Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6266, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill. We have a little time in hand, although not that much, so members should feel free to take interventions. I will let members know if we are getting tight for time.
09:15
As most people know, crofting often invokes tales of the past. Nobody can deny the role of the crofting acts in bringing greater justice for tenants in the 19th century, but nobody can deny either that the circumstances in which we live today are significantly different from what they were 120 years ago. That is why I want to focus on the future. I want all of us to ask ourselves what we want crofting legislation to deliver for communities that live on land that is held under crofting tenure. The Government is clear that what it wants is driven by the purpose of creating sustainable economic growth and strong communities. In relation to crofting, we believe that that is best achieved by having people living on and using the land.
The current system has delivered almost 2,000 absentee crofters—tenants and owner-occupiers—and an unknown number of neglected crofts. It needs reform. That is why the Crofting Reform etc Bill was introduced in 2006, why there was a committee of inquiry on crofting in 2008 and why we are here today.
The Government has brought before Parliament the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, which will deliver genuine reform. It will protect the rights of tenant crofters so that they may never again suffer abuses of power; place a duty on all crofters, whether they are owner-occupiers or tenants, to occupy and work the land; provide for a democratically accountable regulator that will regulate crofting in everyone’s interests; protect croft land from speculation; and create an accurate and unambiguous crofting register that will clearly show land that is held in crofting tenure and provide greater security for everyone with an interest in that land.
I am clear that the Parliament can put crofting on the road to recovery through taking those steps. Indeed, it can make crofting a model for sustainable rural development. The existence of crofts can ensure a permanently resident population in our remote rural areas, which can help to bring greater cohesion to the country, create stronger local economies and sustain vital public services in those areas. Crofts will ensure that our land resource is managed and used to supplement the incomes of people who are resident in those areas through producing food, providing premises for businesses or enhancing the environment of beautiful parts of Scotland.
I do not pretend that legislation alone will solve all of crofting’s problems, but legislation is an important part of shaping a new future for it. Crofting will continue to benefit from financial support from the Government. There is a lot of debate about the form that that support should take, but today we want to put in place the right legislative framework for crofting to prosper.
I am grateful to members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, who produced the stage 1 report on the bill. Crofting is complicated and controversial, and finding consensus is never easy, but I hope that we can do that in the chamber. I suspect that the alternative would be successive Governments deciding that, rather than touch crofting, it would be much easier not to go anywhere near it in the future.
I turn to part 1 of the bill. I am pleased that the principle that the crofting commission should be partially elected has been accepted. I accept most of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s comments on the elections and membership of the commission, although I still believe that the details of the elections should be in subordinate legislation and that the committee’s recommendations on possible changes to the franchise underline that. If experience or developments tell us that a change in the franchise would be desirable, having such details in the bill could prevent us from making changes easily. We need flexibility while also ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
It is also my view that those who are directly subject to the regulations should be the ones who are entitled to vote for the regulator. That said, we will consult fully on draft election regulations before we lay them before the Parliament. I am happy to accept the committee’s majority recommendation that the alternative vote system be used for the purpose of the elections. That will not make John Scott happy, but the committee view was relatively clear.
A lot has been said about the power for the commission to charge for regulatory applications. There has also been a lot of scaremongering, with claims that the figures in the table in the financial memorandum represent the charges that the commission will levy. That is simply not true. The Government’s policy is that regulatory applications where the individual and not the wider community is the principal beneficiary—for example, applications to decroft land or to apportion land from grazings to individual use—will be subject to a charge. It is not unreasonable to charge crofters a small percentage of the total cost to the public of processing such applications.
During the stage 1 proceedings, the issue of tribunal status for the commission was raised. After some consideration, our advice is that the commission is not a judicial tribunal, despite its inclusion in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. All that that does is to bring the commission under the supervision of the new Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, which is right, given that it takes administrative decisions and should follow best practice.
I turn to part 2. The only possible benefit of having a map-based crofting register is if it has some significance. This Government is not going to waste millions of pounds in setting up a voluntary register that means nothing and delivers nothing. However, we are willing to establish a register that has force in law and provides crofters with security in respect of the extent of their croft and their rights in that croft. Some have argued that that is unnecessary. If that were true, we would not see disputes in the Scottish Land Court and we would not have a register of crofts that is so hopelessly inaccurate. Under our proposals, once a croft is registered, there will be no doubt about where its boundaries are and who the crofter is. Through amendments that we will lodge at stage 2, no changes to a croft will have effect unless it is entered on the crofting register. That will ensure that we have an accurate register that provides crofters with complete security over their tenancy.
The Government will cover the costs of creating the register, but it will not pay for the registration of individual crofts. The cost of registering a croft will be directly related to the volume of registrations per year. Making registration voluntary could simply make the register more expensive. I am happy to consider delaying the introduction of the mandatory trigger points, but for one year only. In doing so, I am going partially towards what the committee is looking for. However, the £100,000 that I will make available to incentivise group registrations through providing a discount for registration will also only be available for that one year. In the event that few communities come forward with group registrations, the underspend in that budget will go to the keeper of the registers of Scotland to cover her costs in operating the crofting register in the first year. Given the multiple interests in common grazings, the Government has decided that it will pay for the first registration of common grazings. Amendments providing for their registration will be lodged by us at stage 2.
I turn to part 3. I think that there is general acceptance that the requirements for crofters to live on and work their crofts need to be better enforced. Some have tried to say that tackling neglect is more important than tackling absenteeism, but our view is that they must be tackled together. We have built in sufficient flexibility to allow for special circumstances—it is important to say that—but the commission must be required to take action to address absenteeism and neglect and crofters must fulfil their duties. Each empty, neglected croft represents a missed opportunity for someone to make a permanent and significant contribution to the community.
The committee was right to point out that the commission must be appropriately resourced to do that work. We will ensure that that happens. Nobody is suggesting that addressing all cases of absenteeism and neglect will be done overnight. That work has, in fact, already started, but the bill will make tackling absenteeism and neglect part of the commission’s everyday work and not just subject to periodic initiatives. Processing regulatory applications is a necessary function, but it is through ensuring that crofters meet their obligations to live on the land and work it that the commission can make the greatest contribution to the Government’s purpose.
That brings me to part 4. It goes without saying that keeping land in crofting tenure is important to securing the future of crofting. That is why we must take action to ensure that croft land is protected from people speculating on what the value of the land would be if it were put to other uses. It has not been easy to devise a solution to that problem, as those who have been involved up to this stage will realise, but I am grateful for the committee’s thoughts on the matter. I think that we all want to see the same result. The commission will have the general function of promoting the interests of crofting, which will include maintaining land in crofting tenure. I agree that there should be a presumption against development on inby land, and I believe that the commission’s influence as a key agency in the production of development plans will help to achieve that. However, I am reluctant to involve the commission in individual planning applications, as that would go beyond the scope of its responsibilities and would have resource implications.
I should say in passing that the Government agrees that it is perhaps time that the Whitbread v Macdonald loophole was closed. Perhaps some members in the chamber do not know that the advocate who won the case that confirmed the loophole is now—a gentle irony—a minister in the Government that will close the loophole, which I suppose is a fine example of the old Scots saying that what goes around, comes around. However, I suppose that that is what happens occasionally.
This is a defining moment for crofting. We have to choose between propping up a system that is failing or putting in place a vision for the future of crofting that will deliver growth and stronger communities. I know that there will never be unanimity on that vision. There is not unanimity among crofters themselves. I note that a former Labour minister who was very keen on crofting and who has long since retired is now, I think, indicating that he wishes, effectively, to go back on the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976, which introduced the right to buy. However, we are now so much further forward from that legislation that that debate cannot be allowed to colour where we are today.
The principles of the bill will deliver the vision that we have been discussing over the past few months. I commend the bill and the committee’s report to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill.
09:28
Labour very much welcomes the chance to secure improvements to the lives of crofters and our crofting communities. We believe that crofting remains a significant part of the way of life of the Highlands and Islands and is also economically significant to those communities. We also believe that crofting has a strong part to play in securing the public good, in retaining the population in what might be considered remote areas of Scotland, in maintaining biodiversity, in food production and in landscape and habitat maintenance. We also think that crofting has real potential to contribute to this century’s challenge of tackling climate change. However, we know that crofting is not producing high economic returns for its participants and that it needs on-going and improved economic support if we are to retain it as an activity that is largely confined to less-favoured areas, not just in geographic terms but in climate terms. We need to ensure that we get the regulatory framework right, but we must also get the financial support mechanisms in place—the two must go together.
I thank members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for their scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s proposals. I also thank all those in the crofting communities and beyond who made so many representations on the bill. However, I am struck by the number of times in the committee’s report where there is clearly no consensus on key bill proposals. I know that horse trading is fundamental to the way in which committees in the Parliament work—with good reason—to get to the end point, but it is striking that running right through the report are so many issues on which there is still such division. On some issues, there is a clear lack of enthusiasm for proposals; on others, there is concern across the whole committee about the detail and effectiveness of the proposed measures. We believe that the bill is of marginal significance to the future of crofting and that major problems remain with some of the proposals that it sets out.
Although we can and will support those provisions that we believe will help with aspects of regulation, we believe that, on balance, the bill as drafted will be disadvantageous to crofting. I choose my words carefully, as there are elements of the bill that we think are improvements. However, there are problems: the new financial burdens, through the administrative charges on crofters and the charges on crofters for the new second register; the potential for the new register to be divisive and bureaucratic; and the proposals to extend the rights of landlords to allow them to benefit from croft development.
There is also the whole issue of the crofting commission’s status as a tribunal. We want to look carefully at the basis of the minister’s statement today, as we are still not convinced about that and want to see the detail. We are also worried about the removal of the Crofters Commission’s development function. Crucially, we do not think that the crofting commission will have the right resources to undertake its new role.
For us, the issue of finance is fundamental to the debate around the bill. As the National Trust for Scotland observes:
“Crofting cannot be sustained by legislation alone and increased regulation needs to be matched with a properly targeted crofting support system on the ground. Existing measures to encourage crofters to undertake agricultural work on their crofts are woefully inadequate, especially in the context of existing fuel costs, distance from markets, low productivity in general and the small scale of most crofts. We believe there is currently little in the Scottish Rural Development Programme that is going to appeal to the majority of crofters and this gap must be filled by putting in place financial incentives that are simple, straightforward and properly targeted.”
We agree completely. The finances that underpin the bill need to be right.
Nevertheless, our view of the bill is balanced, and there are provisions that we are happy to support. Those include the proposal to introduce direct elections to the crofting commission, although we want to look further at the detail; the measures to strengthen the commission’s hand in relation to the refusal of applications to decroft even when planning consent has been granted; and the action that it will be possible to take against neglect and absenteeism, where that is appropriate. We are also delighted that the minister will take this historic opportunity to redress the Whitbread judgment, as she suggested a few minutes ago.
Will the member give way?
No, I need to get on.
Many of us have been on the case on crofting for some time, and we know that there is scope to improve matters. There has not been much time to digest the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s recommendations, therefore I hope that the minister will reply to my comments in her closing speech. I will not be as tough on her as I would normally be at this point. We received her response yesterday, but I am conscious of the fact that, because the committee’s report was published only on 6 May, she has not had much time to reflect on and digest it. We all need to take a little bit of space.
The process of debating the right legislation and the regulatory framework has been going on for some time in this session—it went on in the previous session, too. I welcome the work that my colleagues on the committee and my Labour colleagues in the Highlands and Islands have been doing in consulting crofters and considering the evidence that has been presented to Parliament. The improvements that we think can be made are not just about deleting key sections, but about making new provisions.
The minister has ruled it out, but we think that the commission needs a direct say in planning decisions that are outwith local plan provisions. I note that the minister is holding out against making the crofting commission a statutory consultee. We support the provisions that will strengthen the powers of the commission to enable it to refuse applications to decroft even when planning consent has been granted, but it is surely better to get the planning decisions right in the first place. There is a real problem in that, if the commission waits until after a decision has been made to say that it is wrong, that will tip the balance against its getting involved.
A consensus is emerging that we should support and encourage crofting community development and the voluntary mapping of each community and its assets and potential. We welcome the progress that the minister has made on the issue—she has put on the table an offer to help to fund community mapping. Nonetheless, she needs to accept the fact that there is real unhappiness at the Government’s proposal on the register. We believe that she has not gone far enough on the issue and we are worried about the remaining issues around timescales. The Scottish Crofting Federation has expressed its concerns eloquently:
“The proposed Register of Crofts being compiled by RoS using ‘trigger points’ would be very damaging and must be replaced by legislation directing that the Register of Crofts held by the Crofters Commission Administration be completed”,
upgraded to include maps
“and maintained by them, supported by a community-led model of township development plans”.
There are issues about the timing, about who actually does the work and about the involvement of communities to make the proposals work. We want changes to the proposed electoral franchise—I was disappointed by the minister’s written response on that—and we also want croft land to be protected as far as is practical and reasonable.
To sum up, we read the minister’s response and we engaged fully in the committee’s work, but we are still committed to opposing key aspects of the bill as it is drafted at present. We believe that the policy decision to equalise access to grants for tenants and owner-occupiers will inevitably lead to more owner-occupation and a free market in crofts—something that the bill purports to act against. It is not just about what is in the bill; it is about the Government’s intentions.
We have lodged a reasoned amendment—something that we do not do lightly—because we do not want to reject out of hand all the ideas in the bill. Instead, we want to flag up to the minister the key issues on which we believe major changes are required. Our amendment reflects not just our concerns but those of many key parties to the consultation. We want to put pressure on the Scottish Government to listen to the representations that we have received, and our judgment is that major changes must be made to the bill before it is acceptable.
I share the minister’s view that crofting is complex. Many of us, and many people outwith the chamber, have a long history on the issue, and we need to get the legislation right. Our view in the previous and current sessions of Parliament has remained consistent: there is no point in putting legislation on the statute book if we are not confident that there is an appetite for the proposals and that they will benefit the communities that the legislation purports to serve.
My colleagues will set out our concerns in more detail. Peter Peacock will address the detailed issues of the proposals on mapping and the register. The last thing that we want to do is to place a burden on crofters in the current tough economic times and to run the risk of opening up land disputes throughout the crofting counties. Some of the issues have been dormant and we see no purpose in bringing them to the surface if they get in the way of the day-to-day job of crofters or the work that they do to defend their interests. Crofting communities must be at the heart of resolving those issues. As the committee correctly observes, a community-based approach is to be preferred as it is much more likely to avoid overlaps, underlaps and ransom strips. We are also determined to ensure that the power to refuse decrofting remains with the commission, even where planning permission has been granted. Directions from the minister on the exercise of that power will be crucial.
My colleague Elaine Murray will talk about the financial issues that we believe must be addressed and the need to sort out the basis on which voting for commissioners takes place. The bottom line is that the system must be fair and must be seen to be fair.
A series of changes must be made before the bill is in an acceptable state. Stage 2 will be an opportunity to address those issues. We will not be prepared to support the bill without those changes, so we reserve the right to vote against the bill at stage 3. We will work constructively, engage in the process and continue to talk to crofting communities and our colleagues in the Parliament about how the right balance can be struck. We recognise that stage 2 will be crucial and we will engage in it constructively with our colleagues.
Our amendment highlights the need for changes to the register proposal and the placing of costs on crofters, and the need for the Scottish Government to work with the committee on the recommendations. I hope that members throughout the chamber will understand what we are trying to do and support our amendment.
I move amendment S3M-6266.1, to insert at end:
“but, in so doing, notes the opposition of the Scottish Crofting Federation to the Bill’s proposed new crofting register to be kept by the Keeper of Registers; notes that no additional resources are being proposed to the Crofting Commission to administer its new duties; further notes that new charges proposed to be levied on crofters are not supported by crofters, and urges the Scottish Government to consider proposing changes to the Bill and to its policy proposals to address these issues and others raised by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.”
09:39
The process of considering the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill and agreeing a stage 1 report on it was not straightforward. I make it clear at the outset that the stage 1 scrutiny of the bill was nevertheless an enjoyable and rewarding experience for the committee and there is much on which we have been able to agree. The single most important thing on which committee members agree is that the bill should proceed to stage 2. I hope that the Parliament will approve that at 5 o’clock.
For committee members, the most rewarding aspect was our visits to many parts of the crofting counties, including Benbecula, North Uist, South Uist, Caithness, Sutherland and Shetland, where we met local people in their living and working environments. We met crofters, aspiring crofters, landlords and factors. Croft boundaries were walked over, livestock and crops were examined, polytunnels were inspected, antique maps were pored over and plenty of home-made scones and mugs of tea were consumed. I pass on the sincere thanks of all committee members for the hospitality and kindness of the people whom we met, and I offer particular thanks to those individuals who were our guides, took us round their local area, pointed out things that we would otherwise have missed and passed on their local knowledge.
I also express our thanks to Derek Flyn, who has been our knowledgeable and experienced adviser on the complexities of crofting law.
A December introduction of the bill meant that those visits took place in the depths of winter rather than at a more clement time of year, but that had its own rewards. Winter visits, with the snow often thick on the ground, helped to disabuse committee members of any romantic notions about the realities of crofting life, albeit that, as I come from a farming family in the north-east, I was perhaps less in need of that reality check than were others. Either way, as many crofters reminded us, crofting is not easy and probably never has been. Crofting is a vocation that requires mental and physical toughness, flexibility, entrepreneurship and patience.
As the committee report points out, crofters also need other things, which do not lie within their control. Crofters need strong and diversified local economies, because few crofts are self-sufficient and crofting households need other income to help to make ends meet. They also need a decent price for livestock, a fair system of agricultural subsidy and affordable local housing. I make those points now before turning to the detail of the bill to underline the point that the regulatory aspect is just one small part of crofting. To put it differently, it would be unfair to judge the success or failure of the bill against whether we think that it alone will deliver a secure future for crofting. As the Minister for Environment said, we should be realistic in our appraisal of what legislation can achieve on its own.
In turning to the four main parts of the bill, as convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee I will focus on those issues on which the committee was largely agreed; others will have their chance to express their views on other points. Part 1 deals with the Crofters Commission, which is to be renamed the crofting commission. The bill proposes that the commission be part-elected, with six constituencies electing six commissioners and the Government appointing three more.
Like most witnesses from whom we took evidence, we support that proposal as a welcome injection of democracy into the commission’s operation, but our support comes with a few minor reservations or uncertainties. One of our concerns relates to the proposed electoral franchise. A central feature of crofting law is that, per tenanted croft, there can never be more than one crofter. Two or more adults might live in the croft house and help to work or support the croft, but only one of them is legally the crofter. The Government currently proposes that only that crofter should get the vote. My committee colleague Karen Gillon has been very exercised about that point, which I think Elaine Murray will develop later.
Part 2, which deals with the main issue on which the committee was split, provides for a new comprehensive map-based register that is to be held by Registers of Scotland. As convener, I will highlight those areas on which we found agreement. All members support the proposal for community mapping exercises, which I am pleased to note is also supported by the minister. We believe that it would be a good thing if people in crofting townships were encouraged to sit down together to draw up croft boundaries so as to pool all the available information and to make use of local knowledge—the folklore, as some witnesses called it. Drawing up maps in that way would help to deliver greater local certainty and capture that folklore, some of which is at risk of being forgotten. There might also be further benefits, in that the process might help to identify the development potential of underused community assets or simply get some communities into the habit of working together more on local projects.
Members also suggested that the minister might wish to consider delaying for a time the introduction of compulsory trigger points for entry in the register. That would provide a window of opportunity for those voluntary mapping exercises to take place before registration becomes mandatory. We note the minister’s views on that, and no doubt the discussion will continue as the bill progresses.
Part 3 mainly concerns new measures to tackle neglect and misuse of croft land, and to deal with crofters who are absent from their crofts. In particular, it imposes on tenant crofters and owners of crofts the duty to be ordinarily resident on the croft and not to neglect or misuse it. Again, that was a difficult and contentious issue, but for the most part committee members were able to forge consensus on key issues.
There is much to discuss, but I will focus on croft occupancy. Many witnesses, mainly crofters themselves, argued forcefully that it would be misguided to give the crofting commission increased powers to address crofter absenteeism, and that neglect is a more serious issue. They warned the committee against too dogged a pursuit of absentee crofters, arguing that many people are technically absentees but they have strong links with the community, work the croft regularly and are frequently there. The committee fully accepts that point.
We are also reassured by what we heard from the Crofters Commission and others that such absentees are unlikely to have anything to fear once the bill is passed. To that end, our report proposes that the commission should make publicly available the criteria that it will apply to judge when to pursue an absenteeism case. We are pleased to note that the Government has accepted that.
In the end, however, we were persuaded by the simple argument that, if crofting means anything, it means a critical mass of people living on the land year round in sustainable communities. Only then will schools, shops, lifeline services, farming co-operatives and local businesses have a reason to be there. The committee has seen and heard enough on its visits and in the evidence sessions to recognise that in parts of the Highlands and Islands levels of absenteeism are a threat to the crofting way of life. In those, thankfully extreme, cases, it might regrettably be necessary for the commission to take action, and committee members are satisfied that the bill takes a step in the right direction. Our report stresses the need to proceed with sensitivity in such cases.
Part 4 mainly concerns speculation in croft land and how it can be addressed. The committee welcomes the provision in the bill to increase the discretion of the crofting commission and the Land Court to refuse an application to decroft land, even though planning permission has been granted. The committee considers that that will offer further protection against the speculative activity that is contrary to the interests of local communities.
I should also take time to highlight the committee’s recommendation on how planning law and policy could be made to serve better the interests of crofting, such as the establishment of a rebuttable presumption against zoning croft inby land for development.
Sadly, time prevents me from explaining to members other matters that arise under part 4, such as the point of law that was established in the celebrated Whitbread v Macdonald case, or the controversy around how landlord clawback is correctly calculated under section 14 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. I am sure that other committee members will be delighted to take up that challenge during this debate.
Committee members fully recognise that crofters are an independently-minded bunch, and that not every aspect of the bill finds favour with them. However, there is much in the bill that is worth taking forward. I ask members to support the general principles of the bill and I and the rest of the committee look forward with interest to stage 2. I thank the minister for accepting many of the committee’s recommendations.
09:49
As ever, I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer, although not one who is in any way affected by crofting or the bill.
That crofting is an island surrounded by a sea of legislation is well documented, and our committee’s brief examination of crofting has confirmed that. I thank our clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre, Derek Flyn, and all those who gave us succour, shelter and sustenance during the inquiry. I whole-heartedly endorse Maureen Watt’s comments in that regard.
Trying to get to grips with the nuances of crofting legislation past and proposed, as well as to divine what crofters themselves see as the best way forward for their communities and way of life, has been no easy task. The committee already has a sense of foreboding that, whatever our best-intentioned efforts deliver in legislation, we will almost inevitably be regarded as having got it wrong.
More optimistically—certainly a great deal more optimistically than Sarah Boyack’s speech and amendment suggest—the bill offers us another opportunity to reform crofting law for the better after the recent failures of the past. Certainly, there appears much to be done.
First, it is worth noting the name change of the Crofters Commission to the crofting commission, which, in conjunction with the removal of the developmental function from the commission, points at the new, more clearly defined regulatory role of the body. In a broader context, the bill and our committee report properly attempt to address the problems of absenteeism and neglect, and a further likely consequence of the legislation is that more crofters will become owner-occupiers, which I believe will be a good thing.
I will deal with a few of the recommendations in our report. The committee believes that the case for removing Crown immunity from the crofting commission has not been made and requires further clarification.
The issue of election to the commission took up a lot of our time, and my fear is that, after the first election, low turnouts and apathy will be a concern. I hope, however, that I am proved utterly wrong in that regard. Much more important, I believe that the least complicated and most straightforward type of election should take place with one vote per croft based on a first-past-the-post system, and I remain to be convinced that the alternative vote system is appropriate. However, time will tell.
More on that later. [Laughter.]
Indeed—that will come from the Liberal Democrats, I dare say.
Following the elections to the commission, and given its new regulatory role, it makes sense to me that the Government appoint a chairman, either from within the six elected members or from without, to establish a direct line of accountability.
I believe the proposed map-based register to be a first step in clearly establishing and defining boundaries of owner-occupied or tenanted land. It will provide the necessary certainty in future when used with the register that the commission will also hold. For example, in time it will reduce the iniquity of ransom strips and allow neglect to be addressed more directly, particularly where neglected fences are boundaries. Like others, I welcome and support the concept of voluntary and community-based mapping and registration, and I support giving a limited amount of time for this exercise to be carried out—I note the minister’s intention to make that one year only. I welcome the amendments that the minister mentioned, particularly with regard to common grazings, and the fact that she will lodge them at stage 2.
Part 3 of the bill addresses absenteeism and neglect. Let me deal first with absenteeism. Crofting is a way of life that I support and champion—and championed in a previous life in the National Farmers Union—as it has sustained and supported remote and fragile communities in areas that people would otherwise have long since abandoned. For that reason alone crofting is worth cherishing further, but to do that it is essential that people live in and sustain the communities.
The committee debated for hours the appropriate distance to use in defining an absentee, and I came to the conclusion that the appropriate distance for triggering an inquiry from the commission would be different in different areas and communities and that it would best be left to the new commission to decide for each area—although I note the minister’s pragmatic intention to make the distance 32km.
We all acknowledge that extenuating circumstances will, and must, be taken into account for those who are not ordinarily resident on their croft, but it is important to recognise that, if people do not wish to live on their croft and work the land in these remote communities, there are, in some areas at least, many people who would. To me, coming from a remote rural area myself, the sustainability of the community is the fundamental issue, and from that perspective all else flows. Of course, neglect must also be addressed but, at the end of the day, having people living in thriving communities is more important than the problems of broken-down fences, dykes and bulrushes.
To that end, there is an opportunity for the self-monitoring of crofts by developing and building on the agricultural census forms that are completed by all landholders in Scotland. An additional declaration on that form could invite the respondee to declare that their croft was well maintained, that land that might appear to be neglected was in fact being put to purposeful conservation use and that crofters were living in, and were active members of, a community. In addition, it could be used for electoral registration. Anyone who was found to have made a false declaration could be investigated by the commission, which would perhaps also randomly inspect a small number of crofts each year, as well as those whose returns raised questions within the commission.
My proposal would reduce the costs of the commission, which some of us feel might be inadequately funded to address all the tasks that are set out in the bill, and I strongly urge the Government to consider my suggestion. I welcome the Government’s cautious welcome of the idea, which must, of course, avoid duplication.
The committee had concerns that the provision on landlord’s clawback is far from clear. That must be cleared up by the Government before stage 2. In addition, although we all agreed that speculative development should be discouraged, there is an argument about whether the clawback period should be extended from five years to 10. I incline to the proposed 10-year period, and I welcome Alasdair Allan’s intention to lodge an amendment to that effect.
We also welcome the intention to close the Whitbread loophole, which, in recognition of the bill, should perhaps be renamed the Cunningham loophole.
The committee considered the issue of development on inby land, and agreed in general terms that there should be a presumption against developing good-quality inby land. That is not to say that development could not or should not occur; rather, it is to say that precious inby land should be used only for essential development.
Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1, despite misgivings about condemnation for trying to improve the lot of crofters, in some cases against their apparent better judgement. However, I and others expect the Government to lodge amendments at stage 2 to address many of the concerns that the committee has raised, and I welcome the minister’s commitment to do so.
09:58
It would not be uncharitable to suggest that the bill has endured a somewhat traumatic birth. If it does not offend, I also offer the observation that the bill’s conception was more than somewhat ill advised. However, so infatuated was the minister’s predecessor, Mr Russell, with his own sense of empathy for crofters and the crofting way of life that nothing could dissuade him from seeking to consummate that unrequited love. Here, before us, crouches the progeny of Mr Russell’s rough wooing of our crofting counties.
I willingly acknowledge the efforts of the current minister to breathe life back into the bill. Although it has already undergone major and, at times, life-threatening surgery in order to reach this stage, it is clear to many of us on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that the patient will be required to go back to theatre quite often over the coming weeks. It is for that reason that the Liberal Democrats will support the reasoned amendment this afternoon.
The minister will point to the legacy that she inherited not only from her predecessor but from the previous Scottish Executive, which set up the committee of inquiry into crofting. However, the current Government was free to take whatever approach it wished in relation to the Shucksmith report, and at times it has been difficult to understand why this particular project was spared the fate that all too quickly befell a number of presumably more cherished Scottish National Party manifesto promises.
That said, like the convener, I have found fascinating the process of gathering evidence as part of our stage 1 inquiry. I join with her and other colleagues in putting on record my gratitude to all those who provided written and oral evidence, particularly the crofters and those with an interest in crofting whom we met during our visits. Their insights and perspectives were invaluable. As Maureen Watt said, we owe a special debt to the volunteer guides whom we relied on during those visits. I can say with some confidence that, in my short parliamentary career, no inquiry has come remotely as close to offering the same access to a bewildering array of delicious home bakes as this one. Thanks, as ever, go to the clerks and SPICe for their detailed work and patience, which I am sure will be tested even more fully in the weeks ahead, and to our adviser, Derek Flyn, who proved to be an expert and affable guide through a hugely complex area of policy and law, not to mention custom and tradition.
No one should underestimate the complexity of the issues involved or the difficulty in achieving consensus on what is to be done. Part of that stems from what seems to be a misconception about crofting. We are, perhaps, all guilty of referring to crofters, crofting and the crofting counties in a way that does not fully reflect the differences within crofting and between the crofting counties. What became abundantly clear early in the committee’s consideration of the bill was that the views, needs and aspirations of crofters vary enormously. Although, to an extent, that reflects different traditions, it increasingly reflects the specific circumstances, challenges and opportunities that crofters and their communities face. For that reason, we must resist making sweeping generalisations or adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. It is also why the committee is right to remind us that regulation alone will not secure the future of crofting. While the minister has accepted that in her remarks and in the Government’s response, which pointed to the importance of market forces, public subsidy and investment in development, the issue goes still wider. In Caithness, for example, what will happen in the aftermath of the run-down of Dounreay is seen as critical to whether many existing crofts could or would be sustained. In Shetland, the importance of the oil and aquaculture sectors, in particular, to maintaining incomes in crofting households was highlighted. Again, the picture differs from community to community, and it is a further reminder that we should not overstate what the bill can or should seek to achieve.
While there was disagreement within the committee on a number of issues—I will touch on some of them shortly—there was general agreement that crofting has been and remains a critical means of retaining and sustaining populations in some of our most remote and fragile communities. The minister, Sarah Boyack, John Scott and others have pointed out the wider public benefits achieved as a result of a vibrant crofting sector. That is why what we do in this area of policy is so important. It is also why we should adhere to the maxim that the first rule of government is to do no harm.
With that in mind, I turn to some of the specifics of the bill. It is not difficult to find people who are critical of the Crofters Commission, but there was widespread agreement that the commission was key to safeguarding crofting in future. The prospect of a more democratically accountable commission was welcomed by most; it will help to improve the way in which the commission functions and relates to individual crofters. I welcome the minister’s acceptance that anyone should be able to stand for election so long as they are nominated by a registered crofter, but I encourage her to rethink her refusal to allow commissioners to elect their chair. It is right that the Government should consult further on how the constituencies will be made up, and further attention also needs to be given to who will be allowed to vote in the elections. The provisions appear to be too restrictive. The minister must also resist demands by some of my colleagues for those elections to be fought under a first-past-the-post system. In this of all weeks, Karen Gillon and John Scott proved what remarkable political alliances are possible.
Most important, however, is that we must ensure that the tasks that we set the commission are clear and that it has the resources to carry them out. Although the adoption of strategic plans will help in identifying priorities, a number of us are concerned about the vagueness of much of what ministers expect and by when. It is also of concern that, without the necessary resources, the commission may simply be set up to fail. Of course, the key priority for the commission will be to tackle neglect and/or absenteeism. The minister was right not to seek to elevate one over the other. While the picture is varied throughout the crofting counties, few disputed the need for the commission to take a more proactive approach on neglect and absenteeism.
Under part 3 of the bill, it is expected that the commission will be able and indeed required to investigate and, where necessary, take tough action on absenteeism and neglect. However, there seems to be a mismatch between aspiration and resource. All the more reason, therefore, for the Government to dispense with the need for a map-based register and avoid, as the minister has pointed out, wasting millions of pounds. This costly and burdensome exercise is seen by crofters as offering them no value beyond what is already available through the commission’s existing register of crofts. Marina Dennis of the Scottish Crofting Federation has observed:
“It is clear that creating a register of crofts under the”
Registers of Scotland
“is for just about anyone else’s benefit except the crofters, who are being asked to pay for it.”
Moreover, the potential for creating disputes between crofters and within communities was raised with us time and again. Drew Ratter said:
“A crofting tenancy is not really a territorial unit; it is, essentially, a bundle of rights and duties.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 23 February 2010; c 2452.]
By contrast, the SCF and others have made a positive case for encouraging and supporting community mapping. Although the minister has come some way down the road of accepting that and acknowledging the widespread criticisms of the trigger mechanisms proposed in the bill, I believe that she must go further.
The minister has rightly pointed to the large number of concessions that, since taking up her post, she has already made on the bill and I, too, welcome her acceptance this morning of a presumption against development on inby land and her intention to right an historical wrong by closing the Cunningham-Whitbread loophole. However, I hope that she recognises that many of us in the chamber feel that the bill needs further major surgery if it is to command support at subsequent stages.
10:06
Much has been said about the need for renewal in Scotland’s crofting communities, and quite rightly so. It is vital that we ensure that a new generation enters crofting, that crofting is adequately supported and that it is allowed to develop and diversify. Let us be honest. A bill is not a sufficient condition for bringing in anything like all that renewal—no one is suggesting that it is; the point has been well made by other members—but it is a necessary condition for beginning such progress.
In a sense, the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill is a tale of two bills: the draft bill and the bill as introduced. The bill that we are debating this morning is emphatically not the draft bill, which, for very good reasons, caused some anxiety in crofting communities such as my own. The Government has consulted extensively and clearly listened to what crofters have had to say and the bill before us is significantly different in scope and content from that originally proposed.
As members will know, the bill no longer talks about standard securities or proposes that crofters take out loans against their tenancies; no longer asks local authorities to police decrofted houses to ensure that people are residing in them for more than a specific number of nights in a year; and no longer contains contentious proposals for area committees to take on much of the Crofters Commission’s work. The costs associated with the proposed crofting register have been significantly reduced from £250 per crofter to perhaps half that—or potentially more than half that, if some of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s suggestions on community-based mapping are pursued.
I welcome the committee’s report on the bill. Although in many areas members were far from unanimous in their views, the report provides a starting point for further rational debate. In my view, that means a bill that democratises the commission and puts crofters themselves in the majority. It also means a commission that can sensitively but authoritatively handle instances of croft neglect. The bill must ensure that, in all cases, land is being put to what the bill calls “purposeful use”, by either the crofter or a subtenant.
The committee’s report will help to guide debate in many specific areas. For instance, the committee’s welcome for the principle of elections is a positive step in itself to increasing participation in and engagement with the commission, something that the committee has also advocated.
On the crofting register and the mapping that will be required to achieve it, anything that can be done to minimise costs in this area is to be welcomed. In that regard, the committee’s proposals for encouraging community-based mapping are worthy of further consideration and the minister’s comments about delaying the trigger-based system for a year to facilitate and encourage community-based mapping exercises are very positive.
However, if the bill is to achieve anything, it must empower the commission to deal with both speculation and neglect, and I am glad that the committee has recognised those points. With regard to speculation, the willingness of the Government and the committee to empower the commission effectively to overrule planning decisions that sanction the unnecessary removal of good inby land from crofting use is a positive development and deals with the infamous Taynuilt precedent.
The committee’s report seeks further detail on how the Government intends the crofting commission to distinguish various types of absenteeism in future. That information might further reassure many crofters about what the measures on absenteeism mean for them, particularly those who have had subtenants working their land for a long period.
In at least some areas, there is unmet demand for land from would-be crofters, although the situation differs from area to area. The committee’s suggestion that local lists of such people be kept is certainly of interest, although an assessment would have to be made of whether everyone on the list was fully committed to what they were potentially taking on. However, that is another useful idea.
Finally, like the committee, I believe that there is a need to close the so-called Whitbread loophole—or the Cunningham-Whitbread loophole, as it was referred to earlier—which relates to the sale by nominee of croft land. The Parliament will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to take up the challenge to elaborate on that fully, beyond saying that I intend to lodge an amendment to close the loophole. Many crofters have mentioned to me that that would be an important way of dealing with the unnecessary removal of land from crofting use. I welcome Mr Scott’s comments about such an amendment, although I should clarify that, rather than deal with clawback periods per se, my intention is to frame an amendment that limits the rights of crofters to appoint nominees from outwith their family. I believe that that is a good way of dealing with some of the problems that the loophole has created.
The bill deserves to proceed to stage 2, as there is now a clear wish for legislation among crofters. We can identify improvements, amend the bill and debate the issues further. However, the need for a crofting reform bill is now clear and, if the Parliament continues to engage with the crofting community, it stands a chance of providing legislation that I strongly believe will command broad support.
10:12
I acknowledge the presence of John Farquhar Munro in the chamber after many months of absence—it is good to see him back. I know that he has still not fully recovered from his injury and is in considerable pain, so I pay tribute to him for coming to contribute to the debate on crofting. I rather suspect that he will transfer some of that pain on to the minister in the course of his comments.
All the crofting counties are in the Highlands and Islands region that I and other members represent. Crofting is an important aspect of the life of the region. It has many social impacts and has helped to retain the population in remote areas for many years and generations. It also has economic impacts and provides economic benefits to the region. Further, as Sarah Boyack said, it has environmental benefits, such as benefits for biodiversity and for the scenic quality of the region, which in turn contribute to tourism and the like. Therefore, the health of crofting is important to the region that I represent.
It is said that one definition of a croft is that it is a small piece of land surrounded by legislation. That is emphatically the case. If anyone ever wants to understand the complexity of crofting legislation, they should seek election to the Parliament and get on any committee that is scrutinising proposed crofting legislation. It is horrendously complex and, on some issues, it is still not clear what the law is trying to do.
Many provisions in the bill are controversial for many people, although I acknowledge that some measures are uncontentious and that others have the potential to benefit the future regulation of crofting. That is why, as Sarah Boyack said, we will support the general principles of the bill. However, we hope to amend it in a variety of ways at stage 2 if the Government does not seek to do so.
The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee had a difficult task. As other members have said, on some of the core proposals, agreement could not be found across the committee, and the stage 1 report shows that vividly. However, there are worthwhile measures in the bill. One is on the introduction of elections to the new crofting commission, on which Elaine Murray will say a lot more.
The strengthening of the provisions to tackle absenteeism and neglect is also important, but I must point out the committee’s view that absenteeism of itself is not necessarily a problem—it is only a problem when it is a problem. Therefore, the commission must be given a lot of discretion to work out when that is the case. It should not presume that, just because someone lives further than a certain distance from a croft, that is automatically an issue that must be addressed in a particular way. I hope that we can make that clear.
The other important feature of the bill that has not been mentioned is the provision for the commission to make a strategic plan that would be signed off by the minister and to which, thereafter, the Scottish Land Court may have regard in its determinations. I believe that that will contribute to protecting croft land and, potentially, inby land in particular. The greater powers to refuse decrofting applications, even if planning consent exists, are also a step in the right direction to help dampen speculation, which has caused so much concern.
There are also things in the bill with which I disagree fundamentally. I disagree with taking away the development function from the commission, particularly at a time when a democratic element is being added to it.
I am not convinced about increasing the landowner’s rights to clawback. That is partly tied up with the method of calculating the clawback, to which John Scott referred in his speech. I was disappointed that the Government’s response to the committee’s report did not clarify that. I hope that it will provide more clarification, because the method of calculation will have a knock-on effect on the policy benefit of the clawback being increased or not.
I disagree fundamentally with the proposal for a map-based register. I see the bill as being principally about improving the regulation of crofting. It is clear to me that a map-based register is not essential to the regulatory process. That is evidenced by the fact that the register could take in excess of 40 years to complete, so it cannot be argued that it is immediately essential to regulation. When the commission requires maps to assist its decision making, it asks for them to be provided. In addition, the commission will update its current register, which has been criticised for not being up to date. It will have to do that in order to provide the electoral roll for the elections to the commissions in future. We would then have two registers, which I believe is unnecessary and duplicative.
The proposed triggers are hugely problematic. Croft boundaries are notoriously complex. There is a great deal of give and take in crofting communities about where boundaries are. For practical purposes, people just get on with things. As soon as we create a trigger mechanism that has to define in law what the boundary of the croft is, which means that heritable rights may come to the fore, we will potentially bring to the surface disputes that need not be brought to the surface, because people living locally get on with their work day by day with their neighbours. The provision is therefore unnecessary.
The fee to register the croft will be an unnecessary cost for crofters. As Liam McArthur said, it will cost more than £1 million to establish the register. That money could be better spent in other parts of crofting. The provision for the new register to be kept by the keeper of the registers, who has nothing to do with croft regulation, is more about title and ownership of land than about regulation, which is where the focus ought to be. I also note that the Scottish Crofting Federation opposes the bill’s proposal for the register. For all those reasons, I, too, oppose the proposal.
However, I agree with the rest of the committee that if we were to have a map-based register, the bill’s proposals would not be the starting point for it. There is widespread support for what is called community mapping, which I see as a voluntary, community-development process, which may in turn assist regulation as a by-product. I support the call for, at the very least, a delay in the implementation of any triggers and any map-based register as proposed in the bill while, in the meantime, we encourage community mapping. I note that the minister has made some movement on that, but I do not consider that that goes nearly far enough to give community mapping the chance to be successful in the future.
I also oppose in principle charging crofters for regulation. The last thing that crofters need is more cost. We have a regulatory system in crofting because successive Parliaments have imposed it, in the public interest. It is beyond me why we would charge individual crofters to help protect the public interest in the future. Other parts of agriculture do not have such charges put on them in that way.
I want to make a few more points in closing, Presiding Officer—unless you are about to tell me to sit down because time is moving on.
Time is on the member’s side.
Thank you, although I am not sure that I welcome that.
I want the commission to be a statutory consultee in the planning process. If that is confined to the applications that go beyond the local plan, I do not think that it will be too big a burden on the commission. It is an important opportunity for the commission to comment on particular applications with a view to protecting croft land in the interest of crofting locally. That is another means of acting against speculation. I urge the minister to consider that further before stage 2.
I support elections to the commission, but nobody should be under any illusion that elections will somehow mean that absolute discretion falls to the commission’s elected members. The commission will still administer complex law and decisions will be taken only after legal advice has been given, as happens with the current commission. Elections are a step forward and will introduce a democratic dynamic, but I do not want anybody to be misled into thinking that the commission will have absolute free discretion to make any decision that it wants.
The bill can be seen as adding bureaucracy and cost to crofting. If the bill is amended, some of the benefits that I have talked about can arise. However, economics will ultimately determine crofting’s future. The bill does nothing about the impact of that, so other aspects of Government policy must come into play.
I support the amendment in Sarah Boyack’s name to show that we support some of the bill’s principles but that we want significant amendment at stage 2.
10:21
I refer members to my farming interests in the register of members’ interests and inform them that I am a member and vice-convener of the cross-party group on crofting.
I thank Rural Affairs and Environment Committee members, including my friend John Scott, and the committee’s clerking team, for producing a thorough, balanced and useful stage 1 report. In recent weeks, I have spoken to many crofters on visits to Shetland, the Western Isles and Caithness and Sutherland. Many of their concerns are—rightly—highlighted in the committee’s report. Views on the bill are varied and strongly held, and major anxieties remain. This week, a crofter from Kinlochbervie wrote to me to appeal for the bill to be withdrawn. The crofters rights emergency action group shares that view, but it is not the position of the Scottish Crofting Federation or the committee. Others have asked me where the need for crofting legislation came from. I believe that it might have emanated from one line in a long-forgotten Lib Dem manifesto. However, we are where we are, and we must use the rare opportunity in Parliament to make it easier for crofters to run their crofts.
Like the SCF, I am particularly pleased that the committee’s report makes it clear that regulation alone will not ensure crofting’s survival, as the minister said. Crofters want practical measures that are designed to aid their good work, which is why I have fought hard over the years to retain measures such as the bull hire scheme, to ensure the high quality of crofters’ breeding stock, and proper support for croft housing—inflation has eroded that support in recent years. As my friends Norman Leask and Patrick Krause of the Scottish Crofting Federation have argued for many years, crofters need carrots as well as sticks. That is very true.
Many crofters and farmers are concerned about predation by sea eagles on their lambs, which are their livelihood. The Government must listen to their concerns—they would not say that they were suffering predation if it were not happening.
If the SNP Government really wants crofting to continue, it should listen to the practical points that crofters make. I have looked at the list of land managers options, hardly any of which seem relevant or helpful to a crofter’s basic needs. LMOs are available to everyone who has an agricultural holding. Unlike other agri-environmental schemes, LMOs are not competitive, so surely it would be just and fair to have priorities in the menu of LMOs that would serve crofters well in practical terms. Crofters might be able to use the options on vernacular buildings and rush management, but not many options are relevant to them.
As we have heard, the crofting register has been a difficult issue. Crofters are right to fear the extra cost that they might incur and the further bureaucracy that will be involved. The estimated costs have been revised downwards, but £130 per registration is still a significant expense for many crofters—that is the profit on anywhere between six and 10 lambs gone. The SCF says that it is pleased with the broad agreement on its voluntary community-led mapping initiative, which it believes is a positive initiative, in contrast to the Government’s suggested compulsory trigger-point mapping. I would be interested to hear more in the minister’s closing remarks about the Government’s response to the initiative; I was encouraged by her opening remarks.
The Scottish Rural Property and Business Association has said that it is “not convinced” that a new register is justified in terms of costs and benefits. It has made a sensible suggestion that crofting communities should be able to get together to map their areas on the register and that that activity should be free of charge for a period of 10 years from the implementation of the bill. In a previous speech, I suggested that integrated administration and control system maps could be used for registration purposes, but that was before I learned that only between 5,000 and 6,000 IACS forms have been completed by crofters. A new mapping system might encourage more IACS applications, leading to better downloading of subsidies for crofters in the future. That is one positive aspect of the system.
I agree with the committee’s acceptance that the commission should continue as the main body with responsibility for regulating crofting. We believe that only crofters should have a vote in elections to the commission and that, at the moment, first past the post is the simplest system of election. Further work needs to be done on the contentious issues that are connected with absenteeism, such as the limit within which a crofter is deemed to be ordinarily resident. The committee is right to say that we need to have a clear strategic plan to address neglect, based on the factors that would determine why an apparent case of neglect would not be tackled.
I emphasise that the Scottish Conservatives remain wholly supportive of crofters and the crofting sector. We want the sector to thrive and to continue to produce environmental benefits for all our people, while helping to sustain local communities in some of our most remote and fragile rural and island areas. I know that in Stornoway, for example, crofting filters through the whole urban environment and makes people who live there aware of the importance of being self-sufficient in foodstuffs.
I point out that the Scottish Conservatives have a proud record of legislating in the interests of our crofters, from the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Acts of 1886 and 1887 to the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Act 1997. If the SNP is able in the bill to produce anything as useful as those acts, it will be doing well. All of us are praying that the bill is nothing like the chaotic Crofting Reform etc Bill of 2007, which was a prime example of bad legislation.
10:27
I refer members to my registered interest as a member of the Scottish Crofting Federation, in which there are more varied views even than in the Liberal-Conservative coalition Government.
I have taken a lot of advice, and my colleagues in various parts of the Highlands have talked to crofters about what is happening at the moment. I will concentrate on two issues that need urgent action: neglect and absenteeism, and registration.
In its supplementary evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and the Parliament on administrative costs and so on, the Crofters Commission pointed out that approximately 14,000 of the 18,000 crofts are occupied and between 8,000 and 10,000 are worked. That suggests that neglect and absenteeism are a huge issue; if they were not such a huge issue, I do not why anyone would want to approach crofting with a view to regulating it better, to ensure that the problem is addressed. The commission states that potential misuse and neglect “could be substantial”.
It is important for us to recognise in the bill that the first step towards putting crofting on the front foot is to ensure that regulation allows us to identify the areas that can be developed and those that are being wilfully misused and neglected.
In paragraph 346 of its report, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee said:
“Neglect is defined as a failure to observe the standards of good agricultural and environmental conditions set out in European regulations on cross-compliance. Misuse is (to paraphrase) a wilful failure to cultivate the land or put it to any other purposeful use agreed to by the landlord or the Commission.”
The committee is talking about dialogue with
“the landlord or the Commission”
and the crofting community. If we are to make progress, we must acknowledge that the debate between the regulatory bodies, grazings committees and crofters has not been adequate. If it had been adequate, the neglect that is represented by the figures that I read out could not have built up over the years. We must find a means of identifying neglect that does not just depend on someone complaining about the neglect, as happened in the past. We must find triggers that allow the commission and others to deal with the matter. My view is that grazings committees should draw up reports—which could be of a simple nature—annually.
The committee considered a detailed report from Camuscross, in Skye, which contained photographs and identified decisions that had been detrimental or helpful to crofting. The evidence was complex, but it would be possible for local people to produce a photographic record of what they regard as problems or beneficial developments. Such an approach could help the commission in its regulatory duties and, through the elected element on the commission, focus on means of getting to the root of the problems
I want to lodge an amendment at stage 2 that would allow such dialogue to take place. If we consider how we got to where we are, we find that ensuring that the Crofters Commission is doing something useful under the existing laws has been a strikingly low priority for Governments. People have said that if the commission had carried through the work that it had been given to do we would not need to take further steps. The commission has not done that, and part of the reason for that is that its work has not been given high priority at political level. In the context of crofting’s future, not telling the commission to get its work done was a shocking dereliction of duty.
The supplementary evidence from the commission shows that it will require much more money if it is to be able to process the cases that we are talking about. It is therefore incumbent on members of all parties to ensure that the bill provides an opportunity to deal with many issues that have been shamefully neglected by all Governments.
Croft mapping is a key part of ensuring that we regulate properly. During the arguments about land reform during and after the 1990s, the idea of a map-based register of the land of Scotland was central to ensuring that we understood who owns the land and could discuss how it could be used. Shucksmith said that we need a map-based register of crofts. The approach must be legally valid and must be able to deal not just with registration when people change the use of crofts but with decisions about where boundaries are.
Labour Party members suggested today that we should not turn over stones that should not be turned over. That is not the way to take crofting forward. Oversight by Government is bringing to the issue the potential for regulation that could allow us to move into a new era in crofting, by rooting out neglect. The fundamental issue of land use is at the root of crofting, and crofting communities cannot be supported unless the land is properly used.
If Scottish taxpayers are to support the regulation of crofting, surely they have a right to demand that the land be better used. There are far too many examples of the land not being used properly, which is why we must ensure that as it continues its work on the bill the committee acknowledges that issues have been neglected at Government level. Crofting will benefit enormously if we take the regulatory steps that are set out in the proposals.
10:35
I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in this stage 1 debate on the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill. The process to get to this stage has been fascinating, not least because of the opportunities that there have been to take evidence and visit the crofting counties. Those visits were an eye-opener to a softie from the warm south-west of the country. I thank the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee clerks and advisers, and the crofters for their hospitality and for contributing to my crofting education. As Maureen Watt said, our trips took place in February and March. That enabled us to see at first hand crofting work in some of the most difficult agricultural areas of Scotland by people who, in general, have full-time or part-time employment elsewhere. I was extremely impressed by the real commitment that the crofters showed to maintaining a traditional form of agriculture, despite the pressures of 21st century life and the harshness and length of winters in the north of Scotland.
Labour members share the aspiration to create a stable and sustainable future for crofting. However, as other members have said, it is not just regulation that is important in ensuring the future of crofting; economic development and opportunities and financial support are also important.
It has been said that we have significant reservations about aspects of the proposed legislation. I will add to what Sarah Boyack and Peter Peacock said in outlining those reservations.
In addition to the financial implications for crofters of the map-based register that is to be held by the Registers of Scotland, which Peter Peacock described, we believe that, as it stands, the financial memorandum to the bill does not address the resource implications for the commission, with its new and more onerous duties. Under the bill, any application for entry in the crofting register must first be considered by the crofting commission. Moreover, the commission’s approval is required for many of the trigger points. The commission will have to weed out defective applications and ensure that any application that goes to the keeper of the register contains the appropriate and relevant information. The financial memorandum suggests that no additional resource will be required to cope with that, whereas the Crofters Commission has suggested that two new full-time posts may be required to process and check applications at the pre-registration stage.
The bill places a duty on crofters to be ordinarily resident within 16km of their croft and not to neglect it. Some of our financial concerns result from the bill as it stands. I appreciate what the minister said about extension of the distance to 32km perhaps addressing some of our concerns, but I want to rehearse briefly what our concerns about that were.
Under the current legislation, the Crofters Commission has discretion to take action. Indeed, as the minister said, it was allocated £100,000 last year for a separate initiative to write to some 600 crofters who were known to live more than 16km from their croft. However, the Crofters Commission told us in supplementary evidence that around 10 per cent of tenant crofters live outwith that distance. The exact figures for owner-occupiers are not known, but the commission has estimated that around 4,000 crofts are not occupied in the sense that the person who works the croft does not live within 10 miles of it. The commission stated in its evidence that, without additional resources, it could process around 100 applications to be absent from a croft per year. Given the criteria, it could take around 40 years to deal with 4,000 applications if there was no further funding. I know that the minister argues that the staff resource that was allocated last year to deal with the initiative that I mentioned could be used in future years to deal with absenteeism applications. That might reduce the time in question, but it would still be 12 to 15 years before applications could be processed. Obviously, a change to 32km could change matters, as fewer crofters would be involved in the process, but we have not considered the financing of the crofting commission for its duties in relation to neglect—we have not considered what the costs and burden on it may be as a result of those.
The issue of how far crofters live from crofts is difficult. It can be argued that a distance of 10 miles is inappropriate at a time when most people have a car and can travel 10 miles in a fairly short period of time. On the other hand, those of us who represent rural constituencies know how diverse and different communities that are 10 miles apart can be, never mind communities that are 20 miles apart. A decision on the correct distance is a difficult one to ponder. As we go into stage 2, we will need to reflect further on the best point at which to trigger the absenteeism qualification.
On the point at which communities stop and start, so to speak, does the member agree that it is reasonable for the trigger to be different for different communities?
In theory, there is an attraction to that argument, but questions arise. How practical would it be? Would it add further to the bureaucracy of operating the trigger? The issue is difficult.
Labour members are supportive of the proposals for a partially elected crofting commission. My colleague Karen Gillon, who cannot attend the debate because of her duties today as a Scottish Parliament member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, has consistently raised the issue of equal opportunities to the point at which she became notorious among committee members for doing so, with people looking out for what she would say on the issue. Her concerns arise from the fact that, irrespective of who works the croft, around two thirds of registered crofters are men. In some parts of the crofting counties, the imbalance is much greater. If only registered crofters can vote and stand for election, clear gender equality issues arise. We believe that they can be addressed by extending the franchise to the registered crofter’s spouse, civil partner or cohabitant. They would appear on the register, just as they appear on the electoral register for parliamentary and council elections, and could then elect members of the crofting commission and nominate people to stand for election. We are disappointed that thus far the minister has rejected the proposal.
The committee as a whole would like to see a consultation on constituency boundaries before a decision is taken between the two alternatives. As other members have said, Labour members themselves were divided on whether first past the post or AV should be the preferred electoral method. Peter Peacock came down on the side of AV. The minister is indicating that she has done the same.
Do I have a little extra time, Presiding Officer?
Yes.
Thank you. The cabinet secretary is no longer in the chamber to moan and groan. I have just two brief points to make.
Labour members are concerned about the removal of Crown immunity from the crofting commission under schedule 1 to the bill. Evidence to the committee was that the commission acts as a tribunal and that the loss of Crown immunity would create uncertainty over the status of its hearings. I note that the Government has not accepted the point. In its response to our report, the Government did not comment on the possibility of the commission being sued in the civil courts, which could have budgetary implications or implications for the manner in which decisions are made.
The bill gives Scottish ministers the power to change by order the functions of the commission. During stage 1, the Minister for Environment assured the committee that she had no intention of using that power. However, Labour members have serous reservations about the power, albeit that it may have been made redundant by provisions, which we opposed, in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. We believe that the power should be removed from the bill or at least made subject to the super-affirmative procedure.
Labour members will support the bill’s continuation to stage 2. Our view thereafter will depend on our discussions at stage 2 and amendments to the bill.
10:43
I thank Peter Peacock for his kind welcome. I am glad to be back in the Parliament; I was missing you all—I really was.
Having listened to the debate, I am pleasantly surprised to find goodwill on all sides for a package of measures for crofting reform that will be to the advantage of all who are actively engaged in crofting.
I take John Scott’s point on the trigger point in different areas for absenteeism. His suggestion is a legitimate one. For many who live in the islands, the trigger point should go way beyond the 16km that is proposed in the bill.
I do not know why it was suggested that the legislation should be altered. It all started some years ago, away down in Argyll. A gentlemen in Tynault, who had a neglected croft and was absent for many years, was given planning permission for a group of 10 houses on the croft. Although there was quite a number of young applicants in the community who would have loved to have had tenancy of the croft, that was denied them. I remember speaking to the chairman of the Crofters Commission at the time and suggesting to him that the commission had been very lax in allowing the situation to happen: we considered the commission to be the regulator of all things crofting and all croft tenancies, yet it allowed the situation to go ahead. The chairman told me that the commission’s hands were tied. I found that difficult to believe, but it seems it was a fact.
On the case to which the member refers, I remember that the Crofters Commission turned up without a lawyer, but the developer was represented by Queen’s counsel.
To arrive there without any legal representation shows how interested the Crofters Commission must have been—that speaks for itself.
My family have been active crofters for many generations. Although I have recently retired from crofting—at least, from active crofting—my son and his family continue with the traditions and culture of crofting. In fact, my son and his family live in a house in the village in which I was born.
As I said, I do not know what triggered this debate or the suggestion that we should have new legislation. Several years ago, the Scottish Parliament introduced a bill in an attempt to reform crofting. I am sorry to say that, for various reasons, it failed to secure any meaningful support. That was followed by Professor Shucksmith’s inquiry into crofting, which was not very favourably received in any of the crofting townships. So, there were two attempts: the first was by the Scottish Parliament, and the second involved the Shucksmith report, which was even less acceptable.
Now the Scottish Government has introduced yet another bill to reform and regulate crofting, which has proven to be just as controversial as its predecessor. However, listening to the debate today, I think that we have come a long way and that there has been quite a change in attitude to what has been proposed. The trouble is that the bill is based heavily on the discredited Shucksmith proposals and was drafted by clerks here in Edinburgh. I think that the attempt to guide the bill through the Parliament is being made by people who might have a little understanding of agriculture, but who have no understanding whatsoever of crofting and its traditions.
I do not think that we need a bill to reform crofting. We do not need new legislation that will only complicate the lives of hard-working crofters. Most of all, we do not need a map-based register of crofts, as is suggested in the bill. All crofts are already registered with the Crofters Commission, so why do we need another, map-based register? I would not be happy trying to arrange a map-based register in my own township. I know that the crofters there have co-operated and worked their crofts over many years without any difficulty, but I think—in fact, I know—that the proposal to set them against one another in an attempt to arrange or agree a map-based register would be almost impossible to implement.
Mention has been made of planning approvals for development on croft land. If the bill is to be implemented, it must ensure that the crofting commission is a consultee in all planning matters that affect croft land. I do not think that that is unreasonable. The commission will perhaps require additional resources for that, but it has been suggested that additional resources will be directed to the operation of the crofting commission; therefore, that can easily be arranged.
I could in no way support the original bill that was introduced in the Scottish Parliament. I found nothing in it that was acceptable to crofters and nothing to ensure the future of crofting—in fact, the very opposite. I had no wish to participate in a debate that would lead to the demise of crofting in any area, which is why I spoke strongly against that bill at several meetings.
The current regulations that are available to the Crofters Commission have served the crofting communities well for more than 100 years and I see no reason why they should not continue, without the interference of new rules and regulations. From day one, the attempt to get the current bill approved has already cost well in excess of £1 million—it has been a total waste of time and money. I have said all along that there is one simple solution. It has been mentioned today, and I am glad to see that it is finding favour with members.
Will the member give way?
Sorry, but I am finishing.
All that we need is a democratically elected Crofters Commission—one that is elected from the crofting townships with a clear mandate to administer and enforce the existing regulations. I am sure that, if we had that, we would have a vibrant and viable crofting community.
10:52
Like other members of the committee, I put on record my thanks for the hospitality that we received while gathering evidence. Escaping the biting winter winds in a warm croft house with a hot cup of tea was very pleasant. Like a few committee members, I am also curious to know whether there is now a cow in the Western Isles called Scottish Parliament.
It is logical to ask why we have crofting at all. As far as I am aware, it is a unique form of landholding that was instituted in 1886 to ensure that the individuals who lived on the land were treated fairly, or at least less harshly, than they had been in the preceding century. However, we have continued with crofting—why? It might be argued that it is to ensure that farming continues in upland areas, but I find that an unconvincing argument. Were farming the sole or main issue, would we not have encouraged landholdings large enough to support a family? That is something that the average croft—if not all crofts—is simply incapable of doing. We might even cease to farm some areas that are currently crofted, perhaps concluding that the financial input would be better directed to richer agricultural land. It might be more convincing to argue that crofting can bring environmental benefits. There is no question but that grazing can enhance biodiversity and proper management of the land can further enhance the nature conservation value.
The recent Royal Society of Edinburgh report into the future of Scotland’s islands and hills recommended that the Government have an explicit policy to maintain community viability, and I believe that that is the issue that lies at the heart of why we continue trying to improve crofting legislation. It reflects a determination on the part of the people of Scotland to ensure that our remote rural areas continue to hold and nurture viable communities. That is not to say that crofting can maintain communities of its own volition. It cannot. It is no coincidence that, where work is available, there are low levels of absenteeism from crofts. For that reason, the minister is correct about moving the economic development function from the commission to Highlands and Islands Enterprise so that we have one body concentrating on an essential aspect of ensuring viable communities in the Highlands and Islands.
Farming efficiency and food production cannot explain why we continue with crofting. There would be simpler ways of obtaining the environmental benefits. The real explanation is that we believe that our remote uplands and islands should continue to be populated. Therefore, the way in which we deal with neglect and absenteeism is critical. We took a great deal of evidence on neglect. It was, beyond doubt, an issue on which all crofters agreed. I make the point that there was strong agreement on that because strong and consistent agreement within the crofting community did not occur with excessive frequency—certainly not as often as agreement between, say, Liberals and Tories.
Neglect results in collapsed fences, loss of quality land and loss of opportunity for other crofters. I welcome the Government’s decision to place on the commission a duty to tackle neglect, but we must first identify neglect. In the past, crofters have been unwilling to report instances of neglect. I can understand that. The risk of long-running feuds is a genuine worry. However, if neglect is to be tackled, the crofting communities must accept some responsibility. Perhaps the Government can make it easier for crofters by encouraging self-reporting by the community on the condition of all its crofts and self-reporting by individuals of their activities. However it is done, it is essential that we ensure that there is some means of identifying neglected crofts.
Having done that, we also need to encourage crofters who are not working their crofts to make them available. On some crofts, that is done through informal arrangements, but they are not entirely desirable. Crofters who work land informally have no security of tenure and cannot apply for grants to maintain fencing and do other work. It is suggested that short-term leases might be encouraged and it is clear that there might be advantages in that, especially if those on short-term leases could apply for support to maintain the quality of the croft. However, it is important to avoid crofters finding themselves in the position of moving from one short-term lease to another. Security of tenure is central to crofting and multiple short-term leases would damage that principle—a principle with which I know the minister agrees.
Does the member accept that the reason for the neglect of crofts is often the financial viability of crofting rather than the fact that people are not present?
There are a range of reasons why people neglect crofts. The important thing is that if somebody else wishes to take over a croft, they have the opportunity to do so. That means that we have to identify crofts. If no one chooses to take the opportunity, so be it. However, if we ensure that there are not informal arrangements but arrangements that guarantee access to the financial resources and grants that are available to maintain crofts, they become more viable and it is economically more practical to run them.
There was less agreement among crofters on absenteeism. Some felt strongly that the issue is critical, but others said that it is not important if individuals are absent for 20 years or so and that eventually they will return. Personally, I cannot see how one can argue that crofting aims to maintain communities and then argue that absenteeism is not an issue. However, I whole-heartedly agree with the committee that the approach to absenteeism must be a pragmatic one. The issue is whether the individual contributes to the community or there is a reasonable expectation that they will do so.
The committee’s report argues that the language in the bill should be changed to refer to people who are not ordinarily resident rather than to people who are absent. That would be a positive step. A trigger point to instigate an inquiry into the reason for non-residence is essential. However, altering the language would help to reassure crofters who work their crofts that they are not being unjustly labelled. Equally, the committee’s recommendation that the commission should publish the criteria under which the commission will pursue cases of non-residency will also act as a reassurance. There has been some discussion about the trigger point. My view is straightforward—it should be pragmatic. If we can take a large number of possible non-residents out of investigation by expanding the trigger point, we should do so, but I believe fundamentally that we need some form of trigger point.
There has been considerable debate about the value of a map-based register. It has been suggested that attempting to compile such a register will result in smouldering disagreements bursting into flame. Having listened to the various points of evidence, I am convinced of the need for such a mapping exercise. Had a register been completed in previous years, it is unlikely that Hamnavoe would have been built on the rough grazing and considerable conflict might well have been avoided.
Not infrequently, the settling of boundary disputes relies on folk memory. As one witness put it, we look for the person with the greyest beard. I would have thought that it was the whitest beard, but that is a small aside. However, the committee also took evidence that folk memory is receding as death, immigration and emigration slowly dilute it. If the mapping exercise is not carried out now, the opportunity to make use of that folk memory might well be lost. I believe that the decision to attempt the exercise is a bold one, but that it is the correct one, and I commend the minister for ignoring the timid and instead preferring to grasp the nettle.
Along with the rest of the committee, I agree that community mapping is likely to be the most effective exercise. I urge the minister to allow a period of grace prior to the introduction of the proposed triggers to encourage as wide community participation as possible. I appreciate that the minister has said that she will consider delaying the triggers for a year, but I am not certain that a year will be quite long enough.
Given the considerable experience of the Registers of Scotland, it is logical that the keeper of the registers of Scotland should have responsibility for developing and maintaining the map-based register. Given that we live in a world of broadband, I see no obvious reason why the commission should be in any way disadvantaged by the fact that the register is maintained by the keeper, as that will allow us to use the keeper’s skills in building such a register. So long as the maps are readily accessible, I see no reason not to have the keeper maintain the register.
Crofting is a controversial subject—not least among crofters—so the likelihood of keeping everyone happy is, perhaps, not excessive. However, I believe that the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill is a bold attempt by the Scottish Government to improve crofting law. The attempt deserves to succeed.
We move to winding-up speeches.
11:00
Let me begin by thanking the crofters and other individuals who, over the past weeks, months and indeed years, have taken the time and trouble to speak to me about the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill.
As John Farquhar Munro mentioned, when the previous crofting bill was before the Parliament, both he and I—and, indeed, others—gave stark warnings about what we saw as the limitations in those legislative proposals. That led to our receiving a favourable mention in Brian Wilson’s organ—something that had never happened before and might never happen again. Like John Farquhar Munro and other representatives for the Highlands and Islands, I have taken an extremely close interest in the bill as it will have a direct impact and effect on my constituents, who live in some of the most remote areas with the most fragile economies.
In winding up on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, let me take the opportunity to comment on some of the speeches that we have heard. First, I believe that the minister used the correct expression when she said that crofting is a model for sustainable rural development. She also introduced the point that registration must be a requirement if it is to work and she mentioned the issue of absenteeism.
Sarah Boyack said, as I have also said, that crofting is a way of life in the Highlands and Islands. Quite correctly, she listed crofting’s many benefits, to which I would add its contribution to tourism. Where a crofting township—Rogart in Sutherland is a good example—has crofts that are worked and that contribute to the local economy, they provide an attractive feature for tourists. We should never forget that point, as it is hugely important, particularly in the most remote areas. In highlighting the financial support systems that underpin crofting, Sarah Boyack also touched on—this rang a huge bell with all of us from the Highlands—crofting’s place within the totality of the economy, to which is connected the issue of fuel costs. As I and others have said many times in previous debates, the fact is that the cost of motor fuel has a big impact on crofting in the Highlands.
A final point that Sarah Boyack mentioned was the balanced nature of the issue. As far as I am concerned, the issue is quite finely cast, so I reserve the right—as John Farquhar Munro and others have said—to vote the bill down. For that reason, we in the Liberal Democrats, like Peter Peacock, will support the amendment. That will provide the bill with life support, but my colleague Liam McArthur has made it clear that some surgery on the bill will be necessary. If we feel that we have ended up with something that is inappropriate or a beast that will not work, we reserve the right to vote down the bill at stage 3. It is a fine balance.
Maureen Watt, quite correctly, gave an overview of the committee’s consideration of the bill. She made a plea for the bill to proceed to stage 2, but nothing in Sarah Boyack’s amendment would prevent the bill from going to the next stage, during which it will be scrutinised very closely indeed. She also mentioned the provisions for a map-based register.
John Scott told us that he is supportive of the thrust of the bill. He argued for a first-past-the-post system instead of AV, with one vote per croft. He also highlighted the issue of the choice of the commission’s chairman. He made the point that the sustainability of the community in which the croft is located is crucial. That is linked to Sarah Boyack’s point, which I have emphasised also takes in the issue of fuel duty.
My colleague Liam McArthur talked about the differences in crofting areas, and he is absolutely correct. I think of the crofting in Strath Halladale in Sutherland, where a lot of people have double incomes from crofting and being employed at Dounreay. As Dounreay runs down, that will impinge on crofting in a way that is quite different from the situation in Wester Ross in John Farquhar Munro’s constituency or even in Orkney. That is an important point, which should be remembered.
I associate myself with Liam McArthur’s suggestion that the commissioners should be able to elect their own chair. That would be profoundly sensible.
Alasdair Allan correctly reminded us about how far we have come since the draft bill. The beast that we see before us today is markedly different from the draft bill, and that is to be welcomed.
Peter Peacock correctly reminded us of the delicacy with which we should see and evaluate absenteeism and how we should address it. We have more work to do on that.
It might be a little too late to say this, but many of us were apprehensive about taking away the development function from the commission and giving it to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, because of the cutbacks to HIE’s budget and staffing reductions. We felt that we could not exactly be confident that the money stream would be directed or controlled as well as it might be. However, I accept that we are where we are, and it is unfortunate.
I go back to the many representations that I have received from individuals and crofters about the register. Peter Peacock, too, expressed the real reservations that exist. I am prepared for members to argue against me, but it is my considered opinion that a lot more must be done to convince crofters that it is a viable idea. The extra financial burdens that are being imposed on them are extremely unwelcome, and it probably cannot be done in the most fragile economies where so many crofters are. There is awareness of the register and mapping and I acknowledge the robust defence of the need for it by Rob Gibson and other colleagues, but we have a long way to go to take crofters and people who are involved in crofting with us.
Elaine Murray was interesting, especially in talking about the wider financing of the commission. A point was made about the definition of the distance from the croft. Someone—I forget which member; perhaps it was Jamie McGrigor—said that it depends on where one is. Things will be different in Strath Halladale, Wester Ross or Skye, and it depends on the nature of the local economy and the location of supporting employment.
I will conclude with two points, if I have time. First, and on a personal level, I am grateful to Peter Peacock for his kind remarks about seeing John Farquhar Munro back with us. He is a colleague and a personal friend, and he is the most real crofter in the Parliament. His opinions are hugely important so, when he counsels caution, we should listen.
Will the member take an intervention?
Certainly, if I have time.
Does the member agree that if we are to make crofting more viable, productive and profitable, it would be wise of the Government to consider ways of making land management options, for example, relevant to crofts and of encouraging crofters to go into small food production businesses, such as the making of cheese? [Laughter.]
Well, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I approach the subject with caution because my brother might not welcome competition in certain forms of dairy produce. Nevertheless, I accept the wit with which Mr McGrigor made his intervention.
The jury is still out on the bill. That is the thrust of the speeches from Sarah Boyack and other members—[Interruption.] We will have to do a lot of convincing if we are to take the crofting counties with us. As I said, not so much as a Liberal Democrat but as a member who represents a crofting constituency, I reserve the right to vote the bill down. We will leave it on life support for the moment, but I assure members that, if it ain’t going to fly, it ain’t going to fly.
Before I call the next speaker, I remind members that you have to have your BlackBerrys off. The noise is bad enough in here but, believe me, if you are a sound engineer it is much worse. Now make sure that your BlackBerrys are off.
11:10
I am not a member of the committee that scrutinised the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, so sadly I did not have the opportunity afforded to committee members to visit some of the crofting communities to see and hear at first hand the issues that the bill needs to address. Being firmly rooted in the north-east of Scotland, I am afraid that I have no direct personal experience of crofting. However, I am aware of the fragility of the crofting lifestyle, which has been made worse by the recent decline in sheep farming, and of the need for crofters to have an alternative income, which may sometimes mean going quite far away from their crofts, for example to work in the North Sea oil industry.
The laws that regulate crofting have become increasingly complex over the years and there seems little agreement among crofters on how they should be improved. The bill is a genuine attempt to underpin and sustain a way of life that is extremely important for some of Scotland’s most remote and fragile areas.
I have spent some considerable time reading the Official Reports of the committee’s evidence-taking sessions and its conclusions in its stage 1 report, and I have listened with great interest this morning as members across the chamber have articulated their opinions on various aspects of the bill’s proposals.
Sarah Boyack and Elaine Murray expressed significant concerns about several aspects of the bill, as detailed in the Labour amendment, and they stressed the point that financial resources and incentives must be identified to underpin the legislation. Peter Peacock remains fundamentally opposed to a map-based register of crofts, which he regards as unnecessary, and to charging for registration. However, he is in favour of community mapping, which appears to have widespread support throughout the chamber.
For the committee, Maureen Watt reminded members that we should be realistic about what legislation can achieve on its own and that regulation alone will not secure the future of crofting.
My colleague John Scott expressed a fear, which he hopes will not be realised, that there will be apathy and low turnout for elections to the crofting commission—and, as members know, we have not had it all our own way recently on the methods for voting in elections. He also emphasised the need for crofters to be resident in order to sustain the crofting community.
Liam McArthur voiced concerns about the intention to have ministers appoint the chairman of the commission instead of leaving that to members of the commission. John Farquhar Munro, with his lifelong personal experience of crofting, sees no need for further crofting legislation as he feels that existing regulation has served the crofting communities well.
The policy memorandum to the bill makes it clear that
“The objectives of this Bill are to put in place a robust regulatory and governance framework for the future of crofting ... and ensure that crofting continues to contribute to sustainable economic growth in some of Scotland’s most remote, rural communities.”
That sounds good, but it is clear from the evidence sessions that crofters are not happy with the bill as it stands and that, assuming the general principles are accepted at decision time today, further work will be required to strengthen and improve it as it progresses through the parliamentary process.
There has undoubtedly been growing and widespread concern in recent years that crofting is in decline as a result of persistently high levels of absenteeism, increasing neglect of crofting land and the on-going removal and development of land from crofting tenure. There has been a general feeling that the existing governance arrangements and regulatory framework have not been successful in stopping that decline. As I said at the outset, there is a general acceptance that crofting law has become overly complex and needs to be consolidated and simplified, but I know that it is agreed that that would be for consideration by a future Administration and not part of the bill under discussion.
The intentions of the various parts of the bill are clear and admirable: to make the Crofters Commission more effective in delivering its core function of regulating crofting; to allow it to amend its constitution to allow for directly elected members, thus making it more representative of, and accountable to, the people it regulates; and to give it more flexibility to develop its regulatory policy in the interests of crofting communities and the wider public interest. All those proposals seem very sensible and acceptable.
The proposals in part 2 for a new, map-based register, which would clearly define the extent of, and interests in, a croft and other land within crofting tenure, such as common grazings, should, it is claimed, give security to crofters over their tenancy. The proposals in part 3 to place a duty on the commission to take action in respect of absenteeism and neglect by tenant and owner-occupier crofters should, on the face of it, help to ensure that crofting will contribute to the sustainable economic growth of crofting communities by requiring crofters to be resident on or near their land and to put it to some kind of productive use.
Part 4 is aimed at helping to sustain crofting communities and the environmental, cultural and landscape benefits that derive from a crofting lifestyle, by tackling speculation on the development value of croft land through strengthening the commission’s ability to reject an application to take the land out of crofting tenure.
All of that sounds fine, but the devil is in the detail, and many of the proposals in the bill have proven to be controversial in the crofting communities, and the committee has not been able to agree on some of them either, as we have seen from the report and heard in today’s debate. There has clearly been a great deal of discussion and debate around the bill, and many issues are as yet unresolved. Overall, however, it appears that the proposed legislation should have a positive impact on the crofting communities, and will go some way towards halting the decline that has beset them in recent years.
I conclude by stating that, as John Scott has said, we will support the general principles of the bill at stage 1, but on the basis that there will have to be significant changes and amendments at stage 2.
11:16
Perhaps debates on crofting should be a special sub-category of debate in the Parliament. This has been an interesting debate, and it is clear that there are areas on which we can all agree, across the chamber. Although I welcome some of Roseanna Cunningham’s responses to the committee’s recommendations, I hope that she will take some time to stand back and reflect on the tone and substance of what some of us have said today. There is an opportunity to do more to improve the bill. The minister has not had a lot of time to respond to the committee’s recommendations, and it would be good if she could do so before getting to the real detail that colleagues such as Elaine Murray talked about. If the minister wants to talk further to any of us before stage 2, she will be able to do that.
Maureen Watt gave a fascinating account of the committee’s travels. Having visited Camuscross and walked through the land there and talked to crofters about the issues that they face, I know that some of the issues are incredibly complex. The fact that this is our second crofting bill in five years means that the crofting communities are well geared up to lobby us and reflect on what we are debating. We also have an opportunity to reflect on their concerns.
I was struck by the extent to which John Scott agreed with us on issues such as the underfunding of the commission and the need to allow the right amount of time if we are to go down the road of community mapping, which he and others across the chamber have supported. We have differing emphases. He is much more enthusiastic about aggressively promoting more owner occupation in crofting, while we think that there is still a role for people to rent their crofts. We think that that is part of the mix. Crofting is different across Scotland—
Will the member give way?
Let me finish this point, which relates to the point that Liam McArthur made very powerfully. The ambition for crofting is the same across Scotland, but crofting is different in different parts of Scotland, and we must ensure that that variety is reflected. It is a cultural issue in some parts of Scotland, and we must ensure that there is a role for people who are owner-occupiers and for people who rent their crofts. We must also consider the new opportunities that we discussed in relation to the Crofting Reform etc Act 2007, about bigger organisations giving land so that people can rent and, possibly, buy crofts.
Liam McArthur focused on that variety of crofting traditions. We need to focus on that. He also made the powerful point that we must not make things worse—a point that was made in debates around the 2007 act, influenced heavily by John Farquhar Munro; that is a powerful principle in developing legislation. Liam McArthur’s comments were backed up by several members. Let us not only get the elections to the crofting commission right, but make the commission more proactive.
Alasdair Allan made some powerful points about the need to democratise the commission and to use the Government’s power to promote the elections. He said that we should do what we can to engage people in the process of tackling neglect, and that anything that can be done to minimise costs would be welcome.
A question that has emerged loud and clear during the bill process is whether we need a second register. We are all trying to wrestle with the need for a more community-based approach to crofting and to bring people together to make the most of the expertise that has been built up over the years. I suggested earlier that perhaps there should be a special sub-category of debates in Parliament for crofting. Peter Peacock’s comments took us to the heart of the debate when he said that
“absenteeism of itself is not necessarily a problem—it is only a problem when it is a problem.”
That more or less sums up the debate.
Could the same be said of the Labour Party?
It is not just about our views. If we went out and talked to crofters, we would get the same equivocation. We need to sort something, but at the same time we need to be careful how we sort it or we may make it worse.
Does not that sum up the dilemma that faces the Labour Party, which is that it is only a problem when it is a problem? The issue could have been addressed in the previous bill. The issue must be faced up to—it is only reasonable that that should happen.
I could not disagree more. We introduced some valuable provisions in the previous bill, which the Parliament passed. We removed the bits of the bill on which we could not get the right answer at the time. It would have been wrong to include in legislation provisions that did not have the confidence of the Parliament and, crucially, of the crofting communities. That is why we need to listen carefully to the commonsense comments of the crofting communities. Peter Peacock focused on the need for the crofting commission to have a strategic plan, with the opportunity to bring big benefits.
Jamie Stone talked about adding the possibility of tourism benefits. We must consider crofting positively. The bill must be about not just protecting what we have, but seeing how the crofting communities can develop in the future. That is why there is such nervousness about a map-based register. Roseanna Cunningham said that such a register could cost millions, while Peter Peacock said that it could take 40 years to complete. There are some mixed-up views on the map-based register that we must bottom out before we reach the end of stage 2. We cannot support something that we think will be manifestly complex and massively expensive and which will not bring benefits. We are much more in favour of the community mapping approach. There is huge consensus among members that we need to go down that route. John Scott mentioned that the SRPBA would be keen to go down that route. Landowners and crofters want us to take the issue seriously.
Let us go back to the evidence that was presented to the committee on the map-based register. On the one hand, the minister told us that it is straightforward to adapt the existing information technology system and that expertise and design processes are already in place. Contrast that with the evidence from the Registers of Scotland, whose short answer was that an IT system could be built anywhere to create the register. I am extremely concerned about massive expenditure on IT. The legacy of the past 20 years is of Governments having real difficulty designing new IT systems. Why make such a straightforward agenda much more complex? Everyone wants to give the crofting communities the chance to survive and to support individual crofters. Let us not make it worse for them. Let us not create something that will be massively bureaucratic and expensive, without proven benefits. That is the mood among many members. I hope that the minister will reflect that—if not when she sums up, at least before stage 2.
As Elaine Murray pointed out, detailed scrutiny of the bill is needed. That has not been done even at stage 1. Our job at stage 2 will be to examine the bill in detail to ensure that we do not make any mistakes. Elaine Murray gave us the same detailed critique of the trigger process that crofters organisations and individual crofters have given, and we need to listen to those comments. For a start, the election system has to be fair.
We have a major opportunity that we need to get right; if we do not, we will simply throw away the hours of consultation, the hours of listening to people and the hours of good debate that has been had not only in the committee but out and about in the crofting communities and in the chamber today. Our crofting debates have a particular flavour but, as we learned during the passage of the Crofting Reform etc (Scotland) Act 2007, we should take this opportunity to reflect and to think really hard about things to ensure that we do not put the wrong legislation on the statute book. There are good things in the bill and Roseanna Cunningham, since becoming minister, has already made a number of changes. We need to continue the process and end up with a bill that we can all sign up to, not something that we are divided on.
11:25
The debate has been interesting and I am grateful to members for their contributions. Before I respond to a number of points that have been raised, I want to say that I am pleased that, at least at this stage, we broadly agree on the bill’s principles. There has been agreement not only on the need for action to tackle absenteeism, neglect and speculation and the mechanisms in that respect, but on the need for a more democratic and accountable crofting commission.
As for the issue on which there is perhaps most disagreement—the crofting register—it is vital for the future of crofting that everybody is clear about the land that is held in crofting tenure, what the boundaries are and who has an interest in that land. That is important not just for the regulation of crofting—which, after all, has done without a map-based register for the past 55 years—but to everyone with an interest in crofting and, in particular, to the crofter. Why on earth should a crofter be faced with the prospect of anyone with an interest having the ability to go to the Scottish Land Court at any time to question whether their holding is a croft, whether they are the tenant of the croft and what the boundaries of the croft are? A proper crofting register such as the one that we are proposing would minimise that risk.
It has been argued that such a move is unnecessary and that everybody knows where the boundaries are. I suppose that we should be grateful that no one has taken the same view about the boundaries of our own homes. In Scotland, we have a huge property register that has undergone enormous change over the past number of decades and is still not yet complete. As we will all recognise, these things take time. However, the assumption that everyone knows where the boundaries are is not borne out in practice. It is clearly not the case—if it were, the Land Court would not be doing the work that it is doing—and, indeed, it is less likely to be the case when the men with “the longest and greyest” beards, as Simon Fraser called them, pass away.
My fear is that unless we start putting in place a mechanism for recording croft land, knowledge of crofting boundaries will be lost and more and more crofters will find themselves in the Land Court. In a previous existence, I had to deal with title deeds that described the boundaries of land in terms of the oak tree in the north-west corner and the big pile of stones at the other end. I fundamentally believe that we cannot continue in that way.
A number of the points that members made in the debate were about wanting more money. I will set aside that issue for the moment, because I think that there are two sides to it. Sarah Boyack suggested that the crofting commission should have a direct say in planning; that it, and not the keeper of the registers of Scotland, should maintain the register; and that there should be a change to the franchise. She also seemed to infer that she was opposed to equalising the law between the tenants and owner-occupiers and wanted the current register to be updated with maps as a way of resolving certain issues.
That said, in her closing speech, Ms Boyack pertinently pointed out that Parliament passed a verdict on certain parts of the 2006 bill, which became the 2007 act, and quite rightly removed areas on which there was no significant agreement. I gently point out to her that one proposal that was removed was precisely that the current register should be updated and used and have maps added. So, by her logic, we should not proceed to have another argument about that, because it was removed from the previous proposals for legislation. There are things that we can talk about in Sarah Boyack’s proposals, although I have indicated concerns about some of them, such as the proposal to give the commission a direct say in planning. There is a debate still to be had.
I watched with interest John Scott’s manoeuvring on the vexed issue of the alternative vote. One of his most interesting suggestions was the self-survey idea. We will want to explore that to find out what opportunities exist to help us do what we are doing.
Liam McArthur clearly believes that the Shucksmith report should have been the mechanism for kicking into touch proposals for crofting legislation. That was certainly the tenor of his comments. I gently suggest to him that he should take care with that principle in case it comes back to bite his party’s interest in another place. Government should not be about trying to find easy ways of kicking things into touch, although I fear that Liam McArthur might be involved in rather more of that in the next few years than he would otherwise have wished to be. He, too, has concerns about the register and he still seems to believe that there is a bottomless pit of money. However, I hold out hope, because he now has a direct line to the new chancellor in Westminster, so he might be able to resolve some of our financial concerns and ensure that we have as much money as we need to do the things that we need to do.
Peter Peacock disagrees with a map-based register. He approached the issue in his usual mischievous fashion. He said that he objects to charging for regulatory activities that are required by law, so I presume that he will propose that we remove all fees from planning applications. In fact, charging for regulatory activities already happens. If we were to take the principled stand that I am sure Peter Peacock wants us to assume that he is taking, we would have to remove all fees for planning applications and other regulatory activities.
Other members made good points. Rob Gibson made a particularly interesting point about a wider basis for considering the register, which was more about land use and, dare I say it, land reform. That was a much wider and more philosophical argument. Some members have an interest in land rental as a potential for tax. On many issues that arise if we take that broader and more philosophical basis, the register is extraordinarily important. It seems to me strange to want to continue to deal with crofting in some kind of old-fashioned, out-of-date and 19th century way—for reasons that are not very clear—when we are now in the 21st century. We have to think about what that demands and what opportunities it gives us through technology and our understanding.
As always, John Farquhar Munro made some interesting comments. I, too, welcome him back to the chamber. He said that we do not really need a bill at all. Of course, the problem with that approach is that it is a recipe for the Taynuilt situation arising again and again if we do not do something to fix the issue. The Whitbread loophole would not be closed, as we need legislation to close it. The difficulty with simply not having a bill is that the issues that have begun to open up and the practices that are not advantageous to crofting would never be dealt with.
There is a real fear among many people that if crofting is not addressed in the 21st century, it is likely to die out. That will not happen overnight—nothing does—but the fear of many people, and of the Government, is that if we do not address it, it is likely gradually to disappear. For all the reasons that Sarah Boyack gave in her closing speech, which have to do with culture, history and tradition, I do not believe that we want crofting to disappear. It is therefore important that we address it.
I thank the committee for all the work that it put in at stage 1 to inform this debate. I thank all the stakeholders who, through their evidence, helped us understand the issues that affect crofting. Although I wished occasionally that they could reach some kind of unanimous view, I have learnt that that will probably never happen. Our engagement with the stakeholders and the committee will continue from here. Sarah Boyack can be certain that I will take up the suggestion that we continue to have discussions about how we proceed.
I urge members to reject Labour’s amendment, because it distorts the clear message that I believe we should be sending out about tackling all the issues that threaten the future of crofting. In my view, it is not even particularly accurate, even if it is only to reflect Labour’s position. The Scottish Crofting Federation’s response to the consultation on the draft bill stated:
“The proposal to charge crofters for regulation is [only] acceptable in cases where the crofter will financially benefit from the transaction—decrofting the house site for example.”
I rather think that that somewhat undermines Labour’s assertion that
“new charges ... are not supported by crofters”.
They might not be supported by some crofters, but, as we have seen, there is no unanimity in the crofting community.
I have listened to the points that have been made today and I will reflect on them in the days to come. I have indicated where the Government will lodge amendments at stage 2 and I am sure that we will continue to discuss ways in which our common vision for crofting can be realised.
I point out, however, that I do not have a magic wand for fixing everything overnight—that does not happen. I certainly do not have a magic wand that prints money—none of us does. However, I have no doubt that everyone in this chamber wants a bright future for crofting—a future with thriving crofting townships and strong communities built by a permanent population whose members support one another; where croft land is nurtured and used to grow fine food or to enhance the environment; and where people continue to learn the proud crofting heritage and culture that enriches our nation. I remain confident that the bill will set us off in that direction and that there remains the will in the chamber to see it through.