Crofting Reform etc Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5335, in the name of Ross Finnie, that the Parliament agrees that the Crofting Reform etc Bill be passed.
I will deal with the formal part first. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crofting Reform etc Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
At the start of this session, the partnership committed itself to bringing forward a crofting reform bill as a continuation of the established commitment to a programme of significant land reform measures. In an extensive and complex reform agenda, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 took priority. The reform of crofting legislation was always—including during scrutiny of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill—a key element of the whole process, and the Crofting Reform etc Bill is the final step of that process. Having said that, a further process is now in hand.
I am extremely proud that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 has had such a profound effect on the fortunes, futures and confidence of so many crofting communities. Only two weeks ago, yet another crofting community announced that agreement had been reached to acquire its crofting estate—the Galson estate. In a few short years, the 2003 act has liberated and inspired crofting communities. Renewable energy has been a catalyst in some cases, but it is the 2003 act that has made it possible for those communities to benefit from all forms of renewable energy, and that has built the prospect of a sustainable future.
The Crofting Reform etc Bill was introduced to promote even more sustainable crofting communities, more local involvement in crofting administration, simplified crofting regulation and more active crofters by giving crofters greater scope to diversify their activities. In some ways, it is fortuitous that the Crofting Reform etc Bill has followed the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, as we have been able to address in the bill the threats that are posed to crofting community estate buyouts by interposed leases. Those leases, which attempt to frustrate crofting communities' attempts to buy development rights, have emerged as an issue only since the passage of the 2003 act. We will significantly amend that act as a result of stage 2 amendments to the Crofting Reform etc Bill.
Since 2001, the Crofters Commission, in its development role, has demonstrated in Jura, Islay, Colonsay, Eigg and Ardnamurchan that creating new crofts through the reorganisation of croft land can play a vital role in developing remote communities and bolstering populations. That work has reinforced our conviction that the bill's provisions on new crofts can contribute to rural development both in the Highlands and Islands and in other areas of Scotland, such as Arran.
The Environment and Rural Development Committee published a comprehensive report on the bill at stage 1, which identified some issues that it thought needed further consideration before the bill could go forward, in particular the role and constitution of the Crofters Commission. The Executive, recognising the strength of feeling on issues surrounding the Crofters Commission, withdrew the sections of the bill relating to the role and constitution of the Crofters Commission and gave a commitment to establish a committee of inquiry on crofting to consider the commission's role as well as the wider issues around market forces and crofting's role in rural development.
That committee of inquiry has been established under the chairmanship of Professor Mark Shucksmith, a well-known and respected academic whose work as co-director of the Arkleton centre for rural development research at the University of Aberdeen will be known to many people in the crofting counties. The committee of inquiry will commence its business in earnest in the next few weeks, and it is expected to report by the end of 2007. I look forward to reading its conclusions.
Can the minister clarify a matter in the interests of the staff who work for the Crofters Commission? Originally, the bill proposed that the commission should become a quango, which would mean that the staff would lose the civil service status that they treasure and do not wish to lose. Will the issue of whether the civil servants would lose their status be considered by the committee of inquiry?
As always, I am reluctant to anticipate the conclusions of an independent inquiry. Obviously, there will be no change unless the matter comes before Parliament. The proposal was contained in the bill, and I respect the position that Mr Ewing has consistently maintained on it.
If the committee of inquiry came up with a radical way in which the Crofters Commission should be run, if evidence was led that the vast majority of those in the crofting counties were in favour of it, and if it would result in a change of structure such that the status of the civil servants would be changed, we would have to consider it. Inevitably, any change in the status of the Crofters Commission could involve that prospect. However, we are not seeking to give an instruction to bring that about. The matter will emerge only from the evidence that is taken by that committee, which will soon commence its work in earnest and will report by the end of 2007.
Following stage 2, we now have a bill that commands a high degree of support. When the bill is enacted, it will be possible to register new croft tenants at any time of year and not just twice a year, at Whitsun and Martinmas. That will allow new crofters to get started on bringing neglected crofts back into use or allow them to start building new croft houses for their families when it suits them rather than up to six months after an assignation has been approved, as happens under current legislation.
In future, if crofters are in dispute with each other over croft boundaries and the Land Court is asked to determine the boundaries but finds that the evidence is inconclusive, the court will be able to take a pragmatic view and declare the boundary to be that which it considers appropriate. The intractable and endless disputes that we currently see between crofters over boundaries should, therefore, be avoidable.
If a crofter should wish to subdivide his or her croft to enable the parts to be assigned to sons or daughters who wish to establish themselves in their community, the landlord will no longer be able to prevent that subdivision.
There are many significant and valuable changes in the bill that will improve the operation of the law in relation to crofting. Crofting legislation will always be complex and what crofters need from legislation will continue to change over time. Rob Gibson has referred to the length of time in terms of modernising the situation. However, as I said to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, there is a need for some consolidation. I am sure that Rob Gibson agrees that there is a need for consistency across the large number of pieces of legislation if we are to bring about the necessary changes.
I hope that the bill will be good for crofters and the crofting counties and that the work of the committee of inquiry will further improve that position. This important bill represents a major step forward. I commend it to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Crofting Reform etc. Bill be passed.
The Scottish National Party welcomes the final stage of the bill. The bill is equitable and achieves fairly small administrative changes that benefit crofters. Importantly, it makes a clear statement that it is possible to create new crofts, which we all agree is welcome.
The process has taken 10 years and, as the minister has just indicated, we have come a short way down a long road towards a consolidating bill. We need to find ways to speed up the process. I hope that we will be able to do that.
It is impossible to consider crofting seriously without considering the fabric of life in the crofting counties—that has been the SNP's policy for the past 30 years. That is why the crofting inquiry that will be undertaken later this year has a huge task in agreeing new priorities that have been raised during the consideration of the bill but which the bill was not designed to deliver.
Crofters face a gaggle of acronyms when trying to get support. However, the rural support scheme, the less favoured area support scheme, the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme—the RSS, the LFASS and the CCAGS—and the bull hire scheme are rather underfunded and, it is feared, begrudged. That is not the European Union's fault. If Scotland had full fiscal powers, it could invest in crofting as a nature-friendly element in a buoyant, sustainable economy in the Highlands and Islands. In the meantime, however, if we are to succeed, our ministers with responsibility for transport, enterprise, agriculture and health must all get in harness. If they do not, home production from crofts and public health will suffer.
It is important that we try to stem depopulation. The key question that must be asked in relation to the bill is whether it will stop further depopulation in areas that have great potential.
Speaking to the Environment and Rural Development Committee on behalf of active crofters, John MacKintosh, the former president of the Scottish Crofters Union, said:
"I think that the reason why you get dereliction of crofts is that there is a complete and utter lack of realistic support for crofting and what crofting is about. Until we get that ... fewer and fewer people will work those crofts ... There are quite a few crofts that make a loss, so the crofter is left with one option, which is to start looking at the market and thinking of getting out."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 14 June 2006; c 3349-3350.]
That view is widely held, and we must be able to dispel it. If the bill can help that to happen, so much the better.
Crofts are small pieces of land surrounded by large amounts of legislation. However, bureaucracy must not be allowed to strangle initiative. We need to restore the ability, the power, the will and the resources to rebuild our economic and social life across the crofting areas. Crofting needs young, new entrants and must try to use the experience that has been built up by small farmers organisations in Europe. If that mood is about, I am glad that this bill will be passed. The UHI Millennium Institute, broadband for all and croft-run renewable energy investment can all help us to turn the corner. Lessons from Norwegian communities show that small farms and crofts can earn huge electricity revenues to invest in local needs. However, that needs to be in the hands of the crofters.
The SNP has consistently supported land and seabed reform and crofting community buyouts. We want the role of the new crofting landlords to be examined carefully, because it is quite different from the role of the old private landlords. Ted Brocklebank's amendments touched on that matter, and I am glad to say that they were unsuccessful.
We welcome new crofts and forest crofts and ways in which small landholders can be welcomed into crofting tenure in places such as Arran. Those will be achieved, at last, by the bill.
The reforms have to tackle the lack of affordable housing that is
"the great Highland scandal of modern times",
as James Hunter writes in the brochure for the exhibition "Fonn 's Duthcas: Land and Legacy". Crofting can provide land for house building. I am sorry that we did not pass John Farquhar Munro's amendments this morning, as they would have emphasised the role of common grazings in achieving that.
Crofting underpins Gaelic and Norse cultures, whose confidence can play a vital part in reversing depopulation to retain and attract working families. If we can do that, we can integrate the north into the mainstream of Scotland's social, educational, agricultural and industrial life, with the help of ferry, rail and road links that are fit for this climate-change age. If crofting communities are to succeed, that has to happen. The bill has a small part to play in that.
The crofting communities have a big role to play in a sustainable future for our remarkable land. The bill, which has been too long in the making, is but an early instalment, but the SNP is, nevertheless, happy to support its passage.
Members will be aware that the Conservatives opposed the bill at stage 1. We agreed with the Environment and Rural Development Committee's fairly devastating report that the original bill did not address the core problems facing crofting, including the role of the Crofters Commission and issues surrounding the market in crofts.
Although we welcomed the Executive's decision to disembowel the original bill, we would have preferred a totally new bill. We welcome the decision to set up an inquiry into the key aspects of crofting legislation, and we recognise that today's bill is far from the last word on crofting, which it was originally intended to be. What a pity that the inquiry was not held prior to the bill's introduction.
We sought to improve what was left of the bill at stage 2. We are pleased that the Executive listened to our concerns on a right of objection for landlords on the use of common grazings for other purposes, and today we were glad to support amendment 7, in the name of Ross Finnie, which seemed to bear an uncanny resemblance to an amendment that I lodged but did not move at stage 2.
A number of concerns remained, which is why I lodged amendments for today. There is little point in refighting earlier arguments, but I genuinely believe that, had our concerns been accepted on section 10—we sought to restrict the right to buy to only the house and garden of crofts that are created from small landholdings—that would have gone some way to helping to prevent further destabilisation of the let land market. Perhaps even more important was my amendment to close the loophole that allows nominees other than family members to avoid the clawback procedure. Had the minister taken on board those legitimate points, we would seriously have considered supporting what is left of the bill.
We have fundamental problems with extending crofting outwith the seven counties unless the absolute right to buy is suspended in those areas. If that is not done, the current problems will merely be exacerbated. Also, I am concerned that the Executive simply has no idea of the financial commitment that it might be taking on by extending crofting. Indeed, we have that on record. In a written answer to a question that I submitted, Ross Finnie stated:
"The Scottish Executive does not hold information on which to base any estimate"—[Official Report, Written Answers, 30 November 2006; S2W-30089.]
of how many small landholders outside the crofting counties will qualify for crofting status under the bill.
Once again, as has become the pattern with the bill, when a key question is asked, official clarification comes there none. It is simply not good enough—and existing crofters do not believe that it is good enough—to introduce legislation to extend crofting when we have no idea how much it will cost or whether funding for existing crofters will be affected by the introduction of new crofts.
Conservatives have nothing to be ashamed of in their support for crofting over the years. There was some good-natured heckling—I took it to be good natured—when I sought to achieve a level playing field for landholders and crofters with today's amendments. As Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth and Ian Lang both introduced legislation that has greatly benefited crofters in recent times. Indeed, contrary to what my friend and that well-known historian the minister's Lib Dem colleague Jamie Stone claimed at the end of the stage 1 debate, Conservatives did not vote against the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886. The key division took place on 10 May 1886, and the House of Commons divided 219 in favour with 52 against. The Conservatives, including Balfour, Richard Cross, Henry Fowler and other prominent landowners, all voted in favour of reform.
Scottish Conservatives believe that the rump of the original bill has been improved since it was introduced, but following today's stage 3 it remains essentially flawed, and certainly incomplete. We look forward to the crofting inquiry report later this year, and we anticipate supporting a comprehensively amended and inclusive crofting bill that takes on board the concerns of crofters and landowners alike. We hope that that bill will be introduced early in the new Executive's legislative programme. The Crofting Reform etc Bill is not that bill and, accordingly, today the Conservatives will abstain.
It is good to see the Crofting Reform etc Bill completing its passage through the Parliament.
It is important that we have legislation that is fit for purpose, and the minister, the former deputy minister, the present deputy minister in her former role as convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, the committee itself and the Parliament have worked hard to ensure that crofting communities will be sustained, neglect will be dealt with and new crofts will be created. The bill is still a substantial bill that will deliver substantial benefits.
The Labour Party has always argued that crofting is not a purely commercial enterprise but is about communities; that crofting should in no way be driven by market forces to the detriment of the crofting communities; that the Crofters Commission should do its duty; and that we must make crofting affordable and available to new young entrants, hundreds of whom are waiting for their chance to rent a croft.
It is important that we address the neglect of crofts, which the tighter rules in the bill should do. It will not prove comfortable for absentees or others who do not keep their land in good heart—"use it or lose it to someone who is prepared to work the croft" must now be the key phrase.
The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department has a responsibility, too. Crofting support schemes must be adequate to deal with the challenges of remoteness, poor land and harsh weather conditions, otherwise, as Rob Gibson said, land will perforce be neglected through lack of resources. SEERAD should be proactive in ensuring that those who qualify for grants are encouraged to take them up. I am particularly concerned to ensure that elderly crofters who are not used to filling in new forms are not penalised for making genuine mistakes in their application forms for grants, which could result in them losing money. SEERAD needs to be more helpful in that respect.
I do not exaggerate when I say that these are exciting times for the crofting counties and crofting communities. We are seeing history being made thanks to our land reform legislation, of which the bill is part. We see crofting community buyouts, the establishment of trusts, the huge potential for regenerating communities and the sustainability that can come from renewable energy projects, which are now supported by the bill's provisions on interposed leases. We see, too, the possibility of diversification into woodland crofts, perhaps to supply community biomass, or into vegetable growing, to supply local schools, hotels and local authority canteens, as demand grows for home-produced food.
There is still unfinished business. The committee of inquiry has been set up to examine the role of the Crofters Commission, in particular its structure and status and the way in which it uses its regulatory powers. That will be painful for the commission, but it is necessary. The process will be like removing a sticking plaster from a cut to let the fresh air heal it or stripping layers of wallpaper to repair the wear-and-tear cracks in the plaster in preparation for a perfect coat of paint—well, we hope so anyway.
The inquiry also needs to deal with the regulation of owner-occupiers, so that owner-occupier neglect can be dealt with. We must find robust ways of preventing croft houses and croft land from becoming the developer's dream or holiday hideaway.
I welcome the appointment of Mark Shucksmith as chair of the committee of inquiry. That was a brilliant stroke, considering his expertise in rural housing and other rural issues. Moves are already being made to bring the commission into the planning consultation process, which I hope should mean no more Taynuilts.
It remains for me to urge ministers not to let bad decisions be made between now and the implementation of the inquiry's findings and, in closing, to thank the committee clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre researchers, who supported us so well.
I support the bill.
Crofting tenure has sustained rural communities in the crofting counties since the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 was passed and the legal concept of a croft has developed through several reforms since then, but there has been widespread consensus in recent years that further reform is needed to ensure that crofting tenure continues to sustain crofting in the face of modern pressures on the system.
The Scottish Liberal Democrat manifesto in 2003 made a commitment to implement a crofting reform bill while supporting the retention of a grants scheme for crofting counties. We accepted that action was essential to re-establish a firm foundation for crofting that would help to sustain and enhance the population of rural Scotland, to improve economic viability and to safeguard our physical landscape and biodiversity and, as Rob Gibson said, our cultural landscape and diversity.
The bill's passage has highlighted the difficulties of meeting the aspirations of a widely diverse crofting community, but the situation has moved forward with the crofting community, Parliament and the Executive working together. I thank all the people who engaged with the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the Executive on a complex series of issues.
The Executive responded to concerns about aspects of the bill and dropped some provisions. A committee of inquiry will tackle issues that include the market for crofts and the Crofters Commission's status, role and functioning. A substantial bill is left and it contains measures that are widely supported and welcomed. The bill will allow the creation of new crofts, clarify and extend crofters' rights to use their land, facilitate renewable energy development on croft land, simplify regulation, give extended rights to appeal decisions of the Crofters Commission and modernise conditions of tenure.
The bill provides a mechanism to allow new crofts to be created outwith the crofting counties, which has been widely welcomed on Arran in particular and which may deliver substantial benefits in other parts of Scotland. I wait with interest to see how the new ability will be developed. Crofting community bodies will be able to purchase tenants' rights in leases over the land that they have bought or are buying under part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.
It has not always been acknowledged that a lot of work, thought and consultation was undertaken before the bill's introduction. A lot of work has been done during the bill's passage and the bill achieves much, despite the Tories' carping comments. More remains to be done and we have established the mechanism to take that forward.
In the meantime, we can welcome the bill. We can welcome what it has achieved and consolidated and what it will do to support crofting in a modern environment. We look forward to the committee of inquiry dotting the i's and crossing the t's on some issues that have been rightly postponed. In the main, the bill is a good piece of work that should be welcomed and supported.
A week last Friday, I attended the celebrations in the community of Ness when Galson estate, which covers some 54,000 acres and includes some 20 townships, moved from private hands to community ownership. That truly was a great day—the culmination of many hours and days of hard work by the trustees.
It was also the culmination of a struggle and political agitation that straddled three centuries. The first time that the words "land reform" appeared in what we call today a manifesto was when Keir Hardie penned his list of desired legislative and social change for the United Kingdom at the end of the 19th century. Through the decades since, Highland socialists have kept the flag flying for land reform when it was not a fashionable cause to embrace.
If we fast forward to the latter end of the 20th century, it was with the election of a Labour Government in 1997 that an age-old aspiration became a legislative reality. In my constituency today, some 70 per cent of the Western Isles population live on community-owned estates and some 40 per cent of the Western Isles landmass is in community ownership. It is worth remembering that politics ensured that people and communities consigned the dead hand of landlordism to history.
In recent years, I have had the privilege of attending the first and subsequent meetings in four communities in my constituency at which people have gathered to discuss the possibility of buying their land. Thankfully, three of those communities' areas are now in community ownership—North Harris; South Uist, where the position was finalised at the end of last year; and, as the minister mentioned in his speech, Galson, where the situation was finalised 12 days ago. I hope that Pairc in the district of Lochs will join the ever-expanding family of community-owned estates.
The intention following the passing of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 was to complement land reform legislation with appropriate reform of crofting legislation. As we know, crofting is a regulated form of tenure. One deficiency of the existing regulation system is that the regulator—the Crofters Commission—has failed to intervene. Over the years, it has allowed the marketisation of crofts to continue unabated.
One of the clear and straightforward issues that witness after witness presented in community after community that the committee visited at stage 1 was the concern throughout the crofting communities that land that should be subject to proper regulation was and is being bought and sold as if it were freehold. To its credit, the Scottish Executive recognised the weaknesses in its first draft. That took some time, but at least we got there. It is right that the bill was subjected to major surgery.
What we are passing makes eminent sense. The minister, Nora Radcliffe and Maureen Macmillan have listed the issues that will be properly addressed. For example, creating new crofts but not giving people who will have tenancy of those crofts the right to buy them is laudable, particularly in the island of Arran, where we are righting an historic wrong. It is also encouraging that ministers will—if they have not already done so—direct the Crofters Commission and urge it to get on with exercising its existing responsibilities and rights to regulate the sale of crofts.
I am delighted to support the bill in the sure and certain knowledge that a committee of inquiry is being established. As Maureen Macmillan said, Professor Mark Shucksmith will chair that committee. He comes with an excellent pedigree as he was the adviser to the Justice 2 Committee when it considered the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. The committee of inquiry will engage with those of us who live in the crofting communities and crofting counties and will present properly constructed proposals to a subsequent Parliament.
Rob Gibson—the dear fellow—wittered on and claimed to be an expert on matters crofting. It is interesting to note that he has yet to attend one meeting in the Western Isles at which communities have set about putting in place historic changes. It is also worth noting that he never fails to issue a press release on the day when a community celebrates. He does so with great expertise and oozes vomitgenic bilge as is his wont.
It is worth recording that the Environment and Rural Development Committee's stage 1 report led to major changes of emphasis in the Crofting Reform etc Bill. That is a credit to the committee's former convener, who will literally have the last word on the bill. I am delighted to support the bill.
I ask members please to ensure that their mobile phones are off.
I add my thanks to everybody who has been involved in the bill—the committee clerks, people from the Scottish Parliament information centre and the people from the crofting community who engaged with the committee. During consideration of the bill, the cross-party group on crofting met frequently and had the bill as a permanent agenda item.
This is an occasion when the stage 3 debate is different from the stage 1 debate, because we were quite critical of the bill at stage 1. Some criticisms were justified—of the bill, of the process and perhaps of the people who drafted the bill as introduced. The bill provides an example of the parliamentary process working. The committee considered the bill and produced its stage 1 report, which the Executive, to its credit, took on board. I give an honourable mention to the former deputy minister, Rhona Brankin, who engaged realistically and genuinely and sometimes with great courage with the crofting interests and with the cross-party group on crofting and the committee. She took on board what was said and that should be acknowledged.
As has been said, the process resulted in the removal of many controversial bits of the bill, such as those which related to the Crofters Commission, which I will not go into. The committee also supported an amendment by Alasdair Morrison to remove a reference to market value. There was some hyperbole at stage 1 about the entrenchment of market value by the bill in its original form. As has been said, the market-value issues are still there. I hope that the bill, as it is about to be passed, will help to dampen them down, perhaps by improving the regulation of crofts and by increasing the supply of crofts.
That brings me to the important provisions that are still in the bill. The creation of new crofts has been mentioned by other members, and I think that it is crucial. There are communities in Shetland and in other parts of Scotland that are keen to grasp the opportunity, so the extension of crofting beyond the crofting counties is important. The opportunities for forest crofts are also crucial. I attended a reception that was held last night by the Forestry Commission Scotland. It is clear that the Forestry Commission is on board with the idea of forest crofts. The Executive has also set up a steering group to consider forest crofts. Applying the crofting ethos to forestry by using forest land as common grazings have been used will create opportunities in rural areas.
Also important is the empowerment of the Crofters Commission to be proactive in cases of neglect. That will perhaps bring some other crofts into the hands of tenants who will work them properly. The Scottish Crofting Foundation has raised the issue of what the Crofters Commission could do under existing legislation. The SCF's concern is that the Crofters Commission has not been using the powers that it already has. I hope that the spotlight that the bill process has turned on the Crofters Commission will stiffen its resolve to use the powers that it currently has and those that have been augmented by the bill to more effect. In the eyes of crofters, those powers have been underused, particularly in dealing with neglect or absentee owners.
I believe that crofting has a future and a huge contribution to make in such areas as local food production, delivering environmental goods in the crofting lands and energy production—to name but a few. Crofting has a great future, and the committee of inquiry will show what it has to offer. As has been said, the bill is not the end of the process. It is clear, from the setting up of the committee of inquiry, that it is not meant to be the end. It is one step in the Parliament's reaffirmation of its support for crofting and its desire that crofting should be able to work better and offer still more to the areas in which it has sustained the communities for so long.
This is an historic day and a debate in which I am delighted to be involved. Even the elements are kind to us today. The sun is shining down on us, so somebody is happy. The crofting community up in Galson, which Alasdair Morrison mentioned, must have switched on the renewable energy. I thank all those who were involved in bringing the Crofting Reform etc Bill to this stage. The bill has had a stormy passage or has travelled a rocky road—whichever metaphor we choose to use—but it has survived and we have a bill that I am sure is going to sustain crofting for many years to come.
The ministers, Ross Finnie and Rhona Brankin, had the unenviable task of introducing what was always going to be a difficult piece of legislation. We did not often agree, but I think that we can agree today that we have reached an equitable compromise. I also thank the Environment and Rural Development Committee, which was ably chaired by Sarah Boyack. She took the committee out into the crofting communities on the periphery to listen to their views and concerns. I thank all those people from the crofting communities who gave evidence to the committee on its travels around the country.
The report that was produced by the committee clerks—I make special mention of Mark Brough—is an excellent document, which has resulted in an acceptable and appropriate bill being presented today. I think that the bill will be welcomed by the crofting communities and I hope that it will sustain their viability for many years to come. I also thank the Scottish Crofting Foundation, especially Patrick Krause and Becky Shaw, as well as all those who came along to the cross-party group on crofting. They all helped us to arrive at where we are today. The assistance that the members of the cross-party group gave me in chairing the group and the evidence that the group received were invaluable.
A major outcome of the introduction of the bill has been the establishment of a committee of inquiry on crofting that is chaired by Professor Mark Shucksmith. The hope is that the inquiry will address all the issues that have been of concern to the crofting counties over many decades. In my view, a positive outcome from the committee of inquiry would be that at least 50 per cent of the board of the Crofters Commission would be democratically elected by the crofting community. That would help to ensure that crofting communities throughout Scotland had far more confidence in the body that is tasked to oversee crofting and the legislation that governs it.
Much of the controversy surrounding the bill was brought to a head by the development of housing sites in a small crofting township at Taynuilt, near Oban. The amendments that I lodged were designed to prevent that type of development, which was destroying good agricultural land. The amendments were designed not to prevent development, but to prevent its using so much good agricultural land, as had happened at Taynuilt. There is an undeniable need for housing in the Highlands but, over the past 20 years, far too much housing has been developed on what was considered good croft arable land. In my view, if local authorities or housing associations are to provide housing, it should be built, as far as possible, on the less desirable common grazings land. Also, if crofters are to be expected to provide land for housing, private landowners with huge estates—of which there are plenty in the Highlands—should also be expected to release some of their vast acreage for new affordable housing.
The bill was fairly contentious in its early stages and had a rocky passage. However, it has survived and will make a worthwhile contribution to a successful crofting sector in the years to come. I commend the bill to the Parliament.
It is sad that John Farquhar Munro's sensible amendments to do with building on the common grazings and not on the arable parts of crofts were knocked back. They were good amendments and it is a shame that they were not agreed to. A great many of the people from the 17,785 crofts in the crofting counties will see the bill as a missed opportunity because it has not enabled a true improvement of the whole crofting set-up. That is because no proper review was undertaken beforehand into the value of crofting to the Scottish economy and to the communities where it takes place.
The well-known former Labour minister and Highland journalist, Brian Wilson, entreated the Executive to
"go listen to the crofters".
He stated in the West Highland Free Press that the Napier commission had done so in the 1880s but that the present Government had not done so and was not doing so, despite the fact that the Scottish Crofting Foundation and the Scottish Crofting Association, which preceded it, continually asked for that type of investigation. The Scottish Crofting Foundation told the committee:
"We have consistently asked for the social and economic benefits that crofting has delivered to be measured—to be quantified and qualified from 1886 to the present day."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 19 April 2006; c 3041.]
That work was never undertaken.
Instead, the bill that was written for the Executive expressed, frankly, an outsider's agenda rather than one that came from the heart of crofting. The first time that the crofters were listened to was when the committee took to the road to the isles. At that point, it was a question of waking up and smelling the heather. By that time, however, it was a bit late. The bill had been written. The cart had been put before the horse. Next time—if the crofters get another go at crofting reform—I hope that whoever is in government gets things the right way round.
In the meantime, I impress upon the minister the importance of ensuring that the many crofting issues that are not dealt with in the bill and that require urgent resolution are not put on the back burner. For example, the bull hire scheme is important to the quality of crofting livestock but, despite a promise of action by the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development during a members' business debate that I secured two years ago, no effective new scheme has been put into place. On top of that, crofters have had to deal with crippling new transport regulations without any replacement so far for support schemes such as the crofting counties development scheme. Like other agricultural schemes such as the countryside premium scheme and the rural stewardship scheme, the CCDS is currently in limbo while we await advice on the future for farming in the Highlands and Islands. Ross Finnie often mentions, very wisely, the need to add value to crofting products to bring value back up the food chain, but what incentives does the Executive provide for local abattoirs and local marketing groups?
Will the SCF be funded to help it to take a leading role in the future crofting inquiry? After all, the SCF represents the crofting industry's most important element, which is the crofters themselves. During the inquiry, the SCF must have the wherewithal and strength to put forward a good case on what is needed in crofting. How will that happen? The inquiry must not simply degenerate into an argument between the Crofting Foundation and the Crofters Commission. The minister must instruct the commission to address now, under existing legislation, the neglect of crofts that has taken place.
I reiterate that the bill as introduced did not address the problems facing crofters. Although what remains contains little with which we disagree, it would have been better to have scrapped the bill to allow a new bill to be introduced after the inquiry.
If we want the crofting system to continue to play a part—as it has done since the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, which was, incidentally, strongly supported by the Tories—in the social and economic fabric of remote communities by linking urban activity in crofting areas to rural and agricultural activity, if we want to ensure that important agricultural skills and knowledge are kept alive and if we want locals to continue to have the opportunity to produce local food, we will continue to need crofting and we will have to treat crofting land as a special asset. We need to pay attention to how crofting can best be used to support the Highlands and Islands economy in the present day. Basically, crofting is the use of a basic agricultural system in a manner that helps social and economic development in communities. It has worked in the past and it can still work in the future.
I, too, thank the Scottish Crofting Foundation for its help and support throughout the bill and pay tribute to the cross-party group on crofting. Of all the cross-party groups in the Parliament, few can have played as significant a role as the one that is chaired by John Farquhar Munro.
I also thank the staff of the Crofters Commission. Due to their position, they were not able to speak out, yet they are the people who deal with crofting issues every day and they possess among them great expertise. They no doubt experienced tensions at some points, but rather than dwell on those I want to look forward. I express gratitude to the former Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin, for taking the decision that Crofters Commission staff will retain their civil service status. That is to be welcomed.
As the minister said, the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry will include looking at the role and function of the Crofters Commission. We accept that. I hope that, as part of its work, Professor Shucksmith's committee will consult in detail the individual Crofters Commission members of staff, who basically keep crofting on the road. I hope that the committee will go out of its way to do that so that it can put right the wrongs of the past, when failure of consultation led to the tensions to which I alluded.
The major power in the bill is the capacity to create new crofts. When I attend the opening of Forest Enterprise's new offices in Inverness on Monday, I will discuss with its staff the huge potential that that power has. I know that forestry staff are up for it. They want to be able to use the new powers, alongside their existing powers, to create new housing in the Highlands. If any landowner has the capacity to do that, it is the Forestry Commission.
However, one problem that must be overcome is that the existing schemes by which the Forestry Commission is encouraged to create new housing are, in my view, incredibly complex and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Another problem that is perhaps more pertinent than the rules of the schemes—those could be changed—is, to speak directly, the difficulty of nimbyism, which is always with us wherever we try to create new housing. If the Forestry Commission could designate parts of its forests for housing, that would go a substantial way to overcoming nimbyism, which is—let us face it—a facet of human nature. According to the old story, the difference between the conservationist and the developer is simply that the developer wants to build a house in the woods whereas the conservationist already has one. I hope that the Forestry Commission will be able to create many more such conservationists.
I pay particular tribute to the former Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin, for the way in which she took some difficult decisions. Crofting has many friends. The fact that substantial changes were made to the bill as introduced is proof positive of the influence and power of those friends, who are to be found across the political spectrum. For her decision to make fundamental changes to the bill, she should be commended. Rather than crow over what might be said to be a climbdown or U-turn, we should congratulate her. I can assure Rhona Brankin that she has many friends on this side of the chamber.
Personally, I hope that the committee of inquiry will look carefully at the situation in Strathspey. The concerns of the Strathspey farmers, who were led ably by Hamish Jack, were not fully considered by the committee. I recognise that the committee did a good job in giving careful consideration to the problems in Arran, but I think that the problems in Strathspey have not yet been fully addressed.
I agree with Jamie McGrigor, Maureen Macmillan and others that SEERAD must take a more proactive approach to enabling crofters to access the loans scheme. Like Mr McGrigor, I think that the bull hire scheme is perhaps the most complex scheme with the least money available to it that God has ever invented in the public service. The scheme must be sorted out. I suspect that ministers want to do that, so I hope that positive progress will be made.
A fundamental problem that the Parliament is still to address—although I do not believe in any of the conspiracy theories about venal or malign forces at work subverting decisions—is the treatment of inadvertent errors that farmers and crofters make in filling out their forms. Genuine mistakes in integrated administration and control system forms are still being penalised. The tribunal that Mr Finnie set up was somehow supposed to address that. At the time, I argued that setting up a tribunal would not of itself alter the rules that had to be enforced. I understand that, in a recent case, two members of the three-member panel found that a crofter should not have been penalised for a mistake, but the minister overruled the majority decision and supported the SEERAD member on the panel. I am perplexed as to why that should have happened—
Will the member give way?
I will in just a minute.
I am genuinely perplexed about that and I am profoundly concerned about the implications of the decision.
I can understand the member's concern. I think that that was the only occasion on which I personally had to make the decision. It might help the member to know that my preference was to look at the matter of law as there was a possibility that the committee had in fact misdirected itself. My intention was to refer the matter back to the committee. I regret that the independent members of the committee, who had been part of the process and whose period of service had ended—not all members serve for equal periods of time—declined to reconvene. That placed me in a much more difficult position.
I am grateful to the minister for that clarification, but I am still unclear about why he felt bound to take the decision that he did. Perhaps he and I can pursue the issue at a meeting.
I welcome the fact that the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry are extremely wide ranging. It is clear from those terms of reference that the committee can consider all the problems that members from various parts of Scotland, especially the Highlands, have brought to the debate.
Fergus Ewing and Jamie McGrigor have set out a worthy list of priorities for the committee of inquiry. However, although we can hope that there may be no more Taynuilts, the same thing is happening in many other places, as we speak, and raw market forces are prevailing. Surely that is the key issue for the committee of inquiry.
No one disagrees that that is a major issue for the committee. I am sure that it will examine the matter thoroughly, as Jamie Stone has advocated.
I would prefer to see an elected board. At a meeting that the Scottish Crofting Foundation arranged at Lochaber in my constituency, the only topic on which there appeared to be clear agreement was that there should be an elected Crofters Commission. I do not think that the objections to that proposal are insuperable; they are largely legalistic and technical—the sort of objections that the civil service might come up with on a quiet day. I hope that in future we can have an elected Crofters Commission and that Professor Shucksmith will heed the cross-party pleas for one that have been made in the debate.
Sometimes life takes unexpected twists and turns. Who would have thought that, after convening the Parliament's Environment and Rural Development Committee, which gave the Crofting Reform etc Bill such a grilling at stage 1, I would be standing before the Parliament today closing the debate on the motion that the bill be passed? However, the committee did its work extremely thoroughly and engaged extensively with crofting communities. The bill now contains important provisions that will make a real difference to the lives and fortunes of crofters and crofting communities for many years to come.
I record my thanks to committee members, for their hard work; to the clerks, for the able support that they provided to members; to Executive officials; and to all those who contributed their views to the process, which was extensive. A large amount of evidence was put before the committee. Our consideration of the bill was a very good example of the Parliament's work, with the committee and ministers listening to, and reflecting and acting on, the representations that were made.
The bill is not the last word in crofting legislation.
Would Jamie McGrigor like to agree with me?
No. I suggest to the minister that it might have been more appropriate for the Executive to listen before the bill was written.
There was a fair amount of consultation before the bill was introduced. If Jamie McGrigor reads the committee's conclusions, he will find a deep analysis of the issue.
The bill is a good example of working together, but it is by no means the end of our work on crofting. It is part of a long-term commitment by the Executive to the future of crofting, crofting communities and some of the most fragile island and rural parts of Scotland. Alasdair Morrison was right to note that, by passing the bill, we will allow many valuable provisions to be implemented and provide a platform on which to build further action, once the committee of inquiry on crofting has reached its conclusions.
In today's debate, we have heard broadly positive views expressed about the important provisions in the bill—for example, those that tackle interposed leases, simplify the regulation of crofting and tackle the underlying bureaucracy. We heard from Eleanor Scott that for the first time the Crofters Commission will have the scope to challenge the neglect of croft land. We heard from Rob Gibson, Fergus Ewing, Maureen Macmillan and Nora Radcliffe about the importance of establishing new crofts and extending crofting tenure to Arran and other parts of Scotland. The Minister for Communities, Rhona Brankin, is now considering how the Crofters Commission can best contribute to the modernised planning system. I note that she has remained in the chamber for the entirety of the debate, which demonstrates her continuing interest in the topic.
The bill will deliver big headline changes but, as Ross Finnie illustrated, it also includes many detailed provisions that will have a positive impact on day-to-day matters for crofters. I will give members some examples. Earlier this morning, we debated an amendment from Maureen Macmillan, which stipulates that the Crofters Commission should discharge its functions with regard to local circumstances. The insertion in the bill at stage 2 of the word "specific" will allow ministers to be very clear and precise about what they expect the commission to achieve and prioritise, and to set out how they expect the commission to conduct its business. Much of the rest of the bill and existing crofting legislation is about how the commission should handle local circumstances. By adding the ability to give specific ministerial direction, we have provided sufficient scope to ensure that local circumstances are considered. That may have seemed a modest amendment at stage 2, but it will be important.
There are other detailed changes that we have not had time to debate today. The existing protections in crofting legislation for the spouses and partners of crofters who die without a will, which ensure that they have rights over their croft house, have been extended to give them rights over the croft as well. That simple provision should avoid distress and disputes in crofting households at what are, inevitably, difficult times for people.
The tighter definition of what constitutes family members will prevent croft collectors from gathering up their so-called cousins' crofts. It will be much more difficult to avoid the formal assignation process and to claim that the croft has been assigned within the family. As a result, young people and others who would like to gain access to a croft should stand a better chance of getting one.
One of the more important features of the bill is that, in the future, the register of crofts that is maintained by the Crofters Commission will be a public record that is accessible to anyone. It will be a more comprehensive record and, significantly, if a croft has been registered or recognised as a croft for more than 20 years the matter of whether it is a genuine croft will no longer be open to dispute. In future, it will be possible for land that is apportioned out of common grazings for use by an individual to be returned to common use. Neglected and unwanted apportionments will now be capable of being returned to common use.
Grazings committees, which are important to the effective management of common grazings, will in future be able to challenge a shareholder who breaches grazings regulations and may ask the commission to suspend that shareholder's rights. It will no longer be viable for a single shareholder to ignore the wishes and intentions of the majority of shareholders. The Scottish Land Court and the Crofters Commission will have a definition of a crofting community on which to base their judgments. The importance of that was only too evident in the now famous Taynuilt case.
In mentioning the details and explaining their importance, I do not underestimate the significance of some of the more complex and involved provisions. I agree with John Farquhar Munro that our passing the bill today will be historic for our crofting communities. It will be recognition of the fact that we needed to modernise crofting legislation in the 21st century and that there is more to come from the Executive and the Parliament.
The provisions in relation to schemes for development have the potential to facilitate large-scale developments on croft land that might otherwise be frustrated. I refer to developments such as renewable energy projects, which—if they secure planning approval—could benefit crofters and crofting communities enormously. Some developments have the potential to create something akin to the Shetland oil fund, which was negotiated in the 1970s and has sustained massive economic and infrastructure development and social progress in those islands for decades.
This is an important bill. I know, because I heard all the evidence. I commend the motion to Parliament.
That concludes this item of business. For the benefit of members of the public in the gallery, I note that business has finished about five minutes early.
Meeting suspended until 11:40.
On resuming—