Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings, which I have agreed as Presiding Officer. The first division will be a 30-second division, following a five-minute suspension. Thereafter, there will be a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate and the voting period for all other divisions will be 30 seconds.
We are incredibly tight for time, so, to begin with, I ask no speaker to speak for more than one minute.
Section 2—General functions of the Crofting Commission
We start with group 1. Amendment 2, in the name of Peter Peacock, is grouped with amendments 144, 4, 123 and 124.
I believe that the crofting commission should retain a role in the development of crofting. It is a unique body and the future of crofting is a central part of its concern. It seems wrong to pass in its entirety the development function to Highlands and Islands Enterprise at a time when the crofting commission is to become democratically elected. I believe that the commission should retain a role in development, albeit one that is defined in its strategic plans. It would be regrettable, to say the least, if in years to come we wanted the commission to do something only to discover that it was not legally empowered to do so. Retaining the development role and defining it through the strategic plan seems sensible. Amendments 2 and 123 seek to deal with that by leaving the development function with the commission.
Amendment 124 was drafted in the same spirit as the amendments about development. I seek clarification from the Minister for Environment about the provisions in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 that the bill will delete. Should they be continued? They cover matters to which even the Government is committed. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about that.
Amendment 4 is a probing amendment that seeks to ensure that what the commission is currently doing to hold maps is permissible under its powers.
I move amendment 2.
Amendment 144 seeks to place within the functions of the crofting commission a role in supporting population retention in the crofting counties and in the newly designated areas. It is similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I thank the minister and her officials for their support for the amendment. Population retention is absolutely crucial to the crofting counties if we are serious about crofting for the future and amendment 144 is part of that, so I hope that members will support it.
I support Karen Gillon’s amendment 144. Although it is at one level symbolic, it is also more than that. From the beginning of the bill, it will remind the commission that part of its statutory function is to have regard to
“the desirability of supporting population retention ... in the crofting counties”.
Ms Gillon’s amendment is useful in that it will remind the commission that it is there not only to serve individual crofters, but ensure the future of the wider communities around them and to take decisions that benefit not only individuals but the wider community. It will also serve to give crofting the status that it deserves in our wider economic strategy for the Highlands and Islands.
The Scottish ministers decided to remove the development function from the commission and hand it to HIE. Like many others, the Liberal Democrats had concerns about that approach, but we recognise that at this stage it serves little useful purpose to try to reverse the decision. However, Peter Peacock’s amendments in this group usefully make explicit the crofting commission’s on-going interest in and responsibility for the development of crofting in the crofting counties. I think that that view is widely held across the parties and I hope that Peter Peacock’s amendments will be supported.
Karen Gillon’s amendment 144 is also helpful in underscoring what we all believe is one of the principal achievements of crofting: sustaining communities by retaining population in some of the remotest areas. I recall the minister accepting that general principle at stage 2 and I hope that, like the other amendments in the group, amendment 144 will be agreed to.
I welcome Karen Gillon’s amendment 144, which deals properly with the desirability of supporting crofting—something to which I know the whole Parliament aspires.
Peter Peacock’s amendments 123 and 124, which seek to return development powers to the commission, are perhaps bolting the stable door after the horse has gone, as the development functions have already been given to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. If the bill is passed today, we will give the commission significantly more regulatory powers and, indeed, more work to do, perhaps not with adequate funding. I do not believe that the commission needs even more work. Its core burden will be regulation and enforcement; HIE should be left to get on with development. I do not support amendments 2, 123 or 124.
Due to members’ diligence, I can offer the minister two minutes to wind up.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will take Peter Peacock’s amendments first and then Karen Gillon’s.
As members said, the Government has already transferred crofting development to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That transfer took place on 1 April 2009. We considered that crofting communities would benefit more if the function became the responsibility of the agency whose primary responsibility is the social and economic development of the Highlands and Islands. We believe that the commission can best contribute to development by ensuring that crofting is properly regulated and that croft land is occupied and used. I therefore urge members to reject amendments 2 and 123.
Amendment 4 is pointless. There is nothing to prevent the commission from requesting a map and nothing to prevent a person from declining the commission’s request, so I do not see how the amendment would take us forward. As for amendment 124, it would overburden the commission with a number of ancillary duties rather than focusing it on regulation.
On the other hand, I welcome Karen Gillon’s amendment 144, which is a revised version of an amendment that she lodged at stage 2. It will ensure that the commission has explicit regard to supporting population retention in the crofting counties, which I believe we all support.
I call Peter Peacock to wind up and either press or withdraw his amendment.
I do not have a lot to say, Presiding Officer. I am glad that the minister said that amendment 4 is pointless. I was hoping to establish that it is permissible for the commission to do what I describe in the amendment. I will say no more than that.
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As it is the first division of the day, there will be a five-minute suspension.
09:22
Meeting suspended.
09:27
On resuming—
We come to the division on amendment 2.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 58, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Amendment 144 moved—[Karen Gillon]—and agreed to.
We come to group 2. Amendment 3, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 5 to 25, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38 to 41, 46, 49 to 51, 54, 55, 57 to 62, 64, 66, 67, 83, 85, 86, 92, 192, 94 to 98, 109 to 114, 125 to 129, 227, 130 to 134, 137, 138 and 140 to 143. I draw members’ attention to the pre-emption information that is given in the list of groupings.
Before anyone gets started on the number of these minor technical drafting amendments, I point out that many of them will tidy up non-Government amendments that we supported at stage 2 on the basis that we would need to fix some of the drafting at stage 3. Others are technical changes and corrections to minor drafting errors, and some are minor consequentials to other Government amendments. In the interests of time, I propose not to go through each of the minor amendments in the group—members will be delighted to hear that—but to offer to expand on any amendment on which a member wishes further clarification.
I move amendment 3.
The amendments in group 2 are essentially technical and drafting amendments, all of which we will support. In due course, we will be happy to consider voting on the amendments en bloc, if that is helpful.
The Labour Party strongly opposes the bill’s proposals for a new crofting register. We will come to the detailed debate on that in group 4, under which we will try to remove the register from the bill. A number of amendments in group 2 touch on that. However, given that we will have the opportunity to vote down the register shortly, at this stage in the proceedings we will not impede the Government’s technical amendments to the register.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
After section 2
Amendment 4 not moved.
09:30
We now come to group 3. Amendment 145, in the name of Peter Peacock, is the only amendment in the group.
I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to allow for a debate on the concept of community planning in crofting. Regrettably, the debate focused on the question of maps and mapping, and the proposal was seen as an alternative to the second crofting register. In fact, community planning in a crofting township is a community development matter. The process is in its infancy, but the recent Camuscross report, which a number of members are aware of, demonstrates its potential. I am aware that the Scottish Crofting Federation intends to continue that process and encourage that in the future.
This is, in part, a question of land use, and local work could feed in to inform local plan development by the local authority and may have implications for local land for housing, for example. In part, such a planning exercise may assist the commission with regulatory issues that concern absenteeism and neglect, croft reorganisation and the like. I propose that the commission should be involved, with others, in supporting a community development process and should set out in its strategic plan how it will do that.
I move amendment 145.
It is with regret that I am unable to support amendment 145 as it would duplicate much of what is already agreed in the bill and would only further complicate things. If the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee had come to a view at stage 1 that mandatory community mapping was a good idea, we might have been in a different place today.
Amendment 145 is a new version of Peter Peacock’s failed amendment at stage 2 that sought to require the compilation of community maps and plans. It appears that we have dropped the maps, held on to the plans and changed their purpose. They are now supposedly for the crofting communities’ benefit rather than the commission’s.
Peter Peacock seems unable to come to terms with the fact that responsibility for crofting development already rests with Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It has already developed its growth at the edge approach, which does a vast amount of what he is talking about.
Peter Peacock spent much of his time at stage 2 trying to scare everyone about the resource implications of getting the commission to do no more than its regulatory job properly—[Interruption.]
Order.
Yet here he is suggesting that we lump this completely uncosted, unresourced and potentially extremely burdensome requirement on the commission. The proposal would simply take us backwards rather than forwards, and the amendment should be rejected.
I am deeply grateful for the minister’s gracious remarks about my amendment. [Laughter.] However, I fully intend to stick to my guns because I believe that I am right and the Government is wrong.
The question is, that amendment 145 is agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 145 disagreed to.
Section 3—The Crofting Register
Amendment 5 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
We move to group 4. Amendment 146, in the name of Peter Peacock, is grouped with amendments 147 to 174, 179 to 189, 193 to 197, 93, 200, 225, 201, 226, 204 to 220, 228 and 221 to 224. I draw members’ attention to the pre-emption information on the groupings paper.
I lodged a series of amendments in this group to try to remove the whole of part 2 of the bill, which now runs to dozens and dozens of pages of complex procedure with which crofters will have to comply.
Part 2 establishes a second register of crofts; it does not replace the existing register. The new register will require precise maps of croft boundaries to be produced. Those maps are designed not to assist with regulatory applications, necessarily, but to record the croft holding on a national register that will be held in Edinburgh. Many things will trigger the requirement for a map, whether the crofter believes that map to be necessary or not.
This second and compulsory register that is proposed by the Government could take up to 40 years to complete, and has little or nothing to do with better support for crofting. It is argued that it will provide certainty on croft boundaries for all time, but to what effect? Where there is uncertainty about a croft boundary that is material to one of the interests, the matter can ultimately be settled by the Land Court, which is something that the new register’s provisions simply repeat. The fact that the committee convener had to use her casting vote on no less than 18 occasions to force the Government’s measure through demonstrates the depth of the division on this matter.
Amendment 93 is different in character from the other amendments in the group. The minister has said that the Government’s policy is not to commence the register for one year following the creation of the computer database, which itself will take some 18 months or more. The minister has added that there could be a further delay in commencement of a further year. In theory and in practice, there could be further and indefinite delays to the commencement, which puts the matter down the road by a number of years. Who knows what might happen in that time, as circumstances change? In that context, given that commencement could be a number of years away, I believe that the Parliament should have a chance to assess the case for commencement at that time, so amendment 93 seeks to make that commencement subject to affirmative order. That is the democratic thing to do.
I move amendment 146.
In evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, Sir Crispin Agnew said:
“A map-based register of crofts is essential. All land in Scotland goes on to the land register, and it seems anomalous that crofting titles do not appear on that register.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 10 February 2010; c 2354.]
In fact, in each of the past 10 years, around 500 cases of decrofting have led to registration of land.
I find it odd that a Labour Party that spent the 1990s attempting to get a register for the land of Scotland should exempt crofts from that approach, and should make it more difficult to administer crofts in a manner that is fit for the 21st century. Many arguments have been aired around this issue before, and I am sure that we will hear more, but the nub of the matter is that many of the experts—the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, the National Farmers Union Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland and the Scottish Crofting Federation—say that there is a need for a land register. The fact that the land registers take time to build up should not stop us from starting the crofting register. We must oppose the removal of the crofting register from the bill.
Group 4 is entirely about removing map-based registration from the bill. As we believe map-based registration to be in the long-term best interests of crofting—as do the organisations that Rob Gibson mentioned—we cannot support the amendments. Because of implementation and construction timings, the new register will not be in place for a number of years—perhaps not until 2012 or 2013—which gives those who wish to prepare for the registration facility a window of opportunity to do so.
The register will introduce a level of certainty into many crofters’ lives about the boundaries of their properties, whether tenanted or owner-occupied, and will, over time, create secure titles to all crofts. Some crofters will dispute boundaries with their neighbours during that process, but I believe that most will amicably agree boundaries with their neighbours, where they are not already accurately established.
I believe map-based registration to be essential. The Conservatives will not be able to support the 72 amendments in the group.
The amendments that were lodged by Peter Peacock and supported by me concern the part of the bill around which the most significant controversy and on-going disagreement exists. Like Peter Peacock, I will not oppose the Government’s amendments to part 2, as I support the intention of removing the entire part through the amendments in this group.
I acknowledge the steps that Roseanna Cunningham has taken to jettison a significant proportion of the toxic inheritance that was bequeathed to her by Michael Russell, but I am disappointed that she remains unpersuaded of the need to reconsider the cost of and need for a map-based register, held by the Registers of Scotland. The Crofting Federation and the SRPBA now believe that the plans are costly and unworkable.
The committee’s stage 1 report noted that the NFUS and the National Trust also
“expressed reservations about the approach to registration set out in the Bill, instead expressing a preference for community-led mapping”.
It has become increasingly clear, as the SCF has highlighted, that the proposed register is for the benefit of anyone but the crofters, who are being asked to pay for it. The Government has estimated that the capital costs will amount to up to £1.5 million, with project and on-going costs to be borne by crofters. The case for such a proposal was never particularly strong. In the current climate, pursuit of such a register seems verging on reckless.
Many of the objectives that the Government seeks to achieve through its costly register could be secured by extending and expanding the scope of community-based mapping. As the chair of the Crofters Commission, Drew Ratter, made clear in evidence,
“A crofting tenancy is not really a territorial unit; it is, essentially, a bundle of rights and duties ... an understanding of exactly where the boundary lines go has never been desperately important.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 23 February 2010; c 2452.]
Exactly so.
I urge the minister and her colleagues, as well as John Scott, Jamie McGrigor and other Tory members, to think again. In the name of austerity, if not common sense, ditch these plans now. A bill that contains such a register is not one that I or my Liberal Democrat colleagues can support.
The previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration set up the committee of inquiry on crofting—the Shucksmith inquiry. That inquiry said:
“An accurate and current Register of Crofts is a prerequisite for effective regulation of crofting.”
The majority of respondents to our consultation who expressed a view on a register said that they wanted one and, this morning, Patrick Krause of the SCF said that there was a need for a register. It seems ridiculous that Peter Peacock wants hill tracks but not crofts to be mapped. If we are to have effective regulation of crofting, we need crofts to be mapped.
The Government has listened throughout the passage of the bill and various changes have been made.
The hokum about a second register is just that. The first one is basically an administrative list; it is not a register in the sense of the proposal that we are considering, which is for a new, accurate, legal, map-based register that will have long-term benefits for crofting.
On the radio this morning, Patrick Krause of the SCF—contrary to what Liam McArthur has just said—supported the case for change and for a map-based register. Crofters are not keen to pay for it, of course, but the cost of registration has been reduced by the Government from £250 to between £80 and £130; again, it has listened.
As with agriculture in general, the real problem for crofting is its general viability, as Patrick Krause also said on the radio this morning. That will be dealt with on another day. It is being looked at through the less favoured area support scheme, the Scotland rural development programme and single farm payments. Last night, I was at a meeting of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on crofting, at which the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme was mentioned.
I must hurry you.
We will deal with those issues as we make progress.
Professor Jim Hunter said that it would be a huge step forward to have a register, particularly a map-based register. Sir Crispin Agnew said;
“A map-based register of crofts is essential.”
Keith Graham, retired principal clerk to the Scottish Land Court, said
“I welcome the general principle behind a definitive map-based register”.
Jonathan Hall of the NFUS said:
“The NFU Scotland is firmly of the opinion that we need a definitive map-based register—there is no doubt that that is essential.”
Even Jean Balfour of the SRPBA said:
“We support map-based registration in principle.”
The SCF said:
“The SCF strongly supports an effective crofting register.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 10 February 2010; c 2354, 2357, 2385, 2386.]
The National Trust for Scotland, a landowner, said that it welcomed the creation of a new map-based crofting register, which it believed was essential for the future of crofting.
In the face of all that evidence, Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to destroy a proposal to create, for the first time, a proper, accurate, legal, reliable and map-based register of land held in crofting tenure. The existing crofting register is administrative only. The case for such a register and the benefits that it will bring is compelling.
The Government has listened to some of the concerns that have been expressed about the crofting register and has responded with incentives to encourage communities to come forward with group registrations and a commitment to delay the mandatory trigger points for a year, which will give those communities three years to prepare group registrations. The first mandatory trigger cannot come in until 2013.
To ensure that the register will deliver those benefits, we must allow for a fair challenge to first registration and registration must become mandatory if the voluntary approach does not deliver enough registrations. The benefits to crofters and society in the long term significantly outweigh the costs. The bill will meet the most basic requirement—it will provide clarity about what land is croft land and who has the rights and responsibilities for that land. Please oppose the Labour-Liberal Democrat amendments.
09:45
As I said, there is a fundamental disagreement here that is evident from the debate.
The minister quoted various people in support of the register, but I do not believe that she quoted a crofter, and it is the crofters who are telling me loudly that the register is impractical in a variety of ways. The costs and bureaucracy that the bill builds around it are unnecessary. Although John Farquhar Munro is not able to be here today, for understandable reasons, I refer members to what he said during the stage 1 debate. There is a man who understands crofting thoroughly and fully, and I commend what he said when he said that the register is unworkable, unnecessary, bureaucratic, costly to crofters and costly to the public purse. That is why we should reject it.
The question is, that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 146 disagreed to.
Section 4—First registration
Amendments 6 to 15 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 147 moved—[Peter Peacock].
The question is, that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 147 disagreed to.
Section 5—Registration of events affecting registered crofts
Amendments 16 to 21 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 148 moved—[Peter Peacock].
The question is, that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 148 disagreed to.
Section 5A—Persons responsible for applications for registration
Amendment 22 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 149 moved—[Peter Peacock].
The question is, that amendment 149 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 149 disagreed to.
Section 6—Applications for registration
Amendment 23 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 150 moved—[Peter Peacock].
The question is, that amendment 150 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 150 disagreed to.
Section 7—Acceptance of applications for registration
Amendments 24 and 25 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 151 moved—[Peter Peacock].
The question is, that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 151 disagreed to.
Section 8—Completion of registration
We come to group 5. Amendment 26, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 27, 29, 31, 34, 37, 52, 63, 115, 121 and 122.
Now that we have agreed that the register is here to stay, we can move on to group 5, which contains procedural amendments arising from further discussions with the Registers of Scotland following stage 2. The amendments make changes to the procedures for issuing registration certificates and notification of changes to the register and clarify the date on which the challenge period starts in relation to first registration.
The result of amendments 26, 27, 29 and 52 is that the keeper of the registers will now issue a certificate of registration only in relation to the first registration of a croft. Whenever the register is subsequently amended, the keeper will issue written notification of the change.
Amendment 31 provides that there is no need for the keeper to issue a fresh certificate at the end of the challenge period. Amendment 37 therefore removes the requirement for a person who is challenging a first registration to notify the keeper of that challenge.
Amendment 34 is a consequence of John Scott’s stage 2 amendment to alter the start date of the challenge period.
Amendments 63, 115, 121 and 122 make consequential changes to the provisions on the registration of common grazings and land that is held runrig.
I move amendment 26.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Amendments 27 to 29 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 152, in the name of Peter Peacock, has already been debated with amendment 146.
As the voting pattern is now well established, I propose not to move most of my amendments. There are one or two exceptions, but that is my general intention.
Amendment 152 not moved.
Section 9—Completion of registration: further provision on first registrations
Amendments 30 and 31 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 153 not moved.
Section 10—The registration schedule
Amendment 154 not moved.
Section 11—Notification of first registration
Amendments 32 to 34 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 155 not moved.
Section 11A—Power of entry etc where Commission is applicant
Amendment 35 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 156 not moved.
Section 12—Challenge to first registration
Amendments 36 to 38 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 157 not moved.
Section 12A—Resumed and decrofted crofts
Amendments 39 to 41 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 158 not moved.
Section 14—Rectification of the register
We now come to group 6. Amendment 42, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 43 to 45, 47 and 48.
Amendments 42 to 45 are minor drafting amendments. Amendments 42 to 44 ensure that the keeper can rectify mistakes in the register that result from mistakes that are made by the commission when it is the applicant and is registering a croft for the first time. Amendments 45 and 48 ensure that the commission may be liable for costs that are incurred through the renotification of the first registration of a croft when it makes a mistake.
Amendment 47 provides that the keeper is not liable in indemnity where a person should have known at the time of registration of a mistake in the register, or where the loss is due to the person’s own fraud or carelessness. It also prevents indemnity claims where there is a boundary discrepancy on the register that falls within accepted map discrepancy levels.
I move amendment 42.
This group of amendments, which covers sections 14 and 14A on rectification of the register, are to be welcomed, as it appears that they further tidy up the process of registering and indemnities attached to the registration process if and when mistakes are made. Of course, we hope that mistakes will be few and far between, but at least an enhanced process will be in place to rectify and indemnify those mistakes if they occur.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Amendments 43 and 44 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 159 not moved.
Section 14A—Rectification following first registration
Amendments 45 and 46 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 160 not moved.
Section 15—Indemnity in respect of loss
Amendments 47 to 49 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 161 not moved.
Section 16—Rules and fees
Amendments 50 and 51 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 162 not moved.
Section 17—Appeals
Amendment 163 not moved.
After section 17
Amendment 52 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 18—Meaning of “croft” etc
Amendment 164 not moved.
Section 19—Registration of new crofts
Amendment 165 not moved.
Section 19A—First registration of common grazings
10:00
We now come to group 7. Amendment 53, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 56 and 116 to 120.
This group of amendments tidies up the provisions on the registration of common grazings.
Amendment 53 mirrors the section that the bill inserts into the 1993 act that makes provision about the effect of registration in the crofting register. Amendment 56 makes consequential changes to avoid duplication in new section 51B of the 1993 act.
Amendment 116 restricts the information that is to be included in the registration schedule of a common grazing to avoid duplication of information in the register. Amendments 117 and 118 are consequential to it.
Amendment 119 removes the requirement for information about a landlord or landowner of a croft to be entered into the common grazing registration schedule.
Amendment 120 mirrors the drafting changes that amendment 32 made to section 11.
Now that everybody is absolutely clear on that, I move amendment 53.
Amendment 53 agreed to.
Amendment 54 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 166 not moved.
Section 19B—Registration of events affecting registered common grazings
Amendment 167 not moved.
Section 19C—Applications for registration: common grazings
Amendment 55 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 168 not moved.
Section 19D—Registration of new common grazings
Amendment 56 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 169 not moved.
Section 19E—Application of Act to common grazings
Amendment 170 not moved.
Section 19F—Transfer of land containing crofts: offences
Amendments 57 to 62 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 171 not moved.
Section 19G—Change of landlord: offences
Amendment 172 not moved.
Section 19H—Transfer of land on which common grazing is situated: offences
Amendment 173 not moved.
Section 19I—Lands held runrig
Amendments 63 and 64 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 174 not moved.
Section 20—Duties relating to residency, misuse and neglect of crofts
We now move to group 8. Amendment 175, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendment 178.
The Government made a welcome concession at stage 2 to increase from 16km to 32km the maximum distance from his or her croft within which a tenant or owner-occupier crofter must ordinarily be resident before the matter is brought to the commission’s attention. That limit is no more than a trigger for the commission, which can then consider the reasons for such an arrangement and whether further steps are required.
We all acknowledged that, although any figure was likely to be somewhat arbitrary, extending the distance was justified to reflect changing circumstances, not least the distances that people are now able and prepared to commute.
The idea of separate trigger distances for different parts of the crofting counties was briefly considered but rightly rejected as overly bureaucratic and unworkable. However, I remain concerned that an as-the-crow-flies judgment on the distance that might suggest that a crofter is technically absent is less easy to make in island communities, particularly in the absence of causeways or direct ferry links.
I acknowledge that Shetland and the Western Isles may be less affected by that than Orkney, but I invite the minister to offer what reassurances she can that the commission will be alive to the risks and will have mechanisms that might enable cases in my constituency to be picked up, even if the 32km trigger has not been activated.
I move amendment 175.
Although I share Liam McArthur’s concerns over the problem of distance in island situations and support his views, I suspect that his anxiety is unnecessary—I certainly hope so—in as much as the crofting commission will have discretion in all situations anyway.
The arbitrary 32km for which we have all plumped is only a trigger, and I certainly expect the commission to be understanding about crofters being ordinarily resident in island situations, such as those that Mr McArthur describes.
Amendments 175 and 178 propose that the Scottish ministers be able to specify by order islands for which the duty of tenant and owner-occupier crofters to reside on the croft or within 32km of it should be replaced by a reference to being ordinarily resident on the island.
The Government fully recognises the unique position of islands, and I fully expect the commission to take island situations into account when considering cases where crofters live more than 32km from their crofts. For example, if a crofter lives more than 50km away from the croft as the crow flies and 30km of that is across the sea, but he regularly goes by boat to work his croft, that would be something for the commission to take into account in considering whether to grant consent for the crofter to be absent.
However, Liam McArthur’s amendments do not address that. They would simply allow ministers to exempt certain islands from the residency requirement. Therefore, I am not convinced that they would achieve what he might have intended; instead, the door might be opened to permitting absenteeism on large islands, where it should be tackled. The 32km residency requirement is a trigger for the commission to consider whether there are any issues relating to the absence that need to be addressed. The commission will retain the flexibility to consider each situation in which a person is outwith the residency distance.
I hope that that reassurance is sufficient for Liam McArthur to withdraw amendment 175.
The minister is entirely wrong: the amendments have achieved a purpose. I welcome her reassurance that the commission will have the utmost flexibility in taking account of situations in island areas. I know that John Scott raised the issue at stage 2, and I welcome his comments. However, in light of what the minister had to say, I do not propose to press either amendment in the group.
Amendment 175, by agreement, withdrawn.
We move to group 9. Amendment 65, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 176, 68 and 177.
Amendments 65 and 68 respond to an issue that Peter Peacock raised at stage 2. They replace the requirement for tenant and owner-occupier crofters to cultivate or put to another purposeful use every part of the croft with a requirement that every part of the croft that is capable of being cultivated or put to another purposeful use is put to such use. That means that areas that obviously cannot be put to such use—for example, there may be a large rock in the middle of the croft—may reasonably be excluded. Of course, any use that the croft is put to is always subject to any overriding statutory protections.
I am happy to add my name to the list of supporters of amendments 176 and 177, as I recognise that the intention is to safeguard suitable environments for corncrakes. I have no difficulties with that.
I move amendment 65.
Amendments 176 and 177 seek to remove the control or eradication of irises from the measures considered in the context of the separate duty to keep the croft in a fit state of cultivation. I welcome the support of Peter Peacock and Liam McArthur on the matter. My aim is to help to preserve corncrake-friendly habitats. I also welcome the support of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Perhaps I should have gone further by seeking to preserve whins and rushes where appropriate, as they can also provide important habitats for other farmland birds as well as corncrakes.
I am also not certain whether the preservation of such bird and vegetation species will be regarded as putting crofts to purposeful use. Perhaps the minister could explain the position on that and how the proposals in the bill are to be reconciled with the Government’s current conservation policy.
I take the rare opportunity to thank the minister for lodging her amendments on the cultivation of crofts. I agree with her. The clarification is helpful. I also thank her for accepting John Scott’s amendment on the cultivation of irises for the reasons that she has given. I welcome that acceptance.
A feature of the scrutiny process is that we get to stage 2 and then rattle through to stage 3. Some of us have had misgivings about that with respect to not just the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, but the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill and the Marine (Scotland) Bill. Such an approach has its risks, not least in limiting the scope for establishing in more detail the implications of amendments that are often perfectly well intentioned, but which would benefit from a more considered kicking of the tyres. I have had a hand in lodging around 70 stage 3 amendments to this bill, so I recognise that I am on rather shaky ground in that respect.
Shaky—not to mention aggressively strimmed—ground is what the yellow iris would have found itself on had not the beady eye of someone in the RSPB spotted its bracketing with vermin and harmful weeds as things to be summarily eradicated. I understand that the iris’s guilt by association was inherited from previous legislation. I confirm my support for amendments 176 and 177, in John Scott’s name, and seek reassurance from the minister that what the bill proposes will have no bearing on those who have been in receipt of grants over the years that were in part aimed at cultivating the growth of irises for biodiversity purposes.
I do not think that there is anything that I can usefully add at this point. I will come back to John Scott and Liam McArthur on the specific issues that they have raised.
Amendment 65 agreed to.
Amendment 176 moved—[John Scott]—and agreed to.
Amendments 66 and 67 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 21—Duties of certain owner-occupiers of crofts
Amendment 68 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 178 not moved.
Amendment 177 moved—[John Scott]—and agreed to.
We move to group 10. Amendment 69, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 70 to 73 and 88 to 91.
These amendments relate to owner-occupied crofts. Amendment 69 replaces the reference to the sale of an owner-occupied croft with a reference to a
“transfer (whether or not for valuable consideration)”.
It will require an owner-occupier crofter to apply to the commission to divide a croft before transferring title to any part of it, either through a sale or a transfer for no value. There will be no more ending up with umpteen owners of different parts of an owner-occupied croft, making accountability for that croft extremely difficult.
Amendments 70, 71, 72 and 73 are consequential to amendment 69. Amendments 88 and 89 insert references to new subsections 4A and 4B inserted by amendment 90, and amendment 90 disapplies subsections 1A and 1B of section 29A, which relate to the registration of short leases, as short leases do not need to be registered under section 5, and do not trigger first registration under section 4.
Amendment 91 applies the rights and regulations of the common grazings that would normally apply to the owner-occupier crofter where a right in a common grazing is let to a tenant on a short lease of the croft under section 29A. That mirrors the present position for tenant crofters and their sub-tenants.
I move amendment 69.
Amendment 69 agreed to.
Amendment 70 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 179 not moved.
Amendments 71 to 73 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Before section 23
We move to group 11. Amendment 1, in the name of John Scott, is grouped with amendments 74, 75 and 87.
Amendment 1 would oblige crofters to make an annual declaration that they are complying with the duties set out in part 3 of the bill. My hope is that that will encourage crofters to carry out their duties and thereby reduce neglect. Further, it would provide intelligence on cases that might require investigation and failure to return a completed and signed form might trigger such an investigation. In addition to ensuring that a croft is being put to purposeful use by an owner-occupier, amendment 1 would also oblige short or long-term tenants to use their croft purposefully. Failure to return the form annually and to abide by the declaration made therein might also attract a range of penalties, such as a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale—that is to say, up to £200—which is a similar sanction to that in the Agriculture Act 1947 for the non-return of the agricultural census form.
I will support Rob Gibson’s and Elaine Murray’s amendments, which further seek to encourage purposeful use of crofts.
I move amendment 1.
The committee was concerned about how suspected breaches of duty in respect of absenteeism and neglect might be progressed. For example, when we were in Sutherland we heard about a crofter who was aware of neglected crofts in her township that she would have been keen to work, but neither she nor the grazings committee were sure how the situation could be tackled. The committee also heard somewhat contradictory evidence from witnesses—Andrew Thin of Scottish Natural Heritage wanted the crofting commission to be under a statutory duty to investigate suspected breaches of duty whereas Drew Ratter was concerned that the commission should not be required to act as
“a private detective agency ... inspecting 18,000 crofts at regular intervals”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 23 February 2010; c 2459.]
There were three amendments on the issue at stage 2—from me, John Scott and Rob Gibson—none of which was mutually exclusive. Indeed, our amendments today are not mutually exclusive either. The minister was sympathetic to the intentions of all three amendments but had reservations about the wording, so they were withdrawn to allow the members to discuss with the bill team how they might be progressed. I am grateful to the bill team for revised amendments 74 and 75, which I hope will now receive the minister’s support.
Amendment 74 would place a duty on the commission to investigate a suspected breach of duty reported in writing by a grazings committee, grazings constable, assessor or member of the crofting community in which the croft is situated, unless it considers that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious. Amendment 75 is a consequential technical amendment.
John Scott’s amendment 1 would require crofters to provide the commission annually with information. At stage 2, John Scott suggested that that could be tied in with the agricultural census. That was a neat solution, but it has not survived into his stage 3 amendment. Nevertheless, I am happy to support amendments 1 and 87 as well as my amendments 74 and 75.
10:15
The belief that at the heart of the bill is the need to tackle neglect and absenteeism has led Elaine Murray, John Scott and me to try to provide an opportunity for people who live in the crofting communities to take responsibility for ensuring that the Crofters Commission is left in no doubt about the problems.
In evidence to the committee, the commission said that it saw the potential for substantial misuse and neglect, because about 14,000 of the 18,000 crofts are occupied and between 8,000 and 10,000 are worked. About 5,000 apply for integrated administration and control system agricultural support. The problem of neglect may be widespread.
We have mentioned the extremely detailed report from Camuscross, which was not agreed to by every member of the community there. It is important to find a way to trigger the production of such reports in a simple form on
“the condition of the common grazing ... the condition of every croft of a crofter sharing in the grazing ... the condition of every owner-occupied croft of an owner-occupier crofter sharing in the grazing”
and
“any other matter the Commission may require.”
My amendment 87 would trigger such a report every five years—that differs from the previous approach. It is important to add the proposed mechanism to allow people to discuss locally the way forward to avoid neglect in the future.
The cherished view of the land leaguers of the 19th century was to ensure that every productive piece of land was put to good use and placed at the disposal of those who were able and willing to till the land, as Alexander Mackenzie said in the 1880s.
Today, our aim is to have active crofting. The active crofters to whom I have talked believe that such reports will help with that process. I urge members to support amendment 87 and the other three amendments in the group.
I echo the comments of Rob Gibson, Elaine Murray and John Scott. The amendments go to the heart of what we have sought to do throughout the bill. With few exceptions, people take the view that the commission should be empowered and properly resourced to deal more proactively with issues of absenteeism and neglect.
At stage 2, all three amendments on the subject suffered from shortcomings, all of which have been addressed at stage 3, so we will support all the amendments in the group. I encourage the minister to keep the measures under review. They go to the heart of what we seek to achieve.
I congratulate the three members on their wise and well-drafted amendments, with which I agree totally. Each member has explained the intent and purpose of their amendments clearly. I take on board Liam McArthur’s comments, and I urge Parliament to support all the amendments in the group.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Section 23—Enforcement of duties of crofters and certain owner-occupiers
Amendments 74 and 75 moved—[Elaine Murray]—and agreed to.
We move to group 12. Amendment 76, in Elaine Murray’s name, is grouped with amendments 77 to 82, 84 and 135.
Amendments 76 and 77 are alternatives, to give members a choice, so I will not move them en bloc. They represent the rewording of an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 and relate to a different section from the stage 2 amendment.
Section 20 permits a crofter to engage in or refrain from
“an activity for the purpose of conserving ... the natural beauty of the locality of the croft; or ... the flora and fauna of that locality”,
without being in danger of falling foul of their duty not to neglect their croft. That could create a loophole that could be used to excuse neglect if the crofter claimed that he or she refrained from an activity to preserve the habitat of a species, for example, unless an arbitrator could give advice on whether such action was appropriate.
Amendment 77 states that the commission should not conclude that a crofter is in breach of their duty if it has requested a conservation body such as SNH to confirm whether refraining from or engaging in the activity contributes to the conservation of the natural beauty of the locality or its flora and fauna, and that that has been confirmed by the organisation. In addition, amendment 76 requires the commission to take evidence from the crofter or owner-occupier crofter on
“planning and management relating to the activity being engaged in or refrained from”.
That is in addition to the advice of the conservation body.
At stage 2, the minister was concerned that my amendment would require all crofters who were engaged in conservation to have a plan that was approved by a conservation body. I trust that the wording of amendment 76 is now clear in setting out that all that the crofter is required to do is to provide
“evidence of planning and management”.
The advice of the conservation body will be requested separately by the commission. I hope that that removes concerns about overburdening crofters. If not, amendment 77 is similar to amendment 76, but does not require evidence of planning and management from the crofter.
Amendments 76 and 77 help to address the concerns that John Scott expressed in speaking to group 9 amendments, regarding purposeful and meaningful use in respect of the control of, for example, iris and other plants for the protection of corncrakes and other farmland birds. A crofter could present that sort of evidence to demonstrate that they were not neglecting their croft. I hope that the revised amendments, in particular the fuller provisions of amendment 76, receive the support of members.
I move amendment 76.
I am afraid that, despite the revisions that Elaine Murray has made since stage 2, I still cannot support amendments 76 and 77. They are unnecessary. If a crofter can demonstrate that they are doing something or refraining from doing something in a planned and managed manner for the purposes of nature conservation, that is already enough to prevent the commission from taking action against them for misuse or neglect of the croft.
In reaching its decisions as to whether or not crofters are complying with the duty, the commission is already free to consult whoever it wants, including SNH, about the activity that crofters are or are not undertaking. However, the effect of amendments 76 and 77 would be to fetter the discretion of the commission to take action on misuse or neglect. SNH, or any other conservation body, would need to state only that the planned and managed activity or inactivity was contributing to a nature conservation purpose—to any extent—and the commission would be unable to conclude that the duty not to misuse or neglect the croft was being breached. There would be no test of material or significant contribution. Furthermore, there would be no link between the conservation purpose of the crofter's activity or inactivity and the contribution to a conservation purpose that is perceived by SNH. Therefore, if the crofter stated that they were protecting corncrakes, and SNH stated that butterfly habitats were being protected, the commission would be unable to act. Even if SNH concluded that corncrake habitats were being damaged by the crofter, but also concluded that butterflies were thriving instead, the commission could not act.
Amendments 78 to 80 and 82 ensure that enforcement action by the commission to terminate a crofter’s tenancy or to require letting proposals from an owner-occupier crofter cannot be taken against crofters and owner-occupier crofters for being absent from the croft where they have received consent from the commission to be absent. Amendment 81 clarifies that new section 26A(1B) of the 1993 act applies only to short leases of tenants of owner-occupier crofters under new section 29A of the 1993 act. Amendment 84 provides that the commission cannot take enforcement action to require an owner-occupier crofter who is in breach of their duties to let their croft where the owner-occupier crofter has applied for consent to let the croft whether on a short lease or to a tenant crofter.
Amendment 135 provides that where a crofter has sublet the croft under section 27 of the 1993 act, the crofter is deemed to comply with their duties if the sub-tenant complies with them. The exception is, of course, the duty not to misuse the croft. Also, where the commission has consented to the crofter being absent, the crofter is deemed to comply with the residency duty in new section 5AA of the 1993 act. The landlord will then be unable to apply to the Scottish Land Court to seek removal of the crofter on the grounds of breach of duty.
I speak in support of amendment 135 in the name of the minister, an amendment that goes a long way to reassure constituents and clarify points that they have raised with me about the role of sub-tenants in the bill. Many crofts are, of course, worked under long-standing and, at times, fairly informal arrangements in which a sub-tenant puts the croft to what the bill defines as “purposeful use”. One of the early misconceptions about the bill was that it was hostile to the continuation of such arrangements. It has to be said that some of the language in the Shucksmith report made it understandable why such ideas took hold.
In a sense, amendment 135 simply restates a provision that it is contained elsewhere in the bill and in other contexts, but it clarifies that the commission must regard the crofter, wherever he or she lives, as complying with the legislation if he or she has a sub-tenant in place who is putting the croft to good use or if the crofter has permission from the commission to be absent for a legitimate reason. Amendment 135 highlights an important principle of the bill, and I commend it to Parliament.
I neither accept nor fully understand the minster’s objection to my amendments. All that my proposed measures do is require the commission to seek from the crofter a reason why they are refraining from activity and then to check with an appropriate conservation body that the course of action is appropriate. It is simple. I do not understand the objection, and leaving the bill as it is might create a loophole that a solicitor could use in the future with regard to crofting legislation. We will be talking about loopholes again later, but there is one in the bill that my amendments in this group would help to close.
The question is, that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 76 disagreed to.
I call amendment 77.
I hope that amendment 77 is more acceptable.
Amendment 77 moved—[Elaine Murray].
The question is, that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 77 disagreed to.
Amendments 78 to 85 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 180 not moved.
Amendment 86 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendments 181 to 183 not moved.
After section 23
Amendment 87 moved—[Rob Gibson]—and agreed to.
Section 24—Letting of owner-occupied crofts
Amendment 184 not moved.
Amendments 88 to 91 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 30—Enlargement of crofts
Amendments 185 to 187 not moved.
Amendment 92 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 30A—Enlargement of common grazings
Amendments 188 and 189 not moved.
Section 31—Obtaining Commission approval or consent
10:30
We move to group 13. Amendment 190, in the name of Peter Peacock, is grouped with amendment 191.
Family assignations have been a matter of debate throughout the bill’s passage, with the argument for giving the commission the ability to refuse to grant a family assignation being based on ensuring equality of treatment between different types of crofters. It has also been argued that it would be perverse to grant an assignation if someone was going to be an absentee and then pursue them under the absentee provisions.
Although I understand that argument, I still believe that breaking the family assignation is a big, serious step, and amendment 190 seeks to add a small step to the procedure in recognition of the fact that something serious might be about to happen. Under the amendment, the commission would be required to tell the crofter when it was minded not to grant a family assignation. The crofter would then know which way the wind was blowing—so to speak—and would be given 28 days to make formal representations to the commission about the potential decision. The commission would then have to consider any such representations before making its final determination.
It might well be the case that such a step would throw up nothing new, but it might also be the case that something new and material would emerge from the process. It would certainly signal to all parties that this was a big step that would require the fullest consideration before any final determination was made. In that sense, the amendment seeks to add a small but important step to the process.
I move amendment 190.
The committee debated the issue in some detail at stages 1 and 2. In many respects, the practical implications of the Government’s proposal had perhaps a superficial appeal, with ministers seemingly trying to avoid a situation in which a croft was passed to a family member who was quite clearly absent and, more pertinent, had no intention of rectifying the situation by moving back to or near the crofting township. However, the significance of Government being seen to interfere with the assignation of a croft to a family member was perhaps underestimated. Whatever the well-intentioned motives, I suggest that such a move was likely to set alarm bells ringing. Amendments 190 and 191 are, as Peter Peacock admitted, modest, but they strike the right balance and will help ministers to avoid falling into the trap—or, more relevant, avoid placing the commission in the invidious position—of second-guessing what a crofter should do with regard to assigning his or her croft to a family member.
Amendments 190 and 191 are not quite what I expected Peter Peacock to lodge on maintaining the family link in crofting by assignation. Although I am keen for the next generations to follow on from their forebears, amendment 190 would not necessarily achieve that. I am persuaded that freedom of choice for crofters to assign their properties or parts thereof to whomsoever they wish is reasonable, and amendments 190 and 191 would make that process more complicated. I regret to tell Peter Peacock that I am, therefore, unable to support amendments 190 and 191.
Amendments 190 and 191 seek to require the commission to consult the crofter if it proposes to refuse an application to assign a croft to a member of the crofter’s family and to allow the crofter 28 days to submit further representations on the proposed decision. Of course, such a decision would be made because the commission was not satisfied that the absenteeism issue would be dealt with.
In effect, the amendments seek to create an additional procedural step for the commission in dealing with family assignation at a time when Peter Peacock has also been arguing about commission resources. They also seek to ensure that crofting legislation continues to contain the kind of inequalities among crofters that this Government is attempting to remove. This Government believes that all regulatory applications to the commission—assignation or otherwise—should be treated equally, fairly and reasonably, whether they are family or non-family transfers. The amendments would not add much to the existing commission policy, which is to allow assignations to be made to either family or non-family members, even if they are unable to comply with the duties immediately, so long as they undertake to comply within a reasonable timeframe and put interim arrangements in place to ensure that the croft is worked.
I therefore urge Parliament to reject amendments 190 and 191.
I call Peter Peacock to wind up and indicate whether he will press or withdraw amendment 190.
I will press amendment 190.
The question is, that amendment 190 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 190 disagreed to.
Amendment 191 moved—[Peter Peacock].
The question is, that amendment 191 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 54, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 191 disagreed to.
Amendment 192 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 31A—Bequest of crofts
Amendments 193 to 197 not moved.
Before section 32
We come to group 14. Amendment 198, in the name of Liam McArthur, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 198 mirrors closely an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. The minister and committee colleagues will recall the concern that I raised, based on evidence that we took at stage 1, particularly during our visit to Shetland, about instances where good-quality land was used and even actively zoned for housing or other developments when adjoining common grazing land or land of lesser agricultural value was exempt from development. Those concerns were voiced by the Scottish Crofting Federation and the NFUS, which called for a similar presumption against development as exists in relation to prime agricultural land. That does not mean, as my amendment 198 makes clear, that there could never or should never be any housing or other development on such inby land. Such a suggestion is a red herring. Such development would be permitted only where it could be shown to meet an essential purpose or established need, such as in relation to a village hall or primary school, to which the minister referred during a debate at stage 2.
At that meeting, the minister also expressed concern that
“primary legislation should not direct the detail of policy”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 2 June 2010; Col 2764.]
I am bound to say that I found that statement rather incongruous. Perhaps the minister will expand on her concerns during her remarks this morning. I acknowledge the work that is being carried out with Shetland Islands Council and Western Isles Council to look at how inappropriate development on croft land could be reduced.
I acknowledge the assurance that the minister gave in a letter to the committee last week that planning regulations will be amended so as to
“introduce a requirement to consult with the Crofters Commission in respect of significant developments on croft land that are contrary to the development plan”.
Both those initiatives are welcome, but before deciding whether to press my amendment to a vote, I will listen carefully to what the minister has to say.
I move amendment 198.
Although I agree with Liam McArthur’s sentiment to protect inby land, I am not persuaded that amendment 198 is necessarily the best way of achieving it. The amendment would take flexibility away from the commission and local authorities in relation to determining at a local level what is in the best interests of communities. I know that local decision making is important to Liam McArthur, given his recent stance on the Marine (Scotland) Bill. I hope that, in future, Government and planning guidance notes the particular value of inby land to crofters and crofting and that that is reflected in planning decisions that are reached.
I support the intent of Liam McArthur’s amendment 198. As he rightly said, we picked up in various communities that we met a lot of concern that the best agricultural ground for crofting, which is scarce in some communities, should be protected and not zoned for housing or other development. That ought to be at least a consideration in the planning system, and, as Liam McArthur said, amendment 198 strikes a sensible balance in that regard.
Like Liam McArthur, I recognise that, following the consideration of amendments at stage 2, the minister recently gave assurances about what the Government will do in a letter to the committee. I welcome those assurances as a significant step in the right direction, but I agree with Liam McArthur that amendment 198 would strengthen the position even further. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say.
As I said to the committee at stage 2 in relation to a similar amendment that Liam McArthur lodged, primary legislation should not direct the detail of the policy. I fully recognise the value of protecting inby land in order to preserve crofting and I agree that development plans need to reflect that, but there might be occasions on which some development on inby land is in the interests of the whole crofting community. The example that I gave at stage 2 still applies: in some cases, for practical, environmental, financial and other sound planning reasons, hill and rough grazing land might be unsuitably remote for a new village hall or primary school.
As some members will know, both Shetland Islands Council and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar have raised the issue of protecting crofting areas—particularly their most productive land—and the Government’s planning officials have already offered to work with those councils and others to develop plans to protect the best croft land from inappropriate development. At stage 2, I gave an undertaking that we would draw on those experiences to inform the next review of Scottish planning policy. It is vital that the commission, Government planners and local authorities work in partnership to achieve what is best for local circumstances.
I therefore ask Liam McArthur to withdraw amendment 198 in favour of my assurance that the partnership approach that I suggested at stage 2, and which I reiterate today, will address the issues.
I welcome the comments of both John Scott and Peter Peacock. John Scott came dangerously close to reopening the debate on planning that we had during our consideration of the Marine (Scotland) Bill, but I welcome his acknowledgment of my stance in support of local decision making in the circumstances that we are discussing. The approach in my amendment does not waiver from that. Amendment 198 makes it explicit that the presumption may be departed from where
“the development is for an essential purpose or to meet an established need and no other site is available; or ... good reasons can be shown as to why the development or use of land proposed cannot be carried out on common grazing land”.
That approach will deal well with the concerns that the minister and John Scott have set out.
Although I welcome the progress that we have made on the matter since stage 2, I am inclined to press amendment 198.
The question is, that amendment 198 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 198 disagreed to.
10:45
We move to group 15. Amendment 199, in the name of Karen Gillon, is the only amendment in the group.
It would be fair to say that few members have had much involvement with crofting before today. As committee members, we were probably in a similar position previously, when crofting was—if we are honest—not very high on our list of priorities. However, as we visited the crofting counties, we became more aware of crofting’s vital role in Scotland. Crofting is a unique form of land tenure that has served us well for many years and has helped to retain populations in some of our most fragile and remote communities. From those visits, we have gained a far better understanding of how different communities are facing changing economic situations—[Interruption.]
One moment, Ms Gillon. There is far too much noise.
And we learned how important the overall economic situation is to crofting. If a crofter is unable to get a job, that has a huge impact on the crofter’s ability to run a croft effectively and is often a key factor in neglect or absenteeism.
If Parliament is serious about its role in enabling the future viability of crofting, members must be fully engaged with crofting and be aware of the facts. Consequently, amendment 199 seeks to place on ministers a duty to lay before the Scottish Parliament once every four years a report on the economic condition of crofting and the measures to support crofting that the Government and the crofting commission have taken over that reporting period. Such a report would allow those facts to be placed in Parliament’s hands and allow Parliament fully to consider crofting’s development, any constraints that it faces and the support that the Government and the commission have provided.
At stage 2, the minister argued that such a report would be unnecessary, as the bill already requires the crofting commission to produce an annual report. However, the report on the economic condition of crofting would be more than that, as it would detail what had been done by the Scottish ministers as well as by the commission. The four-yearly report would fit in with the election periods and would leave Parliament and crofters with a better idea of what had been achieved and what the challenges were for the future. I believe that amendment 199 is necessary, and I hope that members will support it.
I move amendment 199.
Amendment 199 is a worthwhile amendment that is entirely compatible with amendment 144, in the name of Karen Gillon, which has already been agreed to. A strategic, four-yearly progress report would be of value to the future development of crofting. The requirement to produce such a report would exercise the minds of the Government and the commission to show that a difference had been made in each four-year reporting period. Of course, how such a vehicle might be used to drive forward crofting in years to come would be determined by the approach of future Governments. Although I appreciate that the commission will be required to lay annual reports before Parliament, I believe that a high-level report that was produced less regularly—and not necessarily at great expense—would inform future politicians’ potential legislative programmes.
We will support amendment 199.
I still do not think that the proposed report is necessary. The crofting commission will already be required to produce annual reports, to which ministers will be able to add any comments that they consider appropriate. Before producing its annual report, the commission will be required to consult HIE and relevant local authorities, which is very widely indeed. In my view, amendment 199 will add an additional, unnecessary bit of bureaucracy.
However, I see that it is quite clear that I will be defeated on amendment 199, so we will not resist amendment 199.
Does Ms Gillon want to press amendment 199?
I welcome the minister’s reluctant acceptance of the inevitable. Our job is to look at what Parliament and Scottish ministers are doing, and that is exactly what the four-yearly report will do. Perhaps that is why ministers are so reluctant to accept amendment 199.
Amendment 199 agreed to.
Section 33—Subordinate legislation
Amendment 93 moved—[Peter Peacock].
The question is, that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
That is agreed.
Amendment 93 agreed to.
I call amendments 94 to 97, in the name of the minister—
Sorry, we said no to amendment 93.
We said no.
One of the clerks heard it, but I can assure you that I did not hear it, so perhaps you should shout a wee bit louder next time.
The question is, that amendment 93 be—
Members: No! [Interruption.]
As I had already called amendments 94 to 97, as far as I am concerned the vote has been taken. [Interruption.]
I appreciate that you did not hear me say no, Presiding Officer, but the clerk did and so did members here. I really must ask that the vote be taken on amendment 93.
I am sorry, but I am in the chair. The clerk said that she heard it after I had called the next amendments. I did not hear you—[Interruption.]
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I call Alasdair Allan.
With the greatest respect to the chair, Presiding Officer, we are not responsible if the only person in the chamber who did not hear was you. [Interruption.]
Can I just answer that? That was not a point of order—[Interruption.] If members would quieten down, they might hear something. That was not a point of order, but I was not the only one up here who did not hear. There are three people sitting here; two did not hear.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Under standing orders, I understand that, as you have called another vote, we should therefore proceed and the vote stands.
On a point of order, Presiding Order. I realise that this is a difficult situation—I fully understand that. However, you have just conceded yourself that a member of the clerking team heard a no being called in the Parliament. Therefore, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn—that a no was clearly called from the Parliament. In those circumstances, you must accept that.
I am sorry, Mr Crawford, but it is not clear. That is the problem: it is not clear—[Interruption.] I have moved on. I did not hear it, and I intend to move on.
Under these circumstances, Presiding Officer, I call for an adjournment.
I do not see any reason for an adjournment, as I have already called the next set of amendments. I did not hear it, and I am moving on.
I call amendments 94 to 97—[Interruption.]
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I am not sure who was first but, if it is the same point of order, I call Tricia Marwick.
No was clearly said, but the point of order is this, Presiding Officer. You may have gone on to the next set of amendments, but Ms Cunningham did not move them. Therefore, no vote has been called and you are quite within your rights to go back to amendment 93 and take a vote on it.
No, that is not the case—[Interruption.]
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I call Alan Alexander again.
Members: Alan Alexander?
Alasdair Allan—sorry, Alasdair.
I ask for the record whether it is the Presiding Officer’s view that the clerk who heard those words imagined them. [Interruption.]
Mr Allan, this is a very serious moment. I really do not feel that you should make that kind of comment. I call Mr Rumbles.
With respect, Presiding Officer, having taken informal soundings among three of the four business managers—I hope that the fourth business manager would agree—I think that it is in everybody’s interest if we could suspend standing orders for the moment and have an adjournment until we sort this out.
I am in the chair and the business managers do not run what we are going through.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We have been in a similar position before, when a Presiding Officer did not hear and was about to move on but then took the vote. I suggest that we follow precedent.
I point out again that I had moved on. I had already called out the next set of amendments when I was told that someone had called out no—I do not know who it was.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like to move a motion to suspend.
You cannot have a motion to suspend. [Interruption.] I am sorry but, if you all shout at me at once, I cannot attend to you.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand that, according to the standing orders, if the Presiding Officer has made a ruling and we have moved on to a different set of votes, then another vote has been called and we should proceed to that vote. That is what the standing orders say. If the Government wishes to bully the Presiding Officer—
Members: Oh!
That is what it is seeking to do. The Presiding Officer has called the vote and we should carry out that vote.
I make it absolutely clear that I do not think that I am being bullied. I have given you a ruling. I genuinely did not hear anyone say no. I have moved on and the vote has been taken.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that there might be discrepancies in what has been heard. However, we know that audio recordings are taken of proceedings in the chamber. I think that it would be helpful to have an adjournment to allow the audio tapes to be interrogated to clarify whether the Minister for Environment did, in fact, say no in respect of the amendment. We have been able to interrogate tapes in the past in that respect.
I am sorry, but I have made a ruling from the chair. I did not hear anyone say no, and I moved on to the next set of amendments. I intend to continue with those.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I believe that, under the standing orders, there is capacity for me to move a motion without notice that we suspend. I therefore move a motion without notice that we suspend proceedings to sort this out properly, before it goes any further.
Can you tell me what rule it is under?
It is a motion without notice.
Rule number what?
It is within the standing orders. [Interruption.]
Can I have members’ attention just for one minute? This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances. However, I can say with absolute and complete honesty that I did not hear anyone say no, so I moved on. I want to make that clear to all of you. I am prepared to suspend the meeting for five minutes for members to discuss the matter and come back. However, remember what I said: I did not hear anything, so I legitimately and honestly moved on to the next vote. You can now have your discussion.
10:57
Meeting suspended.
11:06
On resuming—
I call amendments 94 to 97, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move the amendments en bloc.
Moved en bloc!
Yes, minister. I heard you.
Amendments 94 to 97 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 36—Interpretation
Amendments 200, 225 and 201 not moved.
Amendment 98 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 226 not moved.
Schedule 1—The Crofting Commission
We move to group 16. Amendment 99, in the name of Elaine Murray, is the only amendment in the group.
At stage 1, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee received evidence of concerns that a corporate body that acts as a tribunal should not have Crown immunity and that, if the commission does not have Crown immunity, commissioners could individually be liable to legal action with respect to their decisions and an award of expenses could be made against the commission if its decision were appealed to and overturned by the Land Court.
At stage 2, the minister stated:
“the Crofters Commission is not a tribunal exercising a judicial function and it does not currently have Crown status of any kind.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 2 June 2010; c 2742.]
She argued that the wording of the bill is intended to clarify the situation rather than to remove an existing power. That was the first time that that argument was put to us; it was not raised at stage 1 by the minister or by any witnesses. I have therefore lodged a probing amendment to enable the minister to develop her argument and perhaps refer to the existing legislation governing the Crofters Commission, which does not confer Crown immunity. If the minister can confirm on the record that Crown immunity has never been invoked in the case of the Crofters Commission, I will be happy not to press the amendment.
I move amendment 99.
This issue kicked off the committee’s stage 2 deliberations. My colleague John Farquhar Munro was moved to lend his support to amendment 51, which Elaine Murray had lodged on the issue. At stage 2, it is fair to say that the committee as a whole was concerned at the suggestion that decisions of the commission could be appealed and expenses awarded against it, and the implications that that might have for the willingness of commissioners to be proactive. At stage 2, the minister sought to persuade the committee that we were seeking to remove a clarification of the status quo without conferring Crown immunity on the commission, yet I am not sure that we have adequately addressed what appears to be a valid concern—indeed, one raised by no less eminent a witness than Sir Crispin Agnew. I am pleased that Elaine Murray has taken the opportunity to raise the issue at stage 3 and look forward to hearing what the minister has to say.
Amendment 99 is a slightly bizarre follow-up to amendment 51 at stage 2, with which Elaine Murray sought to remove the clarification that the commission is not a Crown body and is not to be regarded as having any status, privilege or immunity of the Crown. That is, in fact, the normal position for an executive non-departmental public body such as the commission. Most modern legislation relating to executive NDPBs is explicit on that and includes these provisions. The overwhelming majority of executive NDPBs do not have Crown status or immunity.
The intention behind amendment 99 is unclear. The member proposes that this executive NDPB is not a Crown body but somehow enjoys Crown immunity, which is illogical. Let me make it clear: the commission makes decisions as a body corporate; commissioners do not make decisions individually. Furthermore, as a regulatory body, the commission exercises administrative, not judicial, functions. Crown immunity would offer no protection in the highly unlikely case that someone tried to sue the commission, as Crown immunity does not apply to the exercise of administrative functions. I therefore urge members to reject this confusing amendment.
I am somewhat disappointed that the minister has not taken the opportunity to confirm on the record that Crown immunity has never been invoked—that was what my question was about. If she says that the commission has never had it, it must never have been invoked. She has not confirmed that, so I will press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No!
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 99 disagreed to.
We move to group 17. Amendment 100, in the name of Peter Peacock, is grouped with amendment 139.
I have made clear my opposition to the imposition of fees on crofters for the administration of crofting regulation that successive Parliaments have imposed on them. Amendment 100 seeks to ensure that any regulations on fees will be implemented only after crofters have been consulted about the functions to be charged for and the amounts to be charged and only if the democratically elected commission has requested such regulation. The amendment gives the new, democratically elected commission an element of discretion and we should trust the elected commissioners to do what is right. The amendment provides the means to do that.
I move amendment 100.
Like the issue of the map-based register, the question whether the commission should be able to charge crofters in certain circumstances divided the committee down the middle. SNP and Tory members were supportive of the principle and, like the minister, set out their case on the basis of instances in which crofters might benefit from the decision that was reached by the commission. Less convincingly—and, perhaps, more worryingly—some Government back benchers seemed to suggest that it was part of a process that would lead, ultimately, to the commission being entirely self-financing. That goes a good deal further than the minister has been willing to go, but it perhaps betrays the direction of travel. Amendments 100 and 139 are modest proposals that put in checks and safeguards in relation to the commission’s power to charge. In that respect, they meet the Government’s objective, albeit fettering that power in ways that may give crofters at least some reassurance.
Amendments 100 and 139 would make it more difficult for the commission to charge for its services, so we will not support them. Although I would not expect the commission to charge excessively for the work that it carries out, it is reasonable that it should be able to charge in a similar way to local authorities for permissions sought and granted. That is particularly appropriate, for example, when a croft is to be decrofted for development purposes. In addition, the crofting commission is likely to be as strapped for cash as any other organisation in the years ahead and it will, in all probability, be required to produce more outcomes from smaller resources in the future. Therefore, the ability to charge for its services seems reasonable to us.
11:15
The arguments that I made at stage 2 when we debated a amendment that was similar to amendment 100 apply again in this case. The Government's view remains that crofters should contribute to costs that the general taxpayer currently meets if the commission is processing a regulatory application that is primarily for the crofter’s own individual financial gain. It is for the Government to determine that level of contribution, with wider economic considerations in mind. That is only fair, and I urge members to reject amendment 100.
As for the suggestion that those regulations should be subject to affirmative procedure, neither the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee nor the Subordinate Legislation Committee considered that level of Parliament scrutiny to be necessary. Parliamentary time should not be taken up with debating which functions should be chargeable and the reasonable level of charge that should be set for the carrying out of the commission’s regulatory functions. That applies to other agencies across the board, and I therefore strongly urge members to reject amendment 139.
The power to charge is not limited in any particular way in the bill. Theoretically, therefore, the commission could consider imposing very significant charges at some point in the future. It is right that, in those circumstances, Parliament should get the chance to confirm whether those charges are right.
Secondly, the minister makes the point that charges should apply only when individual gain arises. However, it cannot be determined at the time when charges are levied whether individual gain will arise.
For those reasons, it is right that Parliament should have a further degree of scrutiny in the event that charges are sought.
The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 100 disagreed to.
We come to group 18. Amendment 101, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 102.
Amendment 101 effectively allows ministers to undelegate—I am not sure whether that is a word—the power to select a person to chair the commission to the members of the commission.
The Government accepted at stage 2 Peter Peacock’s amendment that enables ministers to delegate that function, on the understanding that it was agreed that provision would need to be made at stage 3 to cover the scenario in which the board of the commission was unable to agree on a convener and ministers would therefore need to exercise that power.
Amendment 102 seems to be rather confused. The Scottish ministers cannot set out their reasons for not delegating their power of appointment in the annual report to which the amendment refers, because the report is not produced by the Scottish ministers. It is to be produced by the commission under section 2B of the 1993 act. The Scottish ministers are required to lay a copy of the commission’s annual report before Parliament along with any comments that they consider to be appropriate, but it is not their report.
Leaving aside those obvious problems with amendment 102, I tell Liam McArthur right now what reasons Scottish ministers might have for not delegating the power to appoint the convener. If the election was to produce members of the commission whom Scottish ministers felt did not have the necessary skills or experience to chair a multimillion-pound NDPB, or if it produced a person with whom ministers did not think that they could form a good working relationship, which might threaten the chain of accountability that ministers have to Parliament over the performance of Executive NDPBs, they may choose not to delegate the power to appoint the convener.
As I have just given Liam McArthur the reasons why that might happen, and given that ministers cannot write the commission’s report for it, I ask him not to move amendment 102.
I move amendment 101.
I confess that I am still of the view that commissioners—elected and appointed—should be responsible for appointing a chair from among their number. That best reflects crofters’ expectations of the democratisation of the commission. It also seems the most effective means of ensuring that the commissioners, however they find themselves in post, unite around a common purpose.
Nevertheless, I was happy to accept Peter Peacock’s compromise that ministers should delegate to commissioners the power to appoint a chair. I accept the possibility that—on rare occasions, I hope—agreement may not be reached on a suitable candidate and it should then be left to the minister to appoint a chair. In that regard, I accept the rationale behind amendment 101.
My amendment 102 seeks to address the concern that I expressed when I pragmatically backed down on my stage 2 amendment, namely that ministers might be tempted to observe the power to delegate more in the breach. I still believe that ministers should not be able to avoid delegating the power and should be able not to delegate only in extreme circumstances. I am slightly concerned by the circumstances that the minister outlined, because they could be applied rather more widely than I would wish. Nevertheless, given amendment 102’s shortcomings and the point that the minister made about the annual report, I will not move the amendment.
Amendment 101 agreed to.
Amendment 102 not moved.
We come to group 19. Amendment 103, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 104.
Amendments 103 and 104 are necessary to fulfil our commitment to John Scott at stage 2 to lodge amendments that would provide for the Scottish ministers to ensure that at least one member of the crofting commission represents landlords’ interests. The amendments provide for that where a landlord is not elected to the commission.
I move amendment 103.
I welcome amendments 103 and 104, which the minister promised to lodge after stage 2, and thank her for so doing. They will ensure that landlords’ interests are represented on the commission if no one representing those interests is elected to the commission.
I am completely relaxed as to whether the representative should be from a community landowner or the traditional landowning group, because their duties and the expectations of them are clearly defined in the bill. That said, the right persons will bring a different and valuable perspective to the commission’s decision-making process and, unsurprisingly, the Conservatives will support the amendments.
Amendment 103 agreed to.
Amendment 104 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
We come to group 20. Amendment 202, in the name of Karen Gillon, is grouped with amendments 105 to 107, 203 and 108.
This group of amendments deals with who is eligible to stand and to vote in elections to the crofting commission.
Amendment 106, in the minister’s name, clarifies an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 and we are happy to support it.
Amendment 202 is a technical amendment that is related to amendment 203. The bill allows the registered crofter or their spouse, civil partner or cohabitant to vote in any election for the crofting commission. All members of the committee were supportive of that at stage 1 and it was supported at stage 2 by Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour committee members. Therefore, it is regrettable that the minister seeks to remove the provision at stage 3.
The Parliament has a duty to examine the equal opportunities implications of any bill. If the minister is successful, the body of people eligible to vote in any election to the crofting commission would be skewed towards men, because far more men are the registered crofters by virtue of history but most women whom the bill covers, who may not be registered crofters, are actively involved in crofting. The crofting commission will be responsible for the regulation of crofting, not only crofters, so it appears inherently unequal to allow a franchise that is so weighted against women.
Some members will argue that keeping the provision would skew the voting pattern in favour of those who are married, cohabiting or in a civil partnership. If that is the argument, women would never have got the vote in the first place. It is simply a matter of equality. Amendment 107, in the minister’s name, reinforces a voting system that, by its nature, is unfair, particularly to women. I urge members to reject it and to vote for amendment 202.
I move amendment 202.
At stage 1, the view of stakeholders on the franchise for crofting elections was crystal clear. Marina Dennis of the Scottish Crofting Federation stated:
“Only crofters who are registered with the commission should be entitled to vote.”
Jonathan Hall of NFU Scotland said: “We agree with that.” Jean Balfour of the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association said:
“I agree with what Marina Dennis and Jonathan Hall have said.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 10 February 2010; c 2374-5.]
The issue is the entitlement to vote being confined to those who are registered crofters. What happened at stage 2 is unfortunate, which is why we lodged amendment 107 to undo Karen Gillon’s amendment. There has been some misunderstanding about what the effect of her original amendment would be and what her revised amendments would do. They would not provide for a crofter to give their vote to someone else in the household; rather, they provide that crofters with partners may get two votes, whereas the single crofter would get one vote. That is unfair. I believe that the crofting regulator should simply be elected by those whom it regulates.
I sympathise with Karen Gillon’s motivation in addressing the gender balance in crofting, but I do not believe that what she has proposed is the solution to the gender imbalance, which needs to be tackled elsewhere. Moreover, the proposal to afford votes to crofters’ cohabitants would be extremely difficult and resource intensive to implement. How on earth is the commission to establish whether persons of the opposite sex are living together as if husband and wife, or whether persons of the same sex are living as if civil partners? Therefore, I urge members to support my amendments in the group and to reject amendments 202 and 203.
Amendment 105 responds to the oversight that the Subordinate Legislation Committee brought to our attention, and provides the maximum penalty for any offences that are made under the power to make regulations in connection with elections to the crofting commission. The maximum penalty provided for is consistent and fair.
Amendments 106 and 108 tidy up drafting deficiencies in Karen Gillon’s and Liam McArthur’s amendments from stage 2. We accepted those amendments in principle, but stated at the time that we would need to tidy up the drafting.
I urge members to reject amendments 202 and 203 and to support amendments 105 to 108.
These amendments deal with elections to the commission. I think that there will be much debate about that matter in future.
I supported Karen Gillon’s amendment at stage 2, but was unaware that, in doing so, I had voted to increase so dramatically the number of those eligible to vote. My preferred position had always been to have one vote per house or household. Therefore, I support the Government amendments, which correct the position.
Shameful!
Order.
Once bitten, twice shy. I will not support Karen Gillon’s amendments 202 and 203, as it will be impossible to ascertain whether someone is a civil partner or cohabitant.
I had sought to support Karen Gillon’s efforts to establish gender balance in crofting elections in principle, but, sadly, the amendments that she has lodged will not achieve that without attracting unintended consequences. Therefore, we will support amendments 105 to 108.
I confess that I have my differences with Karen Gillon on elections to the crofting commission, most notably over the method of those elections: she steadfastly supports a first-past-the-post system. I am also concerned that the amendments do not necessarily touch on the issue of younger members of crofting households, which I raised at stage 2. Nevertheless, Karen Gillon is right to point to the settled will of the committee; what happened was not simply an unfortunate event.
I will leave Karen Gillon to comment on John Scott’s U-turn. On the other amendments in the group, I welcome the fact that the Government has been able to tidy up the amendments that were agreed at stage 2.
I understand and sympathise with the intention behind Karen Gillon’s amendments and the need for the Parliament to be mindful of equal opportunities, but I believe that she has not fully thought out the consequences of her amendments, which are more likely to lead to family fights than to make everyone feel involved.
I and others were struck by the number of women who gave evidence to the committee and the number of women who are grazings committee clerks. During our visits, other women were very helpful and knowledgeable about crofting.
Previous legislation requires the croft to be in the name of one person. Having more than one vote per croft would be a minefield, especially where sons and daughters are more likely to be active in crofting than partners. Karen Gillon has overegged the pudding and interfered with complicated business partnerships that may already exist.
11:30
I have never heard so much rubbish in all my life: women cannot get to vote because it might be too complicated. We would not be in this Parliament if the people who have stood up in this chamber and made such arguments today had had their way—women would still be in the kitchen doing what they were best at and having children instead of being representatives in this Parliament.
I cannot believe that John Scott has come to this chamber and said that he did not understand what was taking place at stage 2. I made it absolutely clear what we were seeking to do, which was to extend the franchise to couples: people who were married, in civil partnerships or cohabiting. People have said that we cannot determine who is in a civil partnership; yes, we can—it is a legal process. People have said that we cannot determine who is married; yes, we can—it is a legal process. It has been said that we cannot determine who is cohabiting, but they will be on the electoral register. What a lot of nonsense. This is a matter of equality. Shame on the SNP and the Conservatives for voting against the amendment. [Applause.]
Order.
The question is, that amendment 202 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 59, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 202 disagreed to.
Amendments 105 and 106 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 107 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
If amendment 107 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 203 because of pre-emption.
The question is, that amendment 107 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 56, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 107 agreed to.
Amendments 108 to 112 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1A—Persons responsible for applications for registration
Amendments 113 and 114 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 204 not moved.
Schedule 1B—Application of Act to common grazings
Amendments 115 to 122 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 205 not moved.
Schedule 2—Minor and consequential modifications
Amendments 123, 124 and 206 to 212 not moved.
Amendments 125 to 129 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendments 213 and 214 not moved.
Amendment 227 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 215 not moved.
Amendments 130 to 133 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 216 not moved.
Amendments 134 and 135 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 217 not moved.
We come to group 21. Amendment 136, in the minister’s name, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 136 removes the seven-year time limit for former crofters and cottars who have acquired the site of their dwelling-house to apply for grant assistance under section 45(1) of the 1993 act towards the erection, improvement or rebuilding of dwelling-houses, so that they are treated equally to tenant crofters. Paragraph 3(17A) of schedule 2 will also allow owner-occupier crofters to apply for similar grant assistance, so crofting grants will apply equally to all applicants.
I move amendment 136.
Amendment 136 agreed to.
Amendments 137 and 138 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendments 218 to 220, 228, 139 and 221 not moved.
Amendment 140 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 222 not moved.
Amendment 141 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 223 not moved.
Amendment 142 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Long Title
Amendment 224 not moved.
Amendment 143 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.
11:38
Meeting suspended.
11:40
On resuming—