you respond to the points that they raise about the wording of the bill? Sir Crispin Agnew had one or two points that might have clarified certain terms.
I very much respect the opinions of Sir Crispin Agnew, Derek Flyn and others—and indeed Brian Inkster, who has taken a different view regarding the bill. We have tried to ensure consistency of language between the bill and the provisions of the 2010 act, and to ensure that the 1993 act is amended in a very clear way, such that the provisions relating to owner-occupier crofters being able to decroft are as similar as possible to those applying to tenant crofters. We have tried to ensure consistency.
I appreciate the points that Sir Crispin has made. If he had his way, the bill would have been shorter and more concise, but we tried to focus on ensuring consistency, and length is not the only consideration—it is also about clarity. The balance that we have struck gives us a clear provision, allowing for similarity of treatment for both groups.
Will the wording of the bill need to be amended?
I will happily look at anything specific, but we have gone through the process. To answer your earlier question, although the timescales have been constrained, the legal team has worked extremely hard to ensure that the bill is consistent with the measures in respect of tenant crofters. There are different ways to draft a bill, but we are not aware of any defects at this stage.
If need be, we can tease those things out at a later stage.
Jim Hume has a question on owner-occupiers and owner-occupier crofts—that interesting area.
Liam McArthur, my colleague from Orkney, wrote to you about decrofting by owner-occupiers and owner-occupier crofts, and you have responded to him. Do you have any further comments on the issue of decrofting by owner-occupiers?
Is there anything specific to which you are referring?
Not at all—there was nothing specific, but it has been highlighted that there can be issues with owner-occupier crofts and decrofting by owner-occupiers. You have already responded to Liam McArthur, but I wondered whether you wished to make any further comments on that subject.
I suspect that the main issue regarding owner-occupier crofters relates to provisions for crofts that are undivided. I am aware that a number of members across the chamber have raised the issue in connection with their constituencies. We do not propose to deal with that matter in the bill, but I am aware that there are a number of areas of crofting legislation about which people have raised concerns in the past or during consideration of the bill. We will look to pick up any messages that the committee brings to us about specific issues that have been raised.
We are considering issues to do with crofts with multiple owners, and we asked the bill team and others a question about that subject last week to find out how many people might be affected by it. If you have some answers for us just now, that would help.
I am happy to try and establish, after the meeting, whether there are any statistics that would give us an idea about how many crofters might be affected. I apologise that I do not have the numbers in front of me now.
We are aware of the matter, which is an example of an issue that we are not proposing to deal with in the bill but which is clearly of concern to a number of stakeholders, not least members of the committee. I recognise the fact that stakeholders have identified and raised with the committee other issues relating to crofting legislation. I am not aware of other issues that have been highlighted as having such an impact or as requiring such urgent action as the one affecting owner-occupier crofters that is addressed in the bill. For that reason, we did not include the issue in the bill.
However, I am happy to confirm that the Scottish Government will carefully consider all the issues that will have been raised, and it will engage with stakeholders in doing so. As part of that process, I will consider what further legislation or legislative action may be required. I am happy to give the committee the commitment that we will keep it and stakeholders informed as to our thinking in this area.
My question arises from information that we have received. Richard Frew made quite a passionate plea for more than 40 young couples. Sir Crispin Agnew went on about all the problems that he had with the bill, and the original Mr Inkster said that we did not need the bill.
My concern is that we have had so many attempts to resolve the issues. I am not a crofter or a lawyer, but I know that this has gone on for hundreds of years, particularly in Scotland. There have been many changes in our approach to crofting. Does it concern you that so many different lawyers are saying so many different things? Has Mr Frew added to or amended the bill since we heard Sir Crispin’s views last week?
It would be unfair to put Richard Frew in that position because, unfortunately, he is working at the behest of ministers. We have made no amendments to the bill in response to Sir Crispin Agnew’s points last week.
As even Sir Crispin acknowledged, there are some legal opinions, such as that of Brian Inkster, who is highly qualified, that the bill is not necessary. Although I appreciate that he comes at it from that perspective, other lawyers, such as Mr Flyn and Sir Crispin, have stated that, irrespective of whether you agree that there is a problem, there is doubt in the legal community. Hence the commission was left in doubt about whether it could process applications and concern that it might have been doing something unlawful if it did.
The bill removes that doubt. As I said before, there is more than one way of skinning a cat when it comes to the drafting of the bill. However, we have drafted the bill in such a way that it replicates as closely as possible for owner-occupier crofters the provisions for tenant crofters, so that there can be no doubt that what we intend is that owner-occupier crofters can decroft part of a croft or a whole croft as required, in the same way as tenant crofters. We have tried to give that clarity and we are trying to address the fact that the 2010 act does not deliver what was intended. The bill will restore the position that the 2010 act delivers what Parliament intended, which is to give parity of esteem in this respect to owner-occupier crofters and tenants.
If there are no other questions on the bill, we move on to some of the issues that have been raised in our discussions.
Good morning, minister and panel. The bill addresses the specific issue of owner-occupier decrofting. However, other issues have been highlighted during the consultation, and general views have been given by stakeholders at the cross-party group on crofting. How do you plan to go about resolving the other issues on crofting law that the committee has heard about? Is someone in the Scottish Government specifically tasked with collating all the views that have been expressed in the past few months? I presume that those matters will be addressed in the not-too-distant future.
Angus MacDonald raises an important point. I will address the point about the resourcing issue first. We have the bill team in place for the purposes of this bill. As part of the exercise of consulting stakeholders, it has been collecting as much evidence as possible. I have alluded to issues that have been suggested for inclusion in the bill. I am sure that such issues were raised with the committee last week and will be mentioned again during this meeting. We have tried to keep the bill tightly focused in order to deliver it by the summer recess, with the will of Parliament, in response to the need for urgency. Some members, including Tavish Scott, had called for emergency legislation. We recognised the urgency and felt that this was as far as we could go. We will be collecting as much evidence as possible through the bill team and, as I alluded to in response to an earlier question, we will keep the matter under review.
I am keen to see what issues come out of the consultation and the committee’s efforts or arise elsewhere. If there are things that we need to look at, such as other perceived flaws in the legislation or anomalies that need to be corrected, we will consider what routes we might deploy to deal with them. That will have resource implications.
12:00
A number of options were proposed by people last week—from the consolidation of crofting legislation to scrapping it all and starting from scratch, and somewhere in between. We have a number of potential routes, but it is too early to say what might be a sensible way forward. However, I recognise that a number of problems with crofting law have been raised not only in the course of the bill but well before it was introduced. A particular problem is that the 2010 act does not deliver what ministers and Parliament intended. We therefore must remedy that as soon as possible.
Will you clarify that cognisance has been given to the other issues that have been highlighted, and that they are being taken on board for future attention?
Absolutely. As I said earlier, I fully recognise that stakeholders have raised a number of issues that we cannot deal with through the bill because of the need for urgency and, dare I say it, Jim Hume’s point about ensuring that there is proper consultation. We know that there is defined demand to get the bill—or something else legislative—to fix the problem that exists. Other issues may be more contentious, and we must have appropriate consultation on them, because there is no unanimous view that something needs to be done.
As I have said, we will consider carefully all the issues that have been raised in the course of your deliberations so far and, indeed, those that might be raised during the bill’s passage through Parliament. We will engage with stakeholders in doing so. I see a key role for the cross-party group on crofting in that regard. We will keep closely in touch with the commission and our stakeholders. We will consider what further legislative action may be needed in the course of that.
Good morning. I want to continue that theme. At what stage will you make a decision about next steps? Can you put a timescale on that? Will that timescale be influenced by the resource requirements? Consolidating the legislation will be a big job—whatever route you follow, a lot of staff resources and time will be needed. Are there enough resources to hand? Is the office of the Scottish parliamentary counsel sufficiently resourced?
Those are all important matters. I am but one minister, and any proposals for legislation would have to go before the full Cabinet for its consideration. Therefore, I cannot take for granted what colleagues would agree to.
You are absolutely right that there are resource implications. For example, if the view was taken that a major review or consolidation of crofting law needed to be undertaken, there would be an onerous burden on the commission. I am sure that you are aware that there were delays in setting up the new commission. The commission has major tasks to work on to tackle absenteeism and get the crofting register up and running, which has its own issues, as I am sure that you will appreciate. We have to take into account the impact of any work on the commission. We would have to consider the resource implications and, if need be, find the resources to underpin that work.
What about the office of the Scottish parliamentary counsel?
I am not as close to that issue. Kenny Htet-Khin might have a view on it.
Kenneth Htet-Khin (Scottish Government)
I am not aware of any resource issues with that office.
That is the office that drafts bills.
Yes.
I want to pursue the same issue, perhaps ad infinitum. I am conscious that there are provisions to allow pre-consolidation, which is a strange concept, given that consolidation is fundamentally about not changing something. I suspect that we all recognise that we are looking at an area of law that does not need consolidation; rather, it needs rethinking, because there is too much to consolidate. The Scottish Law Commission is one body that tends to do such rethinking. Is there any prospect that the Law Commission will look at the matter? Should it be looking at it?
I will ask Richard Frew, who is closer than me to the consultation, whether the Scottish Law Commission has said anything. I know that the Law Society of Scotland has offered to help with a fundamental review or consolidation of crofting legislation.
It is worth pointing out for the committee’s benefit that, as minister, I have certainly come to appreciate just how impenetrable crofting legislation is. The Crofting Commission has on its website the 1993 act as amended, along with certain caveats—for example, that the legislation has not been consolidated by Parliament. That at least aids people’s understanding of how the subsequent amendments in 2007 and 2010 fit in. That will also apply to the bill, if it is passed.
However, we need to consider whether consolidation that falls somewhere short of scrapping the law and starting again is required. As I said, there are effectively three potential routes for dealing with the situation that we face. We can consolidate the legislation and add amendments to fix some of the problems that we have talked about, undertake a straight consolidation, or scrap the legislation and start again. I know that those points were raised last week.
It is too early for me, as minister, to say what I believe is necessary, but we will look at the options in due course. Does David Barnes or Richard Frew have anything to add?
Richard Frew (Scottish Government)
I simply agree. Nigel Don is right to highlight the Scottish Law Commission’s role in any potential considerations, as it will be a key player if consolidation is an option. I suspect that the answer will be that resource is an issue, and that its involvement will depend very much on its existing workload. That would apply to Parliament too.
We are mindful of the burden on this committee, apart from anything else, of undertaking such an exercise.
Fortunately we have broad shoulders, but we hope that you have a satnav to find your way, given the impenetrable nature of the subject.
Claudia Beamish will go next with a question about the way ahead, on which we have already started.
Thank you, convener—what a position to be put in. I do not propose to make any profound statements.
Good morning, minister—or good afternoon, I should say. As you will be aware, there was a committee of inquiry on crofting in 2008, and its findings informed the drafting of the 2010 act. The Scottish Government set out a number of significant points in response to that inquiry, which included:
“Maintaining and increasing the amount of land held in crofting tenure. Ensuring that land in crofting tenure is put to productive use. Ensuring that housing in the crofting counties makes a full contribution to the local economy. Giving more power to local people to determine their own futures”
and
“Assisting young people and new entrants into crofting.”
I highlight those points, which have been highlighted to me, because they are important and I wonder to what degree they might be the way forward.
You have talked about keeping the committee informed, which will be helpful, and about future engagement with stakeholders. In your view, is another inquiry needed, or are you looking at maintaining the principles that I listed in driving the issues forward?
A number of those issues are very important. On the productive use of croft land, the Crofting Commission is addressing matters such as tackling absenteeism as almost its number 1 priority for the use of its resources just now, and, as a secondary objective, tackling neglect. Those priorities certainly acknowledge the points that were raised in the 2008 inquiry.
We are undertaking work already—for example, on new entrants to crofting. Crofting conversations are being undertaken, and people are going into schools to encourage young people to take up crofting. A number of things are already in train.
To be fair, I think that you have raised an important point, because we need to keep under review and ensure that we are addressing the issues that have been raised. Indeed, the forthcoming Crofting Commission plan will set out how the commission is identifying and trying to tackle some of them. However, I am happy to keep in touch with the committee on the matter. As part of the discussion with Nigel Don and others about the need for more fundamental consideration of the legislation, perhaps we need to start by considering the appropriate route. Is it consolidation? Is it consolidation-plus? Is it something more fundamental? I would welcome outside, objective views on that. We need to consider first the best way forward, and a further inquiry will be considered as one option.
In the end, the Shucksmith committee’s consideration of crofting was contested both by people who liked it and people who did not. However, it shaped what happened thereafter. We know from the series “Hebrides: Islands at the Edge”, which is on television at the moment, that on Benbecula, school courses on crofting are oversubscribed. That might give some hope that there are people who want to go into crofting and that the population in such areas can be maintained.
The programme on the Hebrides is tremendous and a fantastic advert for that part of Scotland. Having done some initial visits to the crofting counties, I am aware that there are some areas where there is very high demand for new crofts—on South Uist, for example. However, to pick up on one of the recommendations that Claudia Beamish mentioned, there is also a real problem with absenteeism. I am sure that you are aware, convener, that how that is being handled is a fairly contentious issue in some parts of the crofting counties. However, it is clear that there is demand for crofts, which will no doubt be stimulated by what is happening in places such as Benbecula.
Alex Fergusson has a couple of brief points.
Rather than ask a question, I have some thoughts to offer. We established last week and have reaffirmed today that this is a hugely complex area of legislation. I appreciate everybody’s desire to address the anomaly that arose from the 2010 act. We all thought that the situation had been resolved, but it became clear that it had not.
We had questions last week about how certain people are concerned that, in solving the current problem, we do not give rise to others. As well as the differences of opinion between Brian Inkster and others, it became clear at last week’s meeting that there are differences of opinion between Sir Crispin Agnew and Derek Flyn. I am not exactly totally satisfied that we will not have more problems. Given the complexity of the issue, how certain are you that we are not simply solving one problem while creating two more? I do not know whether you can give an exact answer to that, given the complexity of the issue, but I would appreciate any comfort that you can give me.
In drafting the bill, we have tried to reduce the scope for misinterpretation and disagreement. The provisions that relate to tenant crofters are reasonably stable and working fairly well, so there is no problem with them as they stand. The problem specifically relates to owner-occupier crofters. We have taken forward the measures as far as we can for owner-occupiers. There are some slight differences—we have taken steps to ensure that community right-to-buy provisions are not reflected for owner-occupiers, for example. However, in so far as we have been able to do so, the approach that we have taken is to keep things as similar as possible, to ensure that there is minimal scope for misinterpretation.
That means that the bill is longer than Sir Crispin Agnew and Derek Flyn, say, would have liked. However, length is not everything, and having a shorter bill is not necessarily the primary virtue; it is about trying to ensure clarity and minimising the risk that we could be challenged at some point in the future. I cannot give an absolute guarantee, but I hope that what we have done will minimise that risk.
12:15
I entirely agree with you on the issue of clarity, but Sir Crispin Agnew suggested that some parts of the bill did not tie in with other parts. I do not know the bill well enough to give exact examples, but Sir Crispin did so. Can you assure us that the bill team is taking that on board and that it will, if necessary, address it at stage 2?
I certainly believe that the bill team has fully considered Sir Crispin Agnew’s comments. I ask Richard Frew to confirm what has been done.
Mr Fergusson is quite right to highlight the differences of opinion. Frankly, even solicitors who are experts in crofting law disagree about certain aspects. However, we have looked at the written evidence that has been provided to the committee and we will take account of the oral evidence. Nothing springs to mind on the specific issue to which Mr Fergusson referred with regard to what we could amend in the bill as introduced. Clearly, we can take such questions into account at stage 2. I certainly want to work closely with the committee to ensure that members understand where we are going.
I have a small point about Richard Frew’s answer to my question at last week’s meeting about the number of multiple owners of crofts. When I asked whether he had a ballpark figure, he said:
“I am not aware of the exact figures, but I am sure that the commission has a list of the different types of crofter.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 15 May 2013; c 2185.]
Can we take that answer any further just now?
I will ask Joe Kerr to comment on that. He is on secondment from the commission, so he may be more closely involved with the issue.
Joseph Kerr (Scottish Government)
An exercise was undertaken that looked at the different status of people in the crofting elections. In terms of multiple ownership, I understand that the figure was around 700, and that the ballpark figure for owner-occupier crofters was between 3,000 and 4,000.
That is a much more precise answer than we were given last week, so thank you very much.
As there are no further questions, I thank the minister and his team for their evidence, which we will use in our stage 1 report. Thank you for expediting the bill. We will try to expedite our report at next week’s meeting.
12:17
Meeting continued in private until 12:33.