Crofting Commission Convener’s Resignation
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will make a statement on the resignation of the convener of the Crofting Commission. (S4T-01012)
I thank Tavish Scott for lodging this topical question. Susan Walker stepped down as commissioner and convener of the Crofting Commission on 8 May after three years in post. In that time, she led the commission through a period of transformational change. I take this moment to put on record my sincere thanks and appreciation to Susan Walker for all her hard work and for making such a positive contribution to crofting during her time as commissioner and convener.
From when I first met Susan Walker, which was shortly after I was appointed crofting minister, I have been impressed by her vision and passion for crofting and Scotland’s crofting communities, as well as by her expertise and her many achievements since taking office, which include a comprehensive review of Crofting Commission policies and procedures, tireless work to raise the profile of the Crofting Commission and her positive contribution to Scottish Government policy making on crofting.
I wrote to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee following Mrs Walker’s decision to step down, and I will meet the commission on 22 May to discuss options and next steps for filling the vacancies of convener and commissioner that now exist.
Does the minister accept that a couple of things have to happen as a result of the commission convener resigning, which has simply never happened before? First, the Government should accept a nomination for commission convener that is based on the commissioners choosing one of their own; and, secondly, the commission should drop a one-size-fits-all approach to crofting regulation and instead implement an approach based on sensible plans for the different crofting counties, allowing decrofting so that crofters can borrow money for their businesses on the assets of their croft. Will the minister undertake to take both of those matters forward?
Both of Susan Walker’s roles were appointed but, in the spirit of being constructive and collaborative, I am open to discussing options with the commissioners in the first instance—obviously, they are meeting next week—and with colleagues in the chamber and through further correspondence with the RACCE Committee. I am also happy to continue discussions with Tavish Scott, further to our previous discussions when we met on 23 April, together with his colleague Liam McArthur.
I am grateful to the minister for that approach and I welcome it as constructive and what is needed. Will she accept that Susan Walker had the impossible task of implementing the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 which, in the eyes of crofters, simply has not worked and which has already led to the Government having to rush through emergency legislation? Will the minister therefore undertake to work with crofting assessors, the Scottish Crofting Federation and, indeed, crofters across the crofting counties to ensure that agriculture and land use are what we are trying to achieve rather than work for lawyers, bureaucrats and the Scottish Land Court?
To be short, I would be very happy to do so.
I note that the chief executive of the Scottish Crofting Federation, which is the representative body for crofters, has said that it is not about the democratic legitimacy of the ex-convener of the Crofting Commission and, indeed, that the federation had worked very well with her. He also said that the commissioners had a big enough job to face in dealing with the legacy without washing dirty linen in public. What steps will the minister take to ensure that the moves to modernise crofting under Susan Walker’s excellent but frustrated leadership will be continued?
As Rob Gibson acknowledges, Susan Walker made a very valued and lasting contribution to the Crofting Commission. She led the commission through a period of transformational change that has helped to build strong foundations on which the organisation will now move forward. I look forward to meeting the commission next week and to discussing the opportunities and the work ahead. As I said to the member in my letter to his committee, although the legislation enables ministers to select and appoint a new commissioner and convener, I want to take a considered and consultative approach to filling the vacancies. I believe that we have an opportunity to further improve the commission’s operation, transparency and accountability, and I want to engage with the commission and, in due course, the RACCE Committee in that process. I am happy to keep the Parliament fully informed as well.
I, too, thank Susan Walker, certainly for being very constructive in her dealings with me. I agree with Tavish Scott that the commissioners should be allowed to appoint their own chair. Certainly, concerns have been raised with me that the minister has not met the commissioners since her appointment. I am glad that, in her previous answer, she said that she is going to put that right and meet them next week. However, should she not have done that sooner in order to listen to their concerns and, indeed, deal with the problems that arose before we reached this situation?
In reply, I can say that I met Susan Walker on 28 January this year to discuss the Crofting Commission. Later the same day, I also had a meeting with the Government’s crofting stakeholder forum. I also met the Scottish Crofting Federation on 11 March, as well as having a meeting with the cross-party group on crofting. Officials contacted the commission at my request on 15 January to arrange a meeting for May, and that initiated a suggestion to change the date of the commission’s board meeting away from 13 May to a date that we could make. The meeting with the commissioners is next Friday, and I am very much looking forward to meeting them then.
As convener of the cross-party group on crofting, I too wish to thank Susan Walker for her service and hard work, and for her regular attendance at the cross-party group. Does the minister agree that the most democratic way forward—and one that has crofters’ support—is for the elected commissioners to determine Susan Walker’s replacement? Does the minister agree that a replacement for Susan Walker should be decided on as soon as possible so that the Crofting Commission avoids any period of uncertainty and instead can focus on its key role of regulating—and not only regulating, but supporting—our crofters?
I agree with that, and I reiterate to Jamie McGrigor that, as I have said in both the letter to the RACCE Committee and members in the chamber, I will meet the commissioners next Friday. I am very open to discussing options with them in the first instance, but also with colleagues throughout the chamber and in further correspondence with the RACCE Committee. I am keen and happy to keep the Parliament fully informed of those discussions.
Human Rights Act 1998 (Abolition)
To ask the Scottish Government what the implications for Scotland would be of the abolition of the Human Rights Act by the United Kingdom Government. (S4T-01013)
The Scottish Government’s position is that implementation of the Conservative Government’s proposals would require legislative consent and that this Parliament should make it clear that such consent will not be given. On 11 November last year, this Parliament passed a motion in support of the Human Rights Act 1998 by a majority of 100 to 10.
There is currently insufficient detail in what is proposed to predict with any certainty the impact on Scotland. However, given the almost unanimous opposition in this Parliament and among Scottish members of Parliament at Westminster, it would remain open to exclude Scotland from legislation to repeal the 1998 act or for the Scottish Government to pass legislation to give effect to a range of rights in policy areas that are within devolved competence.
If the UK Government followed through on its threats to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, people in Scotland would no longer be able to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR is the world’s most successful human rights treaty and it has been hugely influential around the world. It is incumbent on this Parliament to send a clear message that the proposals are unacceptable and will not receive our support.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his comprehensive answer. Given that, in 2013, Strasbourg ruled against the UK in a measly 0.48 per cent of cases, does he agree that we are seeing a case that is built on sand and which is actually extremely dangerous posturing by the Conservative Government?
The Scottish Government believes that the European Court of Human Rights fulfils an essential function as part of the ECHR system. It is essential that citizens have the right to petition the Strasbourg court when they feel that their rights have been breached. The statistics demonstrate that rulings against the UK are comparatively rare, but that is not reflected in some of the rhetoric that we hear.
The cabinet secretary highlighted that he considers that the Scottish Parliament would need to be asked to give consent through legislative consent motions and that he would be minded to recommend that we refuse such consent. Has he received any indication from the UK Government that it would seek the Scottish Parliament’s consent via legislative consent motions?
We have not received any information about the UK Government’s intentions. The Queen’s speech will take place in the next two weeks or so, and I hope that in or around that we will get more details of what the Conservative Government proposes.
There is no case for abolition and I firmly believe that the Human Rights Act 1998 should stay. It is appalling that one of the Conservative Government’s first acts is to attempt to abolish the 1998 act and leave ECHR. As with many of its policies, ideology and rhetoric are being put above the practicalities and impact of delivering policies. How does the cabinet secretary plan to keep the Parliament informed of any discussions that he has with the UK Government?
I am happy to give an undertaking on that. As I said in my first answer, in November last year, the Parliament voted on this very issue and, with the exception of the Conservatives, we were united in our opposition to scrapping the legislation and withdrawing from the European convention on human rights. I am happy to keep Parliament informed, as and when I have information to give to Parliament.
I understand—perhaps the cabinet secretary can explain whether the Scottish Government agrees—that if the Tories, who I see have not bothered to turn up to defend their position, scrap the Human Rights Act 1998 without withdrawal from ECHR, and if the other signatories to the convention accept that position, the Tories might not need a legislative consent motion. Consent would be needed for withdrawal from the convention but not necessarily for scrapping the act. That would give rise to fragmentation not just within the different parts of the United Kingdom but even within Scotland. Police Scotland, for example, would be subject to different rights regimes when dealing with devolved criminal justice matters and reserved drugs and terrorism matters. Is that an accurate description of the situation, particularly in relation to legislative consent?
Rather than speculate, it will be better if I wait to hear exactly what the proposal is. I can then give Patrick Harvie a more precise reply. The proposal goes beyond the powers and legislation to set up this Parliament. For example, the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland has ECHR requirements built into it. The matter therefore affects not just Scotland and the Scottish Parliament but, in particular, Northern Ireland and the Stormont Parliament. It also affects people in England—and the National Assembly for Wales and people in Wales. I am happy to give a specific answer to the question once I see the detail of what is proposed.
I congratulate the new MPs entering the UK Parliament this week, but I hope that the understandable euphoria of Scotland’s new batch of Scottish National Party MPs is curtailed somewhat, because there is no doubt that the plan to get rid of the 1998 act is just one in a long list of policies that will see the new Tory Government attack the young, the old, the weak, the vulnerable and of course migrants and trade unions. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we should fear for the rights of ordinary working people across the UK and that this is just the first grenade being lobbed in what will be a bloody assault?
I agree in general terms with Neil Findlay. It is clear, from a range of policy pronouncements that have been made on a range of issues—on welfare cuts, for example—that legislation and measures proposed by the new Conservative Government give a lot of cause for concern, particularly for the more vulnerable members of our community.
On human rights, we are all vulnerable, irrespective of our social or economic status. Human rights are a fundamental that affects every individual in our society. We in this Parliament, and people across the United Kingdom—including, I believe, some Tory MPs—would be very concerned about any dilution of human rights legislation in this country.
Does the cabinet secretary consider that there is an opportunity to sort out some of the not inconsiderable problems that have arisen from the incorporation of ECHR directly into Scots law via the Scotland Act 1998? The Cadder ruling demonstrates that the consequences had not been fully appreciated.
We cannot decide to tear up a whole system of law because there are rulings that we like and others that we dislike. Week to week, I am sure that many of us see judgments made in the courts that we might not agree with, but that is not an excuse to get rid of the court system.
It is fundamental that our human rights are protected under ECHR. As Mark McDonald pointed out, ECHR has played a vital role in upholding the rights of individuals and organisations. It would be a sad day if we were to tear up our membership of ECHR or in any way dilute the protection provided by the Scotland Act 1998 and other pieces of legislation that cross-reference ECHR. It is a fundamental framework for the protection of human rights in our country.