Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-07106, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
14:21
It gives me great pleasure to open the stage 3 debate on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, especially because it is clear to me that there is strong support for the bill across the Parliament and that owner-occupier crofters should soon be able to apply to the Crofting Commission to decroft their land.
There has been debate about the drafting of the bill, but the support that has been received from almost all quarters to enable the Scottish Government to put in place measures to resolve the issue has made the hard work and effort extremely worth while. The bipartisan approach that colleagues from all parties have taken sets a good example of how the Parliament can operate. Given the known complexities of crofting law, which I have recognised, who would have thought that a satisfactory conclusion was possible before the summer recess? Yet here we are, facing that very prospect.
At its most fundamental level, the bill does what it says on the tin: it will allow owner-occupier crofters to apply to decroft their land and it will grant the Crofting Commission the power to issue decrofting directions. It will also give retrospective effect to the legislation, to ensure that owner-occupier crofter decrofting decisions that the commission has taken previously are competent. The bill will also provide a right of appeal for people who might have been dissuaded from appealing a decision after the commission announced in February that it could no longer accept such applications.
When the issue was brought to my attention, my initial reaction was to consider why the legislation was framed in such a way. I considered whether there was an alternative administrative solution, as some stakeholders suggested. However, rather than dwell on the past or give further consideration to workaround solutions that might fail, I quickly concluded that a robust fix was required. I decided that it would be far better to focus on a legislative fix, which would leave no doubt that the legislation delivers the initial policy intent.
Given the range of legal opinion, it was clear that the existing legislation did not deliver the policy intent. There was evidence that people were being adversely affected. A solution therefore had to be put in place quickly, which is why I asked Parliament to consider an expedited process for the bill. The Parliament agreed to such an approach.
The process has been successful, but it has also been challenging. The strict timetables and the need to ensure that all matters were carefully considered and that stakeholders had an opportunity to contribute were particularly important. The expedited process was justified in this case, because owner-occupier crofters were disadvantaged, but that does not mean that it should become the norm.
Some people called for emergency legislation, but I wanted to ensure that the Parliament would have the opportunity to consider the bill carefully and to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny. I am satisfied that the Parliament has gone through that necessary process, to ensure that the bill will deliver its purpose. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and a number of learned legal witnesses concluded that it will do so.
I have no doubt that the bill will deliver what is intended, and I am pleased that there is broad consensus on that. However, I recognise that there have been differing views on how the legislation should be drafted. I addressed such views, along with other issues, during stages 1 and 2.
We now have an opportunity to ensure that we help owner-occupier crofters who have been unintentionally disadvantaged as a result of a flaw in the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. Therefore, I want to focus on the bill and its intentionally narrow scope. I also want to take the opportunity to explain briefly why the Scottish Government has not lodged any amendments.
Before stage 2, I considered carefully all the issues raised in the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s stage 1 report. The Scottish Government responded in writing to that report on Tuesday 11 June and set out its position on the various issues raised.
The committee’s report recommended that the Scottish Government give appropriate consideration to whether any of the issues raised required amendments to be brought forward. I gave detailed and careful consideration to the views of Sir Crispin Agnew and others on drafting, and I sought an appropriate level of assurance that the bill is fit for purpose. Following due consideration, I concluded that the bill as drafted achieves its purpose and that it provides the necessary clarity and legal certainty to solve the problem that it set out to address. That view was supported by the committee in its stage 1 report.
The committee also recommended that the Scottish Government give careful consideration to the views expressed on a number of matters, including the definition of “decrofting direction”, the application of section 25 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, and the protection of access to croft land. Again, the Scottish Government has addressed those issues in its response to the committee’s report.
I welcome the committee’s support for the provisions on retrospection. The bill will ensure that all 159 decrofting directions and the 44 cases held in abeyance are competent. In addition, the Crofting Commission has said that it will deal with all outstanding decrofting applications as quickly as possible, for which I am grateful.
As I have said previously, the ability to decroft should not provide an opportunity to speculate on croft land to the detriment of crofting. We all have a responsibility to ensure that crofting remains sustainable for future generations, because no Government can do that alone. We need to establish and maintain cross-party support to ensure that crofting remains sustainable and continues to deliver benefits.
The committee’s stage 1 report and the Scottish Government’s response also addressed issues that are not included in the bill. I am all too aware that there are other issues to be addressed, both legislative and administrative, but that will not happen overnight. We all need some time to take stock and to ensure that what we do next is right for crofting and for remote and rural Scotland. That will take some very careful consideration, and it is only right that such consideration involves the key stakeholders.
I do not think that another committee of inquiry on crofting is required, but I do think that the other issues highlighted during the course of the bill need to be addressed carefully, fairly and objectively if we are to ensure that crofting continues to provide cultural, social, economic and high-nature-value farming benefits. That is why I gave an undertaking to the Parliament during stage 1 of the bill that my officials will
“investigate, in consultation with stakeholders, what the best method might be for dealing with the outstanding issues”.—[Official Report, 6 June 2013; c 20857.]
Stakeholders should therefore expect contact from my officials to arrange a discussion on the next steps for crofting.
I will not try to cover all the points here, but I can assure the Parliament that all issues were carefully considered. I am still a relatively new minister, with a direct portfolio interest in crofting, but I have already had the opportunity to visit the crofting counties on a number of occasions and I have seen for myself the benefits that crofting delivers: strong communities working together to ensure that land is worked in a beneficial and sustainable way; innovative crofters contributing to the economic vitality of local economies across the crofting counties; the breathtaking landscape, environment and hospitality that we can all enjoy as a result of crofters’ hard work and stewardship of Scotland’s countryside; and the particular, strong contribution to the cultural diversity of this great country, whether that be in our island communities or on the mainland. Those attributes align very closely to the Scottish Government’s purpose and reflect the national outcomes and priorities that we are delivering.
The bill will not solve all the challenges that crofting brings, but it does ensure that one particular decrofting issue is resolved as quickly and fairly as possible. There has been a concerted team effort in the development of the bill, and I would like to thank those who have played a part in getting us to this point.
First, I thank the members of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and their clerks, who with their characteristic good grace took on the challenge of the expedited process and ensured that appropriate consultation and scrutiny of the bill took place.
I also give my sincere thanks to all those who gave evidence and contributed to Parliament’s deliberations on the bill. That includes the Crofting Commission, the Scottish Crofting Federation, NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and other organisations, legal specialists in crofting law and other individuals. I am extremely grateful to them all for their contributions.
I also thank officials, both in Parliament and in Government, who have worked tirelessly to give us a bill that meets its purpose. Finally, I thank members across the chamber for the consideration that they have given to what is a complex area of law.
We have worked together to get this far, and I hope that, once again, we can all work together to ensure that the bill is passed for royal assent and is put on the statute books as soon as possible to bring to an end the uncertainty that has caused such difficulty for individuals. I commend the bill to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
14:29
Scottish Labour is optimistic that, in spite of the complexities that are involved, the bill will be passed at stage 3 with the cross-party support that has been shown in the chamber. The bill will address the problem that is faced by those who have been affected by the flaw in the 2010 act relating to owner-occupied crofters and the decrofting of land.
In the stage 1 debate, I highlighted Scottish Labour’s concerns about the need for all possible amendments to be lodged at stage 2 to enable committee and parliamentary scrutiny. In an expedited process, the pressures are much greater, with little time between stages. I therefore thank all those who were involved in moving things forward quickly. As it turns out, there were no amendments at stages 2 and 3.
I also thank the minister for the clarification that he provided at stage 2. The minister’s explanation in his opening remarks to the committee reassured us that the Scottish Government’s legal team had considered the alternative suggested wordings. He said:
“The Scottish Government considered the detailed drafting issues that were raised; I can promise the committee that we have gone over them in some detail. However, as it is drafted, the bill achieves its purpose. A number of key witnesses to the committee ... all agreed that the bill delivers on the purpose that the Government has set out of giving owner-occupiers the ability to decroft.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 12 June 2013; c 2410.]
That reassurance was given and there has not been any comeback on that.
In Scottish Labour’s view, it is right to have had a truncated process to enable those in limbo due to the Crofting Commission putting 44 applications on hold to proceed and to allow those who were unable to apply to decroft to be reconsidered. If the bill is passed, it will be important that the process is speedy. I therefore seek reassurance from the minister, in his closing remarks, that that will be the case.
Other issues relating to decrofting were raised with the committee when we took evidence on the bill, including house building, diversification and renewable energy development. Foremost among other issues were the definition of what constitutes an owner-occupier crofter and the issues faced by multiple owners of distinct parts of the same croft. However, Scottish Labour is of the view that it is right to consider those and other decrofting issues after the bill has been passed, to ensure that the appropriate consultation process takes place, as the minister has highlighted. The minister has already given us the timeframe for that.
Perhaps the only thing that we all seem to be clear about is the opaqueness of crofting law. The stage 1 debate produced a number of interesting points from members, not least of which was Alex Fergusson’s metaphor of crofting legislation as the mythical Hydra—as soon as we think that one aspect of the legislation is sorted out, another two problems arise.
If Alex Fergusson wants to continue with his classical references, his answer to the problem of crofting law might be Alexander the Great’s creative solution to untangling the Gordian knot. Rather than repeatedly trying to untangle the knot, the best solution might be simply to cut through it with a single stand-alone piece of legislation. That may or may not be the way forward; it is for us all to work together as best we can to find what is best for crofters in the future.
Before closing, I add some new thoughts relating to crofting. Nourish Scotland is a non-profit organisation that has been
“set up to develop and promote a fairer and more sustainable food system in Scotland”
at a time when an increasing number of our citizens are becoming dependent on food banks, as I witnessed on Saturday when I attended the official opening of the Clydesdale food bank.
Nourish argues:
“Access to suitable land is one of the most significant barriers to developing vibrant local food economies in most parts of Scotland.”
It is argued that there is a demand for small productive units and that the Crofting Commission currently holds a waiting list of 150 in existing crofting areas. Nourish therefore calls for a target of 10,000 new crofts throughout Scotland by 2020. In addition, the Scottish Crofting Federation sees
“the development of crofting as the most appropriate model of land tenure for Scotland to achieve a food system that is environmentally sustainable, socially beneficial and a source of healthy, tasty food for the long term.”
Whatever members think of that suggestion, it is certainly food for thought.
Many of the issues that have been raised during the bill’s passage pose questions about the structure of land ownership and tenure in Scotland. Those debates and decisions are for another day, and Scottish Labour is committed to addressing them along with others. Today, we support the passing of the bill and wish all those crofters who are affected a speedy and satisfactory solution.
I call Alex Fergusson—four minutes, please.
14:35
I think that I was advised that I had five minutes, Presiding Officer. Is that not the case?
You have four minutes, I am afraid.
Right.
I ended my contribution to the stage 1 debate by saying that I was not particularly looking forward to stage 2. I said that because I felt pretty certain that the Government would lodge some amendments to address the concerns that had been raised by eminent specialists in crofting law in evidence to our committee.
I do not want simply to repeat the arguments that most members made during stage 1, but I think we can all agree that crofting law is a nightmare of complexity, which tends to throw up a plethora of unintended consequences whenever it is tinkered with. We all witnessed the criminal—I meant to say “eminent”; I am not sure what Freud would have to say about that—expert lawyers plainly disagreeing with one another, although it should be noted that it was agreed unanimously at the 2012 meeting of the crofting law group that the bill would need amendment.
Crispin Agnew raised a number of concerns during our evidence sessions. Rather than being about whether the bill would address the unintended consequences of Parliament’s previous efforts to amend crofting law in 2010, they were about the lack of integration with the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. He said of the bill:
“The provisions are in a complicated set of sections that stand alone, with no attempt to integrate them with the rest of the 1993 act. Problems may arise from that ... There is no clear link-up to all the various sections. It is very difficult to achieve that in the crofting context, but that is my concern—the legislation is perhaps overcomplicated.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 15 May 2013; c 2193.]
Sir Crispin went on to detail a number of instances in the bill in which he felt that greater simplicity was needed to provide more clarity in an area of legislation that we all know badly needs it. In one of his final comments to the committee, he said, quite simply, that, “The bill is vague”.
Given that evidence and more, I was quite surprised that the minister did not lodge some amendments at stage 2. I asked him why he had not done so at the committee meeting on Wednesday 12 June. His reply was, essentially, that, having examined the bill in the light of the stage 1 evidence, his team was satisfied that the bill would achieve its purpose. However, no one was questioning that. The concerns that were raised were about whether the drafting of the bill was likely to give rise to further unforeseen consequences.
In his response to me, the minister went on to say:
“The Scottish Government is committed to drafting in as plain and accessible a manner as is consistent with achieving the necessary outcome.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 12 June 2013; c 2410.]
Given that statement, I cannot help but agree with Brian Inkster when he said that it would have been good and useful to have seen a detailed rebuttal of the concerns that were raised with the committee and an explanation of why they apparently did not need to be addressed. Sadly, that level of detail has been lost amid the urgency that is required to pass the bill.
I take the minister at his word—my knowledge of the subject is not detailed enough to do otherwise—but, as I suggested in a previous debate, the bill could come back to haunt him. I genuinely hope that I am wrong in that prediction, but I could not help but notice Brian Inkster’s statement that
“The crofting lawyers in question have actively tried to reduce that workload by seeking to assist the Scottish Government in the drafting process. However, the Scottish Government in rejecting that assistance appears content to increase the workload those lawyers will have by adding to the complexity of crofting law. So be it for now.”
I guess that it has to be a case of
“So be it for now”.
We must all sincerely hope that the bill’s pluses greatly outweigh its minuses. Most of us played a part in the creation of the problem. As I said at stage 1, it is a clear measure of the complexity of crofting law that no one—neither the Government, the Parliament nor legal experts—picked up on it at the time.
We support the Government in its efforts to secure the passage of the bill, as we think that it is right to do so. If nothing else, the retrospective aspect of the bill will ensure that the 159 crofters whose applications have been processed can sleep soundly in their beds in the knowledge that the law is once again firmly on their side. We will support the bill at decision time.
We come to the open debate. I am afraid that time is very tight. Speeches should be of a maximum of four minutes.
14:39
I support the bill’s clarification of where owner-occupier crofters stand on decrofting and its restoration of the policy intention behind the 2010 act.
At the outset, I put on record my deprecation of anyone who infers from what has happened that the minister, the officers and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee did a rush job in 2010. Their intentions were indeed honourable. Naturally, this Parliament will give post-legislative scrutiny to all acts of Parliament. That work is partly achieved in the bill that we are discussing, and will be achieved in various other ways that have been mentioned already.
The crofting lawyers who discussed this matter obviously have a wealth of knowledge. However, many of them accepted that this bill covered the narrow point that needed to be dealt with, and our committee was unanimous in agreeing that that was so. That means that we can allow those nearly 200 people to move on as quickly as possible.
The Scottish Government responded to the criticisms that have been made. However, lawyers and others who have asked for the Scottish Government to reveal its legal knowledge should understand that that is not what Governments do, so they should stop asking for that kind of information. What we can do is have a debate when the Government comes forward with the means to discuss the different points that have been raised in the other part of the report on the bill that we are discussing today.
We can see that the arguments about owner-occupier crofters have taxed many of the critics. However, the situation is quite simple: someone can register as an owner-occupier crofter, which brings them under the ambit of the legislation and gives them protection if they wish to decroft. The people who argue that certain owner-occupiers who are crofters are concerned should understand that the simple answer is for those crofters to get registered. Thereafter, we can deal with the other matters as they come along.
It may be that Parliament and politicians are increasingly treated as some kind of joke. In certain discussions about a sort of crofting song contest, it was suggested that our committee should get a score of six out of 10 for trying. Frankly, that does not reflect the seriousness with which we dealt with these matters, and I would like to put on record my suggestion that those who wish to make those kinds of remarks should leave it to us to do that and, if they are lawyers, should offer us some advice rather than trying to grab headlines.
I am sorry to say that the approach I described was taken on more than one occasion. Eilidh I M Ross, of Inksters Solicitors said, in a written submission:
“it is simply not acceptable that the legislative framework which supports that system is such a shambles”.
It is not a shambles. It is not a mess. It is a matter of complexity, which we have inherited—indeed, it goes back to pre-devolution days, to the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 and before. Further, it is something that will take time to sort out. When, in the previous debate on this topic, Tavish Scott asked whether we could do some consolidation, I said that it would probably take two committee meetings a week for the next five years to do that, which means that we cannot approach it that way.
This bill deals with a simple point. There are other points that have to be dealt with, and I look forward to dealing with them, if we can, in a simpler fashion in our committee. Meanwhile, I support the bill and I hope that it becomes an act.
14:43
At stage 1, I spoke at length about some of the issues that have led us to the situation of having to amend such recent legislation, so I do not intend to revisit those points.
For the sake of the crofters who are currently attempting to decroft and who find themselves in limbo and for the sake of those who wish to begin to decroft, it is clear that we must make progress on trying to fix the existing problems. MSPs from all parties recognise the general provisions of the bill, and I therefore look forward to it being passed this afternoon. However, I am aware that the crofting law group remains concerned about the legislation, and I hope, therefore, that ministers and the Crofting Commission will be vigilant in monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of this legislation.
Although we have spent much time in our debates noting how baffling the complexity of crofting law is, what has come through clearly, even amid the confused tangle of crofting reform legislation, is the importance of crofting to communities in huge swathes of rural Scotland. From my MSP colleagues across the chamber, who assiduously represent their constituents in the crofting counties, I have learned that crofting is not just a business, a house or even a small farm but all of those things and more, and that crofts are integral to the preservation of the heritage and communities of many parts of the north and west of Scotland.
The Scottish Crofting Federation has highlighted that, for crofting to survive, we need not just security of tenure but viability for crofters and their crofts, too. A community’s viability depends on many things: its economy, its transport links and its services. At its heart, though, are its people. The most successful communities have a diverse population that will flourish and can sustain it in future.
The Scottish Government’s figures on population for rural areas show how fragile some communities are. While just over half—53 per cent—of the population of remote rural areas are aged 45 and over, only 17 per cent are in the 16 to 34-year-old category. That compares with 42 per cent and 26 per cent respectively in the rest of Scotland. At either end of the scale, remote rural Scotland’s demographic outlies the rest of the country.
Such figures can illustrate how crofting is not immune to the challenges faced by other sections of remote rural communities, with the loss of young people from where they grew up and the increase in the older population.
The Scottish Crofting Federation has noted how important new entrants are to crofting if it is to continue. We must therefore have a framework for crofting that is accessible and will encourage people to get involved.
I am grateful that we have reached stage 3 of this urgent legislation ahead of the summer recess, and I hope that the Crofting Commission will take appropriate action as soon as possible to help crofters who wish to decroft to get their plans back on track.
14:46
First, I thank the minister for the courteous way in which he has handled the bill. It helps enormously those of us who represent constituents in the crofting counties if we have a minister who is prepared to listen to the arguments. I recognise that Paul Wheelhouse has done exactly that.
I also thank Mr Gibson and his colleagues on the RACCE committee—that always seems like such a strange title so let me just call it the rural committee—for their forbearance in dealing with complex matters now and undoubtedly in future. Above all, I thank the crofters in Shetland who brought this shambles to my attention in the first place, because it affected owner-occupiers in the islands.
I am pleased that the Government has introduced the bill and I support it, as my party will tonight at decision time. However, as the minister recognised, there is an awful lot more to do. The minister mentioned the other fixes that will be necessary; as other members have said, they are considerable and varied. The minister made a point about how he and his department plan to address those issues. I suggest to him that officials could visit Shetland and other crofting counties to hear at first hand—which they will—about the practical difficulties that many crofters now face.
I welcome the fact that the minister said no to Shucksmith 2. I rather agree with his position. The issue is to get on and sort out the problems that undoubtedly exist.
I take Mr Gibson’s point about Government legal advice, but I am sure that he would recognise that there is a big difference between that advice and the Crofting Commission’s legal advice. I do not think that the Crofting Commission should be allowed to get away with simply hiding behind its legal advice, which is increasingly its position to those of us who are making representations to it on behalf of constituents.
I would not expect the minister to respond to the point today, but we are in the wrong place if crofters who are trying to resolve complex but in some respects straightforward issues are constantly told by the commission that they must take its legal advice—at the expense of taxpayers and crofters around the crofting counties—without the opportunity to question that legal advice. I hope that the minister might consider how best to challenge that issue, given the considerable powers that he and his colleagues have under the existing legislation that Mr Gibson mentioned.
Some in the crofting counties are very concerned that the entire edifice that is crofting law could collapse if concrete steps are not taken to put it on a much more level footing. Although that will not happen overnight, there are people I respect, who know the issue inside out, who say that the matter is at the tipping point. The minister has rightly dealt with the current problem, but there is much more to do.
I have two final points. First, as others have recognised, what we should be debating in relation to crofting is the production of quality beef and lamb around the counties, the livestock—cattle and sheep—that the crofting counties produce for breeding, the local food, and active local people in strong rural and island communities.
I suspect that what we may be debating in the coming months will be the September crofting law conference to be held in the Signet library here in Edinburgh. It now looks like too many of us will have to go along and listen to the lawyers, whom I think Mr Fergusson nearly described as criminals—I might or might not agree with that description; we will find out after the conference—debating the issues inside out.
I hope that, by the time that some of us attend the conference and listen carefully to what is said, the minister will have had a chance to talk to his officials and pull together some thoughts about the best way forward. I am sure that we can all agree on that point.
14:50
I commend the Scottish Government, as others have done, for the manner in which and punctuality with which it has addressed this issue.
I also thank the RACCE committee and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their helpful reports on the bill, which aid considerably in untangling some of the complexities of crofting legislation.
I am aware of the calls to include further changes to crofting law in the bill, which I believe would have only complicated the emergency procedure and perhaps diluted the reasons for its use. It was therefore prudent to leave those other considerations until after the recess and to focus exclusively on decrofting rights for owner-occupier crofters.
As I understand it, there are a number of issues surrounding the exact rights for owner-occupier crofters versus owner-occupiers. The minister indicated during the stage 1 debate that he would seek to clarify exactly how many owner-occupiers who are not owner-occupier crofters have been caught up in decrofting problems. Although technically outwith the scope of the bill, that is an indication of the many holes in the fabric of crofting legislation that require resolution sooner rather than later. I trust that the Government will continue to do what it can to clarify and simplify crofting law in the near future. I am sure that the minister has noted Brian Inkster’s comments regarding the length and complexity of even this amendment bill and his opinion that there is not only an opportunity but a necessity for the Scottish Government to simplify crofting law.
Obviously, decrofting is the pressing issue and to tack other issues in crofting law on to this amendment bill would have slowed down the process considerably. I am aware that the crofting law group, which Tavish Scott mentioned, is meeting on 27 September for its annual conference, where it will discuss crofting law reform. I am really keen to see the Government continue to consult the group and those in the crofting community on the possibility of introducing further legislation after the recess to consolidate and simplify existing legislation.
Given the nuances and peculiarities of crofting, the various legal interpretations offered during the committee’s evidence gathering and the expedited nature of that evidence gathering, I commend the Scottish Government for its responsible and expedient approach. It truly reflects well on the Parliament when it can identify and correct a problem, no matter the origin of the mistake.
For the benefit of the crofters of Scotland, we must now pass this amendment bill. After the recess, we can focus on the other areas of crofting legislation that desperately need to be changed. I support the bill.
14:53
I begin, as my colleague Graeme Dey has done previously, by picking up on what Derek Flyn, from the Scottish Crofting Federation, told the committee. Derek Flyn started by saying:
“The point is that owner-occupiers are not entitled to occupy their crofts”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 15 May 2013; c 2191-2.]
I deliberately foreshorten his quotation, partly because of time and partly because it demonstrates to anyone who has come to the debate rather late and is reading the Official Report just how complicated the whole subject is. How can Derek Flyn’s statement conceivably be right? I think that I now understand why it is true, but I am not sure that I would want to explain it to anybody else.
As I sat on the committee, Sir Crispin Agnew came along and immediately criticised this, that and the other. We received comments from Brian Inkster, which have been referred to already, including some received this weekend. What is abundantly clear to us—I happily put this on the record—is that even the experts cannot agree. I do not hold that against them; it simply tells me that this is an enormously complex area of law. We need to recognise that.
Am I sure that we are doing absolutely the right thing this afternoon? No, I am not. However, I am sure that I have confidence that the Government is doing its level best to get the right answer. On that basis, I will be very happy to support the bill this afternoon.
I want to reflect briefly on the timetable to which we have been working. We know that this is not a normal legislative timetable; the procedure has been expedited. The alternative would have been an emergency procedure. Many of us went through that procedure in the previous session. On that occasion, there was no time to lose. We had received a Supreme Court decision about criminal procedure and, quite frankly, we had to fix things more or less overnight if we were to be sure that our policemen could continue to arrest people and lock them up. With the benefit of seeing the evidence that has come before us over the past few weeks, it is now entirely clear to me that that would have been the wrong procedure. I confirm on the basis of the evidence that we have had that this expedited procedure seems to have been the right way to proceed. I say well done to those who made that decision.
I offer our genuine thanks to all those experts who wrote to us and came and spoke to us, no doubt at fairly short notice and at some inconvenience. We really could not have done without that evidence, and it was very much appreciated—even if we did not understand everything that they said.
Is this the end of the road in the debate about crofting law? Plainly not—I am only repeating what others have already said. I am very grateful that the minister has just said that we will have time to take stock—I am sure that that is the right answer.
I am also grateful to Tavish Scott for his comments about what we should be talking about, which is the agriculture, the people and the communities. That is what the debate should really be about; it is what land law should always be about. The fact that we have to worry about the minutiae of how bits of legislation fit together merely confirms the complex position into which we have got ourselves—it is one from which it would be nice to extricate ourselves.
I have only one other thought at this stage of proceedings, which is to note that we have retrospective application of the bill. That is something that we should always be very careful about. Generally, we should know what the law is going to be in advance, and we should not fiddle with it afterwards. We know fine well why we are doing so on this occasion. I repeat my hope that we have got it right, and that the bill provides some certainty for those who have been inconvenienced over the past months. Let us hope that that is what the bill will achieve.
14:56
I am pleased to close the debate for the Scottish Conservatives, and I hope that the bill will bring closure to this subject—although I somehow doubt it. I thank the members and clerking team of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for their work on the bill against a very tight timetable.
As we have said consistently since this unfortunate issue arose, we will support the passing of the bill at stage 3 today, as it is appropriate that action is taken swiftly to remedy the legal limbo in which owner-occupier crofters who wish to decroft have found themselves, through no fault of their own. I am pleased that the Crofting Commission has indicated that it will process the outstanding applications to decroft as quickly as possible and that it will be able to prioritise cases if particular deadlines face the individual crofters concerned.
Although we accept that the bill provides the necessary clarity to remedy the specific issue regarding owner-occupier crofters, a big theme of the stage 1 debate and the committee’s report—and indeed of today’s debate—has been the concerns about a significant number of other apparent issues and anomalies arising from the 2010 act. Some of those concerns were voiced by members of the cross-party group on crofting, which I convened last Wednesday evening in the Parliament. They include concerns about the decrofting of a croft where there are multiple owners, the position of owner-occupiers who are not owner-occupier crofters and whether the first purchase of a tenanted croft triggers registration.
Brian Inkster told our cross-party group that members of the crofting law group will be gathering and discussing the issues in the months ahead, in advance of the group’s annual conference in September. I welcome that, and I encourage the minister and his officials to engage constructively with the crofting law group, which has a significant amount of legal expertise, as the Government moves forward and seeks to address the issues.
I wish to raise a specific concern in relation to the 2010 act that was highlighted at our cross-party group meeting. It relates to crofters who register their crofts having to place an advert to that effect in a local newspaper, which can cost up to £100. Derek Flyn, chairman of the SCF, told the committee:
“If every crofter who has a croft—there are 18,000 crofts—has to pay £100 to explain that he has his croft in the register, crofting is paying £1.8 million to advertise the fact that the crofts are being put on the register. For what purpose?”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 15 May 2013; c 2201.]
That is a lot of money. Will the minister comment on that and say whether he might consider that issue?
Concern was also expressed about which body in Scotland will actively support the development of new crofts. Crofting development, as opposed to crofting community development, is not within Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s remit, for example. We were told that by Neil Ross of HIE at the cross-party group on Wednesday. There must be clarification about which body promotes crofting, and especially new crofts.
We support the bill, but we want ministers to look carefully at and respond to the many issues that have arisen during its consideration. Crofters deserve clarity from their legislators, and we want to have a legal underpinning for the sector that is robust and understandable so that we can focus properly on the policies that we can adopt to sustain the crofting sector and encourage it to develop in the years ahead.
15:00
The Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill has been quickly delivered through Parliament, and I am pleased that we are concluding the process before recess. We all understand the unintended consequences that transpired from the 2010 act, and we know why the bill is necessary.
Of course, the minister cannot guarantee that there will be no further challenges, but the Parliament must be as confident as it can be not only that the problem of owner-occupier decrofting has been resolved, but that, as we move forward, we can be confident in our crofting legislation in general.
While we spend time bemoaning its complexity, we should not forget that crofting legislation can impact significantly on people’s livelihoods and resources. As Peter Peacock stated during the passage of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill:
“With the passage of every successive bill on crofting, it is almost inevitable that regulation becomes more complex.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2010; c 28191.]
The complexity not only of this amending bill but of crofting law in general is known to many—if not all—members in the chamber today. Many stakeholders have used the bill process as an opportunity to express their frustration with crofting law in general and to discuss issues that are wider than those that the bill covers.
Although the bill deals with an issue that is time sensitive, I welcome the minister’s comments on where the Scottish Government will go next on crofting. Tavish Scott summarised some of the key issues that need to be addressed, and it is important that the discussion on crofting continues after today.
We must carefully consider the evidence that was raised in committee by experts and stakeholders during scrutiny of the bill. We have been made aware of one unintended consequence of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, but we should not be complacent in believing that further challenges in the field of crofting legislation will not come to light.
For example, the definition of the term “decrofting direction” and the issue of protection of access to crofting land have not been fully addressed, nor have the complexities that arise if one of a group of multiple owners decides to decroft. The Scottish Government’s head of crofting services indicated that the multiple ownership issue may affect up to 700 people, so it is clearly not an insignificant problem, and I hope that the minister can address it.
There are some 18,000 crofts throughout Scotland that house more than 33,000 people. Nearly 70 per cent of our national natural reserves and 60 per cent of our sites of special scientific interest lie within the crofting counties. Crofters bring many benefits to our country, but they face many challenges too. Those challenges are economic in nature, and as a Parliament we should do all that we can within our powers to help crofters.
Jayne Baxter spoke earlier about the importance of rural communities. As I mentioned in the stage 1 debate, there is potential, with the active discussion of common agricultural policy reform and agricultural support, to provide greater support to crofting communities through the changes that will be made to the Scotland rural development programme. As we move from historic payments to area-based payments within the CAP, we must ensure that those opportunities are sought and found.
We have heard today from members on all sides of the chamber just how vital crofting is to some of our remotest communities, and we are aware of the benefits that it can bring. Those communities work the land and ensure its sustainability for future generations. For that to continue, crofting must be viable, and we must answer the big questions, which are not about how laws should be drafted or redrafted, but about how we support crofts and rural areas.
Earlier this month, a global meeting took place in Indonesia of la via campesina, which is a movement of more than 180 peasant organisations that together boast 200 million members in more than 80 countries. The Scottish Crofting Federation is a member, as is the newly formed land workers alliance in England.
Crofting has been around for generations, but that new movement values what small-scale farming can achieve and contribute. Although it is a global movement, it presents a vision for western farming and an alternative vision of what United Kingdom agriculture could look like in future: a vision that values farming’s huge social and cultural dimension.
Large-scale farming certainly produces food, but so does small-scale farming, often with less environmental impact and greater community investment. In Scotland, we must look at targeting resources, in particular towards our less favoured areas. We must also consider the use of agricultural support, rural development mechanisms and greater support for housing in order to support and grow communities. We need more joined-up rural development in crofting, tenant farming, land reform and farming in general. We need greater decentralisation of jobs in the economy.
Crofting faces many challenges in this country but it has faced many challenges throughout its history. When we look at international examples, we can see that it has support and a future.
Before I call the minister, I remind members that the use of electronic devices in the chamber is restricted to the delivery of speeches. I also ask members to conduct conversations outwith the chamber.
15:05
I am grateful to members for their speeches and their constructive approach this afternoon, and I will respond to some of their comments shortly.
First, I reiterate my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. It is clear that there is agreement across the chamber on a range of issues relating to the bill. Given what happened during stage 3 of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, I am particularly pleased that Parliament has not been suspended during any part of today’s proceedings—at least, not so far.
Joking apart, we all recognise that crofting is swamped in complex and, it could be said—I have said it myself—impenetrable legislation. To complicate that legislation further must be a last resort for any Government. That is why the Scottish Government introduced a bill with standalone provisions to allow owner-occupier crofters to identify easily what decrofting provisions in the 1993 act relate specifically to them. It is the most straightforward and efficient way of dealing with the issue while delivering the policy intent that provisions should be similar for owner-occupier crofters and tenant crofters; the provisions are not exactly the same because of tenancy issues.
Many owner-occupier crofters are awaiting the solution offered by the bill, including those who have previously received a decrofting direction and who want to relax in the knowledge that the land remains decrofted; those who have applied to decroft land and are stuck in limbo until their application can be processed by the Crofting Commission; those who want to apply to decroft land for specific purposes but know that their application cannot be processed; and, not least, the Crofting Commission itself, which simply wants to get on with the job of regulating crofting but needs the tools to do so.
At decision time today, we will have the opportunity to pass a bill that addresses those issues and treats owner-occupier crofters in a way that is similar to the way in which tenant crofters are treated in relation to decrofting. I am pleased that that appears to be the approach that all parties are taking today. That was the intention of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, and we should put right the situation today.
As I indicated when I opened the debate, the ability to decroft should not be to the detriment of crofting. I will therefore ask the Crofting Commission to pick up on a point that was raised about keeping under review the effects of decrofting by tenant crofters and owner-occupier crofters. If there is any foundation to concerns about speculation, we can consider our options to tackle them.
Members raised a number of issues today and I will address them as best as I can. Once again, Jayne Baxter made a thoughtful speech—I am sorry that she is not in the chamber—in which she raised the continuing concerns of the crofting law group about a number of issues. [Interruption.] There she is—I must have missed her. Those points were also picked up by Jamie McGrigor and Tavish Scott and perhaps others—I apologise if I do not mention them. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed during the passage of the bill and I look forward to working with the crofting law group and other stakeholders to address any issues that have been raised. I certainly look forward to hearing the messages that will come out of the conference in September.
Alex Fergusson raised the issue of a rebuttal of the concerns that have been raised about the drafting approach possibly having unintended consequences. I put on the record my thanks to Mr Fergusson for trying to look out for my interests—I appreciate that. To reassure Mr Fergusson, I note that the Scottish Government has carefully considered whether the approach that has been taken in the bill will have unintended consequences. The Scottish Government considers that the bill has helped to highlight issues that needed to be dealt with, such as the decrofting of croft houses, which might have been overlooked had we continued to take the approach outlined in the 2010 act. As I have tried to explain, the bill has been drafted in such a way because we want to match as best as we possibly can the provisions for tenant crofters and owner-occupier crofters. I appreciate that, to some, the legislation looks unnecessarily unwieldy and complicated, but in drafting it as we have done, we have guaranteed that the provisions for owner-occupier crofters are closely matched to those for tenant crofters and pick up on Parliament’s intent in 2010 to deliver similar treatment under the law to tenant crofters and owner-occupier crofters. Although I appreciate that the purists wanted to simplify the legislation further, we are satisfied that it will deliver as well as it can similar provisions for owner-occupier crofters and tenant crofters.
Alex Fergusson also raised the lack of interaction with the 1993 act, which probably arises from the same issue. In reality, the bill inserts new provisions into the 1993 act and, in relation to section 25 of the 1993 act, it amends existing provisions to make the section relevant to the situation of owner-occupier crofters.
Jayne Baxter also said that ministers need to be vigilant in monitoring. I am not sure whether she picked up what I said earlier, but we have asked the Crofting Commission to monitor the effects of the legislation, and I look forward to hearing feedback from it.
Tavish Scott made a very good point that the debate should really be about the quality of the beef, lamb and other things that crofters produce. I certainly agree that the quality of beef and lamb from the crofting counties is second to none and should be celebrated.
Nigel Don raised the issue of retrospection. I hope that, in limiting the provisions to those 159 owner-occupier crofters who have already been issued with a decrofting direction and those whose applications are being held in abeyance—who might have missed an opportunity for appeal—we have kept the bill as tightly defined as possible to minimise any unintended consequences.
Jamie McGrigor picked up on the cost of advertising. I am certainly happy to look at the cost to crofters, which has been raised recently, to see whether there is any way in which we can overcome the issue. I certainly give him my assurance that we will take that forward.
Claire Baker raised some interesting and important points about the general thrust in terms of small farming units being particularly sustainable, given their low carbon footprint and so forth. We look forward to taking forward any ideas that may come out of the international movement that she mentioned.
As I said, the bill demonstrates the Scottish Parliament’s ability to address issues quickly and effectively. It represents the culmination of cross-party support for a necessary change to legislation. I again thank members across the chamber for that support and for taking such a constructive approach.
We must vote the bill through now, and then we must carefully consider how to progress the other matters that have been raised by members and stakeholders. That will require commitment from a lot of people, but I am confident about what we can achieve, because we have demonstrated through the bill that we can work together when it matters most. I am sure that the bipartisan approach that has been taken has been warmly welcomed by crofters themselves.
I hope that at decision time, members will ensure that the bill is passed for royal assent to allow owner-occupier crofters once and for all to apply to decroft their land, as was intended. I again thank all the members for taking the time to consider the proposals that I have put to them.