Crofting Reform etc Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 consideration of the Crofting Reform etc Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have with them the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 57A, the marshalled list, which contains the amendments that I have selected for debate, a supplement to the marshalled list, which is printed on pink paper and contains manuscript amendments that were lodged yesterday, and the revised groupings that have been agreed. For the first division on an amendment, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds.
Section 2—Discharge of functions
The first group of amendments is on the discharge of functions of the Crofters Commission. Amendment 26, in the name of Maureen Macmillan, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 26 would reinsert an important phrase that appears in previous crofting legislation, such as the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. The phrase was removed from the bill when sections of the bill that dealt with the role and restructuring of the Crofters Commission were deleted at stage 2. The Environment and Rural Development Committee requested the removal of those sections to address concerns that many crofters had expressed to it and so that a committee of inquiry could be set up to consider the future role and structure of the Crofters Commission.
Crofters are concerned that the removal of the requirement for the commission to
"have regard to local circumstances and conditions"
will prevent, until the inquiry's recommendations pass into law, the flexibility in regulation that is necessary for different types of crofting community and different types of crofting and family circumstances. I seek an assurance from the minister that flexibility will be exercised in a manner similar to the way in which it has been exercised previously and that it will not be laid aside for the duration of the inquiry. The matter is of great importance to the crofting community.
I move amendment 26.
I support amendment 26. I realise from my visits to crofting communities and from the evidence that the communities gave us that sensitivity by the commission is important. The current regime in Inverness wants to pick up local issues in a more focused way than they have been picked up in recent years. Amendment 26 underlines that approach and would give our blessing to the commission trying to deal with the worst abuses that may occur before the inquiry reaches its overall views.
Before I speak to amendment 26, I want to apologise to the Presiding Officer and to members for the late lodging of manuscript amendments yesterday. The late lodging of manuscript amendments always causes concern, which is understandable. Unfortunately, following stage 2, during which a large number of amendments were lodged, the process of ensuring that the sections were renumbered and contextualised was not properly completed. That was picked up at a rather late date. However, I assure members that none of the amendments in question has any policy implications whatsoever; they are entirely directed at ensuring that the numbering and contextualising of amended sections is correct. I apologise for the matter being picked up so late.
I fully understand the issue that Maureen Macmillan has raised, and sympathise with her. As she said, the 1993 act provides for ministers only to give general directions to the commission. It is clear that the intention of amendment 26 is to address criticisms that may possibly arise that ministers are not setting clear priorities. I think that that is what Rob Gibson was getting at.
The bill sets out the functions that the commission must discharge and how it must discharge them. The discharge of those functions may be varied by general or specific directions from Scottish ministers. Adding words that would further qualify how the commission should discharge its functions would not improve the clarity or precision of the provision on the discharge of functions; rather, there would be a risk of diluting or compromising the intention of the provision. In other words, it would be difficult to leave in the words
"have regard to local circumstances and conditions"
if they follow the words
"directions of a … specific character".
Their effect would be to dilute the specific nature of ministerial directions.
If the minister is arguing that ministers will have the power to give
"directions of a general or specific character"
and that, in carrying out its functions, the commission shall have regard to local circumstances and conditions, will he give such directions?
I was coming to the undertaking on that matter. If the words in question were added to section 2, they would qualify how the commission should discharge its functions. We should consider the range of functions that are specified elsewhere in the bill.
On whether circumstances will arise in which such directions will be given, if local circumstances are the key issue, they will undoubtedly form part of any ministerial direction. Therefore, I see no reason why ministers could not, when giving the commission a general or specific direction following the enactment of the bill, require that the direction be carried out with regard to local circumstances and conditions if that proves to be necessary and appropriate. That said, it would be difficult for the commission to regulate without having regard to local circumstances, as each regulatory case throws up different local issues and concerns.
I ask Maureen Macmillan not to press amendment 26; if she presses the amendment, I ask the Parliament to resist it.
I take comfort from what the minister said, but emphasise that the eyes of crofters will now be on him to ensure that there is flexibility. I seek to withdraw amendment 26 as a result of the reassurances that I have been given.
Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 2
Group 2 is on town and country planning. Amendment 39, in the name of John Farquhar Munro, is grouped with amendment 40.
Amendment 39 was lodged to ensure that Maureen Macmillan's amendment 26 would be strengthened as a result of support for amendment 39.
As we have heard, it is hoped that the bill will ensure that the Crofters Commission will be a statutory consultee on planning applications that affect croft ground.
I suggest in amendment 39 that, in its response to a planning authority, the commission should have
"a presumption against the development of croft land which appears … to be capable of agricultural use"—
that is, either cultivation or agricultural production.
As members appreciate, the definition of croft land is complex. In simple terms, croft land, with certain exceptions, includes all inby land pertaining to a croft, but specifically excludes that area of ground under crofting tenure that is classified and registered as common grazings. That being the case, my amendment 39 seeks to protect the remaining areas of croft land that are considered capable of appropriate agricultural development. The amendment would give the Crofters Commission the opportunity to make representations on any application that affects croft ground.
Amendment 40 is in a similar vein. It is designed to apply in much the same way as amendment 39, except that it deals with the local development plan. Amendment 40 is intended to protect croft land that is incorporated in a local development plan under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The main strategy set out in the amendment is a proposal that
"there be no development of croft land"
unless proposed new section 264B(3) of the 1997 act applies. Proposed new subsection (3) would allow planning authorities that
"are satisfied that it would be in the public or community interest to permit the development … of specified croft land."
Proposed new subsection (4) clarifies the term "croft land", and paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of proposed new subsection (4) list exemptions, such as the site of the croft house, the common grazings and
"mines, metals or minerals or salmon fishings … pertaining to the croft."
Amendments 39 and 40 are designed to protect the remaining areas of arable croft ground for generations to come.
I move amendment 39.
I have great sympathy with John Farquhar Munro's amendments. It is absolutely crucial that we get the planning situation right. I do not know whether he is aware that the Environment and Rural Development Committee received a letter from the Deputy Minister for Communities on 11 January, in which it was made clear that the Crofters Commission would become a consultee. The deputy minister said:
"The most appropriate stage at which the issue of protecting croft land from development should be addressed is during the course of preparing the local plan."
He went on to say that the Executive would
"work with the Crofters Commission in coming to a view on its most appropriate role within the planning system."
Although that gives us great comfort, it is also up to the Crofters Commission to do its duty. There is no use in its being a statutory consultee if what comes out at the end of the consultation is a laissez-faire attitude.
I do not know whether it is appropriate to include in the bill the terms that John Farquhar Munro proposes, but I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about the amendments.
John Farquhar Munro raises an issue that is at the heart of the Highlands problem—the provision of affordable housing in crofting areas in a way that does not, through village plans, take crofting land away, with the best land used for building houses. It is an unacceptable use of land in the Highlands to build housing that looks like Brookside on croft land that could be used for crofting, given that we are thinking about producing more food locally and seeing a potential upturn in crofting.
We must take on board John Farquhar Munro's arguments. His amendments flag up the fact that the Parliament is not content about more good agricultural land being taken away for housing. I do not know whether the member for the Western Isles is present, but if this debate was taking place in committee, he would point out that in the Western Isles, developing housing on common grazings is one of the best means of providing affordable housing. As he is not here, I make the point. Committee members realised that we must have such amendments to allow affordable housing to be built and to protect good land. We have great pleasure in supporting John Farquhar Munro's amendments 39 and 40.
I am well aware of John Farquhar Munro's strong interest in clarifying the relationship between planning and crofting law and I hope to reassure him on some points this morning.
The intention of amendment 39 seems to be that the Crofters Commission should make representations to planning authorities to prevent croft land that is capable of agricultural use from being developed. The wording of the amendment suggests that protecting land that is capable of agricultural use should be the commission's only concern in relation to planning consultations. According to the amendment, the commission would have no other obligations or interests in planning consultations, even though crofters and crofting communities might have wider interests in a planning matter that is under consideration.
Amendment 40 is unnecessary. It seeks to require a planning authority to include a provision in the local development plan that there should be no development of croft land unless it considers that the development is
"in the public or community interest".
The concept of public or community interest is broad. When a local authority formulates a detailed statement of its proposals as to the development of land, it is clear that it will need to consider the public and community interest, irrespective of whether the land in question is croft land. There is no need to make the amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that John Farquhar Munro proposes. At best, the amendment would only make explicit an existing fundamental principle of planning policy.
Maureen Macmillan rightly referred to the debates that we had at stage 2, including a debate on the relationship between the Crofters Commission and planning. At that stage, John Farquhar Munro lodged a series of amendments whose intention was to prescribe that the Crofters Commission should respond to planning and development matters. His amendments sought to prevent better quality croft land from being removed from agricultural use, and they related to concerns about the development of and speculation in croft land. Through the amendments, he sought to give the Crofters Commission, rather than the local planning authority, the final say over whether croft land should be released for development.
At the time, John Farquhar Munro was assured publicly and formally by the former deputy minister, Rhona Brankin, and the then Deputy Minister for Communities, Johann Lamont, that when the secondary legislation associated with the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill was considered, the possibility of defining the Crofters Commission as a statutory consultee would also be considered. Consideration will also be given to the evidence submitted to the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the debates at stage 2.
Rob Gibson made an absolutely vital point about the need to ensure that we identify sufficient land for housing in our rural communities. The best way to do that is to ensure that, in the secondary legislation created under the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, the Crofters Commission is involved in contributing to the shape of local authorities' development plans. That will bring together two key objectives and ensure that we have an effective way of considering adequately and reflecting crofting issues and concerns in local planning policies for the crofting communities.
As I said, the aim and objective of my amendments is to protect good-quality croft land and, as a consequence, the communities that depend on that land. The amendments would not block developments that were in the overall interests of the crofting community. They would, however, prevent individuals from developing some of the better-quality croft land, which is scarce. Such developments destroy an important agricultural asset that is needed by the larger crofting community now and for generations to come. Good-quality agricultural land is in very short supply in the crofting counties. Too much has already been lost, much of it in recent years.
I stress that my amendments would not prevent development of common grazing land, which is of much poorer quality. As any visitor to the Highlands will know and appreciate, an abundance of it is available for development. I suggest that the Parliament support amendments 39 and 40, and I hope that it will.
The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will proceed with the division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 45, Against 55, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 39 disagreed to.
Section 10—New crofts
Group 3 is on amendments consequential on stage 2 amendments. Amendment 42, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 43, 6 and 44 to 50.
At stage 2, Maureen Macmillan lodged an amendment that proposed the same provisions as are contained in amendment 6, but unfortunately it was not moved at the appropriate time. Amendment 6 is a consequential drafting amendment; it is required as a result of the decision to leave out section 8 of the bill. It removes the reference to a new section—section 41A—of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, which section 8 would have inserted.
The proposals in section 8, which would have involved the Crofters Commission requiring crofters to incur charges, proved deeply unpopular during the consultation period and with the Environment and Rural Development Committee. As a result, section 8, which required the provision of maps by crofters and allowed the commission to charge fees in connection with the maintenance of the register of crofts, was deleted at stage 2. Members therefore need to agree to amendment 6.
Amendments 42 to 50 all make technical changes that should have been made in consequential amendments at stage 2. The amendments are necessary because the existing cross-references relate to the position before substantial amendments were made at stage 2 to section 37, which inserts proposed new section 52A into the 1993 act. The amendments create accurate cross-references to the provisions of proposed new section 52A.
I move amendment 42.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Amendment 43 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Group 4 is on new crofts. Amendment 28, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is grouped with amendments 29 to 31, 5 and 32.
The purpose of my amendments—particularly amendments 28 to 31—is to ensure that the interests of the landlord are taken into account when a small landholder applies for crofting status. For example, in our view it would be wholly unacceptable for an owner to have to rely on the public notification scheme to become aware that part of his property was to be turned into a croft. My amendments would ensure that, as a basic right, the owner would be notified directly of the application. To me, that seems only reasonable.
I turn to amendment 32. Section 10 brings on to the political agenda the absolute right to buy back farm land. Understandably, landowners fear that traditional agricultural tenants will seek the same right to buy as their small landholder neighbours. As we all know, there are already many issues that work against the freeing up of land to enable young people to go into farming, and I am worried that section 10 will exacerbate an already serious situation.
In the evidence-taking sessions at stage 1, a number of crofting interests made it clear that an absolute right to buy would be detrimental to the establishment of new crofts. Amendment 32 would ensure that the crofter's right to buy croft land would not apply to new crofts that were created, but the right to buy the house and garden would remain. That would mirror what will happen when crofts are voluntarily created in any other part of Scotland and create a level playing field for all new crofts. The provision is necessary to help prevent further destabilisation of the let land market. I urge members to support amendment 32.
I move amendment 28.
Ted Brocklebank is concerned about notification to landlords. I do not think that we are going to agree about that. The structure and context of the bill make his proposal unnecessary. In cases in which the tenant of a smallholding wishes to convert the holding to crofting tenure, the landlord will be engaged in the process at the outset, when the tenant applies to the Scottish Land Court for a certificate. The court would not grant such a certificate without first seeking evidence from the landlord. An application to change the status of the holding cannot be made until the certificate has been obtained, so the application can be expected to follow the granting of the certificate. In my opinion, therefore, direct notification to the landlord is not required for them to be aware of the application.
Amendment 30 proposes a further notification process, but the Crofters Commission will be unable to make a determination until it is satisfied that the conditions in the sections to which Mr Brocklebank referred—particularly proposed new sections 3A(10) and 3A(11) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993—have been met. The commission can be satisfied only if it has consulted the landlord. It will not be able to give effect to the determination until the tenant has either negotiated with the landlord the amount of compensation—if any—that is payable or arranged for that sum to be determined by the Land Court. I see no need for the additional notification that Ted Brocklebank proposes.
Amendment 31 would require the commission to have regard to the landowner's interests in determining whether any land should become croft land. Again, we see no need for that. Proposed new section 3A(7)(a) of the 1993 act already provides that the commission shall have regard to comments that are made in response to the public notification. That makes it clear that the commission must have regard to the landlord's interest.
Amendment 32, however, is different. For tenants of smallholdings that have been converted into crofts, the amendment seeks to restrict the crofter's right to buy to the right to buy the house and garden ground. That is counter to the policy intention on small landholdings in section 10, which is to give small landholders access to the full rights of crofters.
At stage 2, Rob Gibson lodged an amendment that proposed to give the Crofters Commission the discretion to allow amalgamated small landholdings of 30 hectares or more to be designated as crofts. My then deputy, Rhona Brankin, argued that that amendment would create unnecessary bureaucracy but stated that there might be an argument for the intent behind it. We said that we would consider the underlying issue. We have done that, and our amendment 5 proposes the removal of the 30-hectare limit. If it was retained on a discretionary basis, that would make any case that arose more complicated. The removal of the limit will ensure that the tenants of holdings in designated areas have access to a right to buy, either through transition to crofting tenure or as tenants of agricultural holdings.
I invite the Parliament to agree to amendment 5 and to resist the other amendments in the group.
I am delighted that, following the discussion at stage 2, the minister has lodged amendment 5. It is the final piece in the jigsaw that will allow the small landholders of Arran—and Arran Estates in particular—to come into the crofting system. They will have the opportunities to develop and improve their holdings that are already open to the holders of owner-occupied properties next door. If they wish to go down that route, so be it. Small landholders were missed out of the land reform legislation in the previous session of Parliament, so I am glad that the anomaly has been rectified at last. This is a great day for those people in Arran, who will be able to move on.
On the rearguard action by the Scottish Landowners Federation, which is more Lord Brockett than Ted Brocklebank, we must ensure that people who have faced the disadvantages of being small landholders now receive courtesy from the Crofters Commission, rather than the non-courtesy that they experienced from their landowners for many years. To accept what Ted Brocklebank says on the matter would be a travesty. I have great pleasure in supporting amendment 5 and opposing the five other amendments in the group.
Notwithstanding what has been said, I believe that equity should be exercised. Since 1883, the relationship between landholders and crofters has been a complex, tortuous and sometimes difficult one. Broadly speaking, however, equity has been achieved overall, and through my amendments I seek to ensure that that equity is retained. I do not accept the thrust of the arguments from the minister and the SNP, so I will press amendment 28.
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 87, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 28 disagreed to.
Amendments 29 to 31 not moved.
Amendment 5 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 32 moved—[Mr Ted Brocklebank].
The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 16, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 32 disagreed to.
Section 11—The statutory conditions
Group 5 is on the statutory conditions. Amendment 33, in the name of Maureen Macmillan, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 33 seeks to ensure that a crofter who neglects his or her croft, for example by not draining it or by allowing nettles or whins to grow, will not have that neglect legitimised by section 11. To some people, the provision on refraining from activity for the purpose of conserving natural beauty could be a licence to do nothing with a croft, which would lead to its becoming degraded. Amendment 33 would add the qualification that, to use that provision, the crofter would have to be acting, or refraining from acting, on the advice of a conservation body. At the very least, I seek assurance from the minister that the sly or the cynical will not be able to use section 11 to circumvent a charge of neglect.
I move amendment 33.
I am sympathetic to Maureen Macmillan's point in amendment 33, but we must consider what would happen in the situation that she described. If steps were taken to remove a crofter for breach of the statutory conditions under section 5 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, the crofter could respond to the challenge by arguing that he or she was using the croft to conserve the natural beauty of the locality of the croft, or the flora and fauna of that locality. That opportunity will be afforded to crofters by virtue of an amendment to the 1993 act under section 11 of the bill. To support that assertion, the crofter would need to persuade the Scottish Land Court that the purpose of engaging in certain activity—or, as Maureen Macmillan said, of refraining from activity—on the croft was to conserve the natural beauty of the locality, or the flora and fauna. The crofter would need to support that assertion with evidence, such as a demonstration that he or she was participating in a formal conservation programme or had agreed conservation measures as part of a land management contract, or proof that they had taken advice on conservation measures on the croft. The same situation will apply when a complaint is made to the Crofters Commission under proposed new section 5A of the 1993 act about breach of statutory conditions.
Therefore, it will not be possible for the sly or the sleekit—I cannot remember the exact phrase that Maureen Macmillan used, but it was something similar to that—to squeeze through a loophole in the provisions in the 1993 act and the bill. I invite Maureen Macmillan to seek to withdraw amendment 33. If she does not, I invite Parliament to resist it.
I thank the minister for those assurances. It is important to have them on the record so that people know exactly what section 11 means, and that they cannot get away with doing nothing and then pleading that they were carrying out nature conservation. I seek leave to withdraw amendment 33.
Amendment 33, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 14—Division of croft
Amendment 6 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 17—Bequest of tenancy of croft
Amendment 44 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
After section 17
Group 6 is on consideration payable in respect of the acquisition of croft land. Amendment 34, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is the only amendment in the group.
Agreement to amendment 34 would result in an extremely important amendment to the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, so I urge all members to support it, again in the interests of fair play and equity. The 1993 act replicates provisions in the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 that introduced a clawback measure in relation to the exercise of a crofter's right to buy croft land. The intention was that if a crofter who had exercised the right to buy then sold the croft within five years, the uplift in value would be shared with the landlord. That was equitable, given that the intention was that the crofter or his family would be able to buy croft land to continue working it as a croft and that, in recognition of that, a nominal sum was payable to the landlord.
The legislation also entitled the crofter, when exercising his right to buy, to have a nominee take title rather than himself. The parliamentary intention, which is clear from the Hansard reports from when the proposals were considered, was that the nominee was expected usually to be a family member and that no money would pass between the crofter and his nominee. Rather, the provision was a way of enabling the next generation to take over a croft without having to pay the clawback. It is therefore regrettable that, since that time, the legislation has been abused by some who have seen fit to use the nominee provision to effect a sub-sale, generally to a developer and for an extremely generous profit, while avoiding the clawback provisions. Such practice is totally contrary to the preservation of traditional crofting in the crofting counties and has helped to fuel the speculation in croft land, which is a great concern today.
The practice has also created a hugely inequitable situation for landowners, as their property can be removed involuntarily at hugely discounted prices only for them to see it lost to developers without proper compensation. Amendment 34 would go some way finally to resolving that unfair anomaly by closing the loophole by which a nominee other than a family member can avoid the clawback procedures.
I have pleasure in moving amendment 34.
Parliament should know that Ted Brocklebank's proposed amendment to the clawback procedure would change the way in which the 1976 act was altered by a judgment in a court case that is known as the Kinlochewe judgment. The altruism of the people who made that case and won it allowed an old couple to get a house on a croft without having to pay the landlord the share that was required under the 1976 act. The wording of the act was challenged in court and was found to be defective. Fortunately, the landlord, who had evicted the old couple from a tied house, was not compensated for the house that was built for them on the croft of my friends, as they had nowhere to go. They would have spent the rest of their lives looking for somewhere to live in their area unless someone had come up with a home.
The procedure has worked in altruistic ways. Crofters told the Environment and Rural Development Committee in evidence that they do not want the legislation on that matter to be altered and that they do not think that it is at the root of the commercialisation of crofts. Ted Brocklebank's amendment 34 is an attempt to turn the clock back to the bad old days before the Kinlochewe judgment, so I urge Parliament to reject it.
The matter is simple: no matter how Ted Brocklebank dresses up amendment 34, it actually tries to fetter the rights of individual crofters to determine and decide their personal affairs and instead have someone else dictate to them how they should arrange those affairs. As Rob Gibson said, amendment 34 would turn the clock back a long way, so I invite Parliament to resist it.
I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the minister or to Rob Gibson and the SNP that I reject their arguments totally. I believe that we are seeing a process that will result in inequality in the relationship between landholders and crofters. I will press amendment 34.
The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 16, Against 87, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 34 disagreed to.
Section 20—Transfer of tenancy of croft by executor: special provision relating to the 1993 Act
Amendment 45 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 24—Reorganisation schemes
Amendments 46 and 47 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 27—Decrofting
Amendments 48 and 49 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 30—Use of common grazing
Group 7 is on the use of common grazing for other purposes. Amendment 35, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is grouped with amendments 7 to 11, 36 and 37.
I very much welcome amendment 7, in the name of the minister, which will introduce a right of objection. Amendment 7 echoes an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I am glad that the minister has seen the logic of including such a provision in the bill. However, further redrafting is necessary to ensure that the bill will in no way damage harmonious relations between crofters and landlords, and that it treats all parties fairly.
Amendment 35 seeks to ensure that the views of the owner will be properly heard and considered. Amendment 37 and the consequential amendment 36 go slightly further and will simply ensure that an owner is compensated for any work that has been carried out on their land between the time when a decision was approved and when it was subsequently varied or withdrawn. The amendments will in no way prevent reasonable alternative uses of common grazings, but they will be crucial to furthering on-going co-operation between landowners and crofters on a fair and equitable basis. The undermining of that co-operation would be detrimental in the extreme.
I move amendment 35.
As Ted Brocklebank suggests, ministers agreed—in response to amendments that were lodged and withdrawn by Ted Brocklebank at stage 2—that the Executive would look again at the provisions in section 30 and lodge amendments to clarify the right to object to proposals for new uses of common grazings.
Amendments 7 to 11, taken together, will create a comprehensive right to object—the same right that applies to other regulatory decisions that are taken by the Crofters Commission. That right is available to the landlord, the crofters and the members of the crofting community. In our view, amendment 35, which is intended to create a right to object for the landlord, is superseded by amendments 7 to 11.
Amendment 36 is consequential on amendment 37. Amendment 37 reflects concerns that a new use for grazings might come to an end, requiring work to restore them to their previous use, or that grazings could be permanently changed and lose value as a consequence.
Amendment 37 is the same as one that was withdrawn at stage 2. It is founded on two misconceptions. The first is that the alternative use would be by one individual. However, that is not the case. Proposed new section 50B of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is intended to allow for alternative use by all those who hold grazings shares, either collectively or individually. The second misconception is that new section 50B would allow development on grazings and that it would be possible to start such development but then not finish it, leaving the owner with loss of value or remediation costs.
During our stage 2 debates, Rhona Brankin explained why new uses of common grazings would be unlikely to involve physical development and why, if they did, the fears that underlie Ted Brocklebank's amendments would not materialise. Rhona Brankin explained that the owner's right to resume use of the land would remain. That would make it difficult to borrow to finance development because, if the owner resumed use of the land, the price that would be payable on resumption might amount to no more than half the development value.
Rhona Brankin also said that, in the event of a physical development's being proposed, planning controls should deal with restoration and remediation issues. New section 50B(9) of the 1993 act will allow the Crofters Commission to set conditions to require restoration where an approved new use ceases.
In addition, I stress that new section 50B(2) of the 1993 act will provide that a new use must not be detrimental to the interests of the owner. A use that could result in a loss of value or a need for remediation at the owner's expense would clearly be detrimental and could not be permitted.
I invite Parliament to reject amendments 35 to 37, and to support amendments 7 to 11.
I am grateful to the minister for her further explanation. I will certainly take what she has said into account and I will not seek to press amendment 35.
Amendment 35, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 7 to 11 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Amendments 36 and 37 not moved.
Section 31—New common grazing
Amendment 50 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
After section 34
Amendment 40 moved—[John Farquhar Munro].
The question is, that amendment 40, in the name of John Farquhar Munro, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 44, Against 58, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 40 disagreed to.
Section 35—Crofting community right to buy
Group 8 is on crofting community right to buy. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 41, 13 to 16 and 19 to 25.
Amendments 12 to 14, 16, 19 and 22 to 25 are relatively minor adjustments to the substantial package of complicated amendments to section 35 that were agreed to at stage 2. They are required in order fully to deliver the policy—namely, that the crofting community body will be able to acquire tenants' interests in leases, but only the part of the lease that coincides with the croft land and not any portion of the lease that extends beyond the croft land.
The amendments provide for amendment to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to cover the situation in which the crofting community body is acquiring a tenancy that has been created partially over eligible croft land and partially over other land. Only the interest in the eligible croft land can be acquired. If there is a sublease, the tenant—being the landlord under that sublease—who has been bought out will remain as landlord in respect of the non-eligible land, and the crofting community body will become the landlord in respect of the eligible land.
Proposed new section 88A of the 2003 act provides for the allocation by a valuer of the rights and obligations under the sublease between the two landlords. The principal obligation will be the rent. The valuer's determination can be appealed to the Scottish Land Court. As part of that package, the term "the interest of the tenant" will replace references to "the real right of the tenant", which will ensure that all relevant leases and not just those that are recorded in the register of sasines or registered in the land register of Scotland will be subject to the provisions. The reference had to be changed in a significant number of places in the bill, but in the reprint of the bill after stage 2 one reference was inadvertently omitted. Amendment 20 is therefore necessary to ensure consistent terminology throughout the bill.
Amendment 21 was lodged to avoid possible ambiguity, because the words "within 6 weeks of" in paragraph 4(6) of schedule 2 could mean six weeks before as well as six weeks after the consent date.
Amendment 15 is a technical drafting amendment that will ensure that the same references are used throughout section 35.
Amendment 41, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, would require a crofting community body that was seeking to acquire an interposed lease to prove that the lease had been devised deliberately to obstruct acquisition by the crofting community body. It would be nearly impossible to prove the intent behind the interposed lease and an attempt to do so would require extensive and difficult court action. Amendment 41 would undermine the purpose of section 35 and the associated amendments that deal with interposed leases, and would restrict the scope of crofting communities.
I invite Parliament to support amendments 12 to 16 and 19 to 25 and to reject amendment 41.
I move amendment 12.
My fellow members of the Environment and Rural Development Committee might recall that at stage 2 I lodged an amendment that would have had an effect similar to that of amendment 41. At that time, the minister dismissed my concerns—as he has done today—and claimed that it would be too difficult to prove the intent behind an interposed lease. I did not press my amendment at stage 2 and, although I have considered what the minister said, I am not convinced by his logic.
The fact remains that section 35 could have unintended consequences in that the crofting community body would be able to apply to acquire any leasehold interest, whatever the reason for its existence. Such a provision is dangerously broad. I remind the minister that many lease arrangements exist for perfectly valid reasons. Furthermore, in cases in which crofters' opinions were split over a proposed development on the land, it is conceivable that crofters who wanted to frustrate the development could use the powers to acquire the land and the leasehold interest, thereby preventing the development from taking place.
I fear that developers will not be prepared to make significant investment if a crofting community has the discretion to buy out a tenant's interest in a commercial lease of croft land, because that would create serious uncertainties. It would simply not be worth the risk of investing in a development only to be bought out at a later date.
Amendment 41 would ensure that only leases that were created to frustrate land reform would be affected. It might not always be easy to confirm that the creation of a lease had such a purpose, but that is no reason for accepting the hasty drafting in section 35. Amendment 41 would achieve the desired effect of section 35 but would eliminate the dangers that are inherent in the section as it is drafted.
Do you want to add anything, minister?
I have nothing further to add.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 41 moved—[Mr Ted Brocklebank].
The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 86, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 41 disagreed to.
Amendments 13 to 16 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 37—Appeal to Land Court and jurisdiction of that court
Group 9 is on references to the Scottish Land Court by the commission. Amendment 17, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
I will be brief, because amendment 17 is relatively straightforward. The Scottish Land Court has a general power under section 53(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 to determine questions of fact or law that arise under that act, on a reference to it by the commission or an interested party. Examples of such questions are whether a holding is a croft or what the boundaries of a croft are. Such questions of fact or law might also arise in the context of an application to the commission under the 1993 act and therefore the Land Court's general jurisdiction must be excluded in that context in order to avoid a conflict of jurisdictions. However, the commission still requires the ability to refer voluntarily to the Land Court preliminary questions of fact or law that are related to an application that is before the commission. Amendment 17 will provide for that and I invite the Parliament to support it.
I move amendment 17.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Section 41—"Crofting community"
Group 10 is on the definition of "crofting community". Amendment 18, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
The deletion of "and is" in the definition of "crofting community" in section 41 is a response to concerns about the clarity of the definition. Amendment 18 makes it clear that it is the two or more crofts that are registered with the Crofters Commission and not the township. There is no legislative requirement to register townships. I invite Parliament to support the amendment.
I move amendment 18.
I thank the minister for amendment 18, which will remove ambiguity from the definition of "crofting community". Will he confirm that two or more crofts that are in close geographical proximity constitute a township, given that the application of a more formal definition of a crofting community seems to have been at the root of the Taynuilt decision?
We seek to make that quite clear by deleting the words "and is". Crofts must register with the Crofters Commission, so the definition refers to two or more crofts that are registered—the township is not registered. We believe that the deletion will remove an anomaly in the interpretation of the definition and that it will provide clarity. Amendment 18 is a response to concerns that were expressed, in particular by Lord McGhie, the chairman of the Scottish Land Court, and by the Scottish Crofting Foundation. I must try to assure Maureen Macmillan that amendment 18 will make the position clear and that it will deal with the issues that were raised by the foundation, and with Lord McGhie's advice on the definition.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Schedule 2
Minor and consequential amendments
Group 11 is on the Crofters Commission's chairman. Amendment 1, in the name of Rob Gibson, is grouped with amendments 38, 38A and 2. I will put the question on the amendment to amendment 38 before I put the question on amendment 38.
During stage 2, the Environment and Rural Development Committee thought that the opportunity should have been taken to modernise crofting legislation by making the bill gender neutral. Indeed, the committee's chief poacher, who has turned deputy gamekeeper, was vehement that the language should be altered. I want to help that process by suggesting that the chair of the Crofters Commission should become its convener, to use a good Scots word. That would be the effect of amendment 1.
Turning to the complexity of the bill's wording on page 61, we cannot find the bit to which amendment 38 relates without referring back. I note that the chief gamekeeper wants to use the word "chairing", whereas "convening" would be more consistent. I look forward with interest to the response of the gamekeeper or deputy gamekeeper on that point.
I move amendment 1.
I warmly welcome the intention behind Rob Gibson's amendments. As he noted, I have been a strong supporter of clear and gender-neutral legislation—indeed, I have supported it for years. I am delighted to repeat to the Parliament the commitment that Ross Finnie gave to the Environment and Rural Development Committee: at the next opportunity, when we review crofting legislation, it will be not just modernised but made gender neutral. [Interruption.] SNP members seem to be having some fun with that, but I point out that Rob Gibson, in moving his amendment 1, exemplifies the difficulties. When lodging a well-intentioned amendment, it is incredibly difficult to avoid unintended consequences elsewhere in the bill. That is why a thorough review will be needed.
The two passages that Rob Gibson seeks to amend do not refer to the same individual. Amendment 1 refers to the title of a particular office, whereas amendment 2 refers to the function of a person—who may or may not be the commission's chair—at a meeting. Changing the expression to "convener" in both places could cause confusion.
Although I am extremely happy to support amendment 1, I urge Parliament to resist Amendment 2. Amendment 38, in the name of Ross Finnie, will have the same effect as Amendment 2, but it will not risk causing the same confusion that I spoke about earlier—Rob Gibson himself appeared to cause some confusion. Amendment 38A is unnecessary.
I appreciate what Rob Gibson is trying to do and I support his amendment 1. For the reasons that I have given—and in the spirit of harmony and of trying to take us forward—I invite Parliament to support amendments 1 and 38. I ask Rob to consider the comments that I have made and not to move amendments 2 and 38A. If he does seek Parliament's support for those amendments, I urge members to resist them.
I support the intention behind Rob Gibson's amendments. As an ex-English teacher, when I looked at amendment 38A I realised that we could not substitute "convening" for "chairing" and retain the same meaning. I will therefore not support that amendment.
I am glad to hear that we will have a chance to modernise the bill totally "at the next opportunity". As it has been more than 10 years since the last crofting legislation, people will wonder how soon that might be. It would be a good thing if the Crofters Commission's next chair or chairman instead became the convener. I am delighted that the minister is prepared to accept amendment 1. In the spirit of optimism and co-operation, I am happy to concede on amendments 38A and 2.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 97, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 38 moved—[Ross Finnie].
Amendment 38A not moved.
Amendment 38 agreed to.
Amendment 2 not moved.
Amendments 19 to 25 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.