Justice 2 Committee, 27 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 27, 2002

Official Report 292KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Justice 2 Committee Wednesday 27 November 2002 (Morning)

[The Convener opened the meeting at 09:49]

Good morning everyone and welcome to the 45th meeting in 2002 of the Justice 2 Committee. I have one item to report before we move to item 1 on the agenda. I inform the committee that we have made further progress on our asbestos petition. The deputy convener, Bill Aitken, and I met our advisers—Mike Jones QC and Grant McCulloch of Drummond Miller—and I felt that we made good progress. Our excellent advisers suggested proposals within 48 hours of that meeting, which is encouraging. We hope to have something to put to the committee soon, in advance of our meeting with the Lord President on 12 December. We will keep the committee updated on developments, but I thought that members would like to know that progress is going well. We will have something important to say on 12 December.

I want to raise a concern. Would you write to the Executive to seek clarification about a document that was received from the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association? The document relates to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and the proposal to give crofting communities the right to purchase salmon fishings. HIRA has obviously taken counsel's opinion and raises several issues in the document as to whether the legislation would pass the European convention on human rights test. In particular, the association highlights the blight on the salmon fishings that would be introduced by that right. Most of us have rejected the proposal, but I would like an official response from the Executive to the document.

I raise the issue of blight in particular because the Executive has said that the creation of any absolute right to buy in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill would blight the land affected. Indeed, the Executive put a figure of £100 million on it. I want the Executive to clarify its position on the absolute right to buy, whether in relation to salmon fishings or land. Could we ask for a response from ministers to the issues raised in the document?

It is proper that George Lyon encourages us to make that request. However, I suggest that we do not tread on the toes of the Rural Development Committee. I am not in a position to speak about that committee's private discussions on its stage 1 report on the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, and I do not think that we need concern ourselves about that bill.

It might be useful to augment our request by asking whether the crofters' absolute right to buy their crofts that they have had for some 30 years has caused blight. We could ask also whether that right would now be ECHR incompatible. As a non-lawyer, I am fairly clear that the answer should be no. However, since the issue has been raised, it would be useful to include that, but not George Lyon's reference to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill and the absolute right to buy for tenant farmers, which is another committee's concern.

For the sake of clarity, I was not referring to that. I was drawing a comparison between the two bills and highlighting the fact that the Executive's position seems to show a difference of opinion. I am seeking clarity only about the Executive's position on salmon fishings and the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

I agree with George Lyon on that basis.

I endorse what George Lyon said. It is totally within our rights and competence to make such a request.

Surely this is a matter of opinion that it is open to committee members either to accept or to reject. I do not think that HIRA would claim to have a monopoly of wisdom, but it may well be right. Like Stewart Stevenson, I am not sufficiently qualified in the nuances of the ECHR to be able to make a determination. It is a matter for individual opinion, and committee members can reject or accept the evidence, in whole or in part, depending on their inclinations. I doubt whether there is any value in pursuing it with the Executive.

Members are trying to ascertain whether there is consistency between the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill and the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Counsel's opinion may be on the table, but members want an explanation of why land blight would be claimed for one piece of legislation, but not for another, apparently similar, piece of legislation. Therefore, the differences in the approach to the legislation must be questioned; counsel's opinion is incidental.

I am requesting that the committee be made aware of the Executive's opinion on the ECHR matters raised in the letter from HIRA.

The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill does not seek to create an absolute right to buy; the Executive has explained why it does not. Therefore, there is no question to be addressed in that context; if there were, that would be the responsibility of the Rural Development Committee.

I am not clear about what George Lyon wants the committee to do.

I ask that the committee write to the Executive, enclosing the HIRA letter, and ask for a response on the ECHR matters raised, before we reach stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Do you concur, Stewart, or do you feel that the Rural Development Committee should do that?

I concur. I cannot share with the committee the private discussions that the Rural Development Committee is having on its report on the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill; that would be improper and it would get me into trouble with others. However, it is proper for me to say that members need not be concerned that the Rural Development Committee is not alert to the issue.

What about a compromise? Will I write to the convener of the Rural Development Committee to say that the issue was raised at the meeting and that members have some concerns?

I think that Stewart Stevenson would support this committee raising points about the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. I do not want to raise any points about the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill. I want the Executive's response to the issues raised in HIRA's letter about salmon fishings and a statement that rebutts some of them.

It would be legitimate for the committee to do that because, although stage 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is complete, we still have stage 3 to work through, and it is perfectly in order for us to seek further information.

If we do not move quickly, the bill will receive royal assent before we have made any progress.

I agree.

On that basis, and for the sake of committee members' health, I will raise the matter with the Executive.