Chamber
Plenary, 25 Jan 2007
25 Jan 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Crofting Reform etc Bill
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.
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.
References in this contribution
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
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.
The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie):
LD
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 ...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
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 shoul...
Ross Finnie:
LD
As always, I am reluctant to anticipate the conclusions of an independent inquiry. Obviously, there will be no change unless the matter comes before Parliame...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
The Scottish National Party welcomes the final stage of the bill. The bill is equitable and achieves fairly small administrative changes that benefit crofter...
Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
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...
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
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...
Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD):
LD
Crofting tenure has sustained rural communities in the crofting counties since the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 was passed and the legal concept of ...
Mr Alasdair Morrison (Western Isles) (Lab):
Lab
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, m...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
I ask members please to ensure that their mobile phones are off.
Eleanor Scott (Highlands and Islands) (Green):
Green
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 fr...
John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD):
LD
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 somebo...
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
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. ...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
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 ...
Ross Finnie:
LD
Will the member give way?
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I will in just a minute.I am genuinely perplexed about that and I am profoundly concerned about the implications of the decision.
Ross Finnie:
LD
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 kn...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
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 p...
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD):
LD
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 mor...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
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 pre...
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
Sometimes life takes unexpected twists and turns. Who would have thought that, after convening the Parliament's Environment and Rural Development Committee, ...
Mr McGrigor rose—
Con
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Would Jamie McGrigor like to agree with me?
Mr McGrigor:
Con
No. I suggest to the minister that it might have been more appropriate for the Executive to listen before the bill was written.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
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 Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
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—