Hansard

On behalf of the Labour Party, I thank the clerking team of the Environment and Rural Development Committee for assisting the committee in reaching this stage of our deliberations on the bill.

I want to strike a more conciliatory note at the outset. I thank Ross Finnie and Rhona Brankin for their response to the committee's report. Rather than being a climbdown, I think that that is the way in which the Parliament should work. The committee worked hard to produce a report and the Executive responded positively to it.

At the start of the committee's scrutiny of the bill, I had little knowledge of this complex system of secure tenure of small landholdings provided at a reasonable rent and protected by a unique code of law. I am rather more informed now, although I do not claim to be an expert. Indeed, it was an aim of the bill to simplify crofting legislation, and that was welcomed by the committee in its stage 1 report.

As the minister said, the bill came about in order to implement policy proposals arising from the publication in 1999 of the land reform policy group's recommendations for action, which included proposals to reform crofting law. The Executive consulted extensively on the proposals for the bill and published an analysis of the responses to that consultation in March 2005. Those proposals, which formed the basis of the draft bill, were for more sustainable crofting communities; more local involvement and accountability for crofting administration; much simplified crofting legislation and administration; more—at least, not fewer—active crofters; and crofters undertaking a wide range of land-based and other economic activity in addition to agriculture. As we have heard, however, the committee's stage 1 scrutiny unearthed a much wider debate about the future of crofting in the context of changing and increasing pressures.

The committee heard much evidence about how crofting could be sustained in the modern world and about whether the bill would equip crofting to respond to the challenges that it faces. A range of issues that are outlined in the committee's report dominated the evidence on the bill. They include a debate about the vision for crofting and whether it should be viewed primarily as custodianship of land for future generations or as a private asset to be developed; a debate about whether crofting is primarily an agricultural system or a social and economic development tool; concern about an unrestrained free market in crofts and croft tenancies and concern that the crofting right to buy should not mean an unfettered right to speculate; proposals to dampen that market by imposing obligations on croft owner-occupiers to live on or near the croft and to farm it, such as currently exist for croft tenants; proposals to increase the supply of crofts by creating new crofts; and the relationship between planning law and crofting.

As stage 1 progressed, it became increasingly clear that the bill, as drafted, was not going to meet the aspirations of many witnesses. Indeed, there was a pervading concern that it might encourage the marketisation of crofting.

In written evidence, Brian Wilson called the bill "a speculator's charter", as it can be seen as legitimising the notion that market forces are already the norm. In its written submission, the National Trust for Scotland stated:

"With its emphasis on development, diversification and the protection of individual rights, the Bill at best offers little to change to the status quo, and at worst accelerates the demise of the crofting system by failing to tackle poor enforcement of current regulations and by encouraging a free market in croft tenancies at the expense of the wider crofting system."

Had I more time, I could go on quoting in the same vein, but the evidence that I have cited is illustrative of the concerns about a free market in crofting that might have become more entrenched if the bill as introduced had been progressed. That point can be teased out in today's debate.

Concern was also expressed about the role and purpose of the Crofters Commission, and especially about whether it has adequate powers and is making proper use of those that it has. Whether or not the commission's powers are adequate, evidence indicated that there is a real public perception that over the years it has failed to make use of its powers.

One of those powers is the power of veto, which essentially allows the commission to regulate the assignation of crofts. In response to questioning from me in committee, Shane Rankin said:

"The question is whether the Crofting Commission can go on vetoing assignations … The power of veto was given so that we could avoid some of the worst excesses."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 19 April 2006; c 3010.]

At the same meeting, Brian Wilson questioned that statement. He said:

"That has never been my understanding. Criteria and definitions apply to what is expected of crofting tenants and potential crofting tenants. If they cannot, are unlikely to or subsequently do not meet those criteria, the regulator should regulate them. Otherwise, what is the point of the law and the regulator? If a doctrine of avoiding the worst excesses is created, we must ask what the worst excesses are."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 19 April 2006; c 3022-23.]

At the end of the stage 1 process, it is clear that strong direction must be given to the commission to use its existing powers to act to address some of the problems that are identified in the committee's report and to rebuild trust in the commission.

On the issues that I have outlined, along with many others, it is clear that there was dissatisfaction with the bill as introduced. For that reason, the committee proposed that we take the fairly radical step of leaving out large parts of the bill and not introducing the concept of proper occupier, which had been suggested as an add-on. However, I do not recall the committee suggesting that we should not proceed with the bill.

I am pleased that the Scottish Executive has listened to the committee and the witnesses from whom we took evidence and that it has responded so positively. It is in no one's interest for us to proceed with the bill as introduced, given that it has stirred up such disquiet among crofters, crofting communities and those who take an interest in crofting. However, it would have been difficult for the Executive to second-guess that until all the evidence had been taken and the committee had reached its conclusions. I am sure that it was always the Executive's intention to introduce a helpful piece of legislation, which has now been informed by the committee's deliberations. I believe that what is now proposed is a step forward for crofting.

The key issues that remain are interposed leases; challenging the neglect of crofts; ensuring that there is an accurate register of crofts; extending crofting tenure outwith the crofting counties; and enabling the creation of new crofts without the right to buy. Progress can be made on all those issues and would be welcomed by most people, so we should proceed in that fashion.

The evidence in respect of new crofts focused mainly on Arran. Many argued that, in the past, Arran had unreasonably missed out on being included in the crofting counties. The committee was recently in Arran and took the opportunity to consider the issue further by visiting the areas concerned and speaking to locals. Its visit was warmly welcomed.

I commend the Scottish Executive for heeding the committee's report and giving a commitment to drop the more controversial proposals in the bill, including those that refer to the market value of crofts. I am pleased that it has committed itself to instigating a wide-ranging inquiry into crofting issues, including the market for crofts and the status, role, functioning and powers of the Crofters Commission. Given the lack of consensus among crofting interests, that is the right way of progressing the issues and allowing the debate to develop further.

A modern vision for crofting cannot lose sight of crofting's unique traditions, especially the principle of giving the crofter security of tenure, at a reasonable rent, with the right to pass on the croft to future generations via a hereditary system. Important provisions will remain in the bill after stage 2 and, unlike some colleagues, I believe that we should take forward those provisions. I urge the Parliament to support the general principles of the bill today, which will allow us to amend the bill at stage 2 in line with the committee's report and the Scottish Executive's extremely helpful response to it.