| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We believe that the amendment may risk jeopardising the ability of some
crofters to establish crofting trusts. I know that that is not what the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) would wish.
Any requirement that a crofting trust represent a community may be interpreted to require that a community be shown to exist on the relevant property. Decisions of the Scottish land court have found that scattered crofts can be deemed not to form a community. It is therefore possible that crofters in the eastern highlands, where there are no common grazings and crofts are often some distance apart, may be frustrated in attempts to establish trusts if they cannot demonstrate that a community exists on their scattered holdings. The amendment could therefore remove from some crofters the ability to establish a trust, which is contrary to the Bill's principle.
Where a community can be shown to exist, our advice is that the terms "the community" and "persons" have no legal difference, and that in this context, the amendment is unnecessary. I invite the hon. Member for Dumbarton to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. McFall:
Although the Scottish Crofters Union does not hold the same view as the Minister on the point, I recognise the validity of his statement. The issue of the wider context still divides us a little, but in the light of his assurance and his very reasonable response--perhaps for the first time, which is very important at the end of this Parliament--I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read.--[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
Mr. Maclennan:
The importance of the Bill is not to be measured by its length or the fact that it is reaching its concluding stages at a time when the eyes of the public are diverted from the House to the political battle elsewhere. This is a significant little Bill. It was conceived in haste by the Secretary of State, notwithstanding the history--to which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred--of the report by the Public Accounts Committee, when it was chaired by Mr. Edward du Cann.
The evidence for my belief that the Bill was conceived in haste is that the Secretary of State seemed to be unaware of the extent of the obligations contained in the Bill. The earlier debates on the Bill showed much uncertainty about whether the Government were prepared to contemplate the transfer of the sporting and mineral rights with the crofting rights. Today, we have heard a helpful defining statement from the Government on that issue, which marks a development in their thinking.
The Bill has also been given a considerable fillip by the success of the Assynt Crofters Trust, which took a private initiative to acquire the north Assynt estate near Lochinver in my constituency in the early years of this Parliament. That initiative showed how crofters, coming together in a community to acquire the ownership of an estate, could help to benefit their own interests and those of the wider community, economically and socially. That precedent may start a landslide in due course.
The benefits of common acquisition by crofters of a sporting estate have been seen in north Assynt and further north in Sutherland, where the Talmine estate is being similarly transferred to the crofters on the initiative of the proprietor. That estate is in the neighbourhood of Melness, one of the remaining Gaelic communities in Sutherland, and the transfer is a welcome development. Other inquiries and initiatives have followed the north Assynt acquisition, and the Bill will play a useful part in changing attitudes and improving the prospects of crofters in the highlands.
It is clear that many holdings have better prospects of viable development if they are managed by the crofters, in their interest. Most crofters believe that the Secretary of State has been a good landlord, but the appurtenances of ownership in today's world--with the possibility of raising further finances on the security of an estate, or coming together to develop assets that cannot be developed in isolation--offer real advantages in certain areas.
In discussions earlier in our proceedings on the Bill, I have been at pains to ensure, most importantly, that transfers of ownership from the Secretary of State would take place only when there was an absolutely clear view within the community that they would be in the interests of the crofters. There should be no question of this becoming simply a way of disembarrassing the Secretary of State of a loss-making concern. The Minister has made it clear that that is not the Government's intention.
It is also important that, when the Crofters Commission, under clause 2, carries out tests of opinion so as to advise the Secretary of State whether it is in the interests of the crofting community that the transaction should take place, the tests should be completely transparent, deliberate, open and well considered by all affected.
It is satisfactory that the Crofters Commission has said that that would be its intention, although it has not yet defined what it would regard as a significant majority, or said whether it would wish to establish opinion by means of a secret ballot, and whether absentee crofters should be consulted. All those are significant matters that could affect the judgment whether the Crofters Commission has properly discharged its function of determining the will of the people affected.
I would be happier if those details had been given before the Bill reached its concluding phases in the House. It seems to me that a secret ballot is a desirable mode of determining the view of the community. I distrust opinions expressed at a single public meeting, with hands either raised or not raised. There is no doubt that, in many communities, there are people who have a dominant influence on opinion, and that others with as much right to be heard may feel less able to be forthright in expressing their views.
I do not think that a decision of such importance should be arrived at without the kind of deliberative approach that I have recommended from the beginning. Such a step would bring the process of transfer into disrepute, which would not be in accordance with the wishes either of the Secretary of State or of Parliament.
A great trust is being given to the Crofters Commission--to act as the principal adviser. In the past, the commission has had a quasi-judicial role, often
considering the interests of particular individuals and determining matters such as what to do about a particular crofter's rights in a common grazing, but I do not believe that any equivalent power has been given to it before.
Although the commission's role will be only advisory, it could turn out to be the critical role. It is hard to believe that its advice would be rejected by the Secretary of State. I therefore go firmly on the record as saying that I hope that the Crofters Commission will weigh its decisions in such matters with great care, and in no case rush to judgment.
I do not believe that the Bill need be the prelude to a rapid transfer of title. The initiative ought to come from the communities themselves. As the burdens of ownership are not to be ignored, they will approach the matter with great caution.
I conclude by expressing satisfaction that one of the last matters to come before this Parliament is the consideration of how best to assist the development of these estates, for they lie at the heart of the highland community. Their well-being remains key to the future of parts of our loved country, which is close to the hearts of all who represent it.
Mr. Wilson:
The best that can be said of the Bill is that it is harmless. That cannot be said of much of the legislation that goes through the House, so I regard it as something of an achievement. A few small victories have been won in the Government's lifetime against the onward march of privatisation. It is a cause of satisfaction to some of us that two such measures have been in the highlands and islands context. Caledonian MacBrayne remains firmly in the public sector, in spite of three efforts by the Tories to flog it off, as do the highlands and islands estates of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department.
I well remember that the initial ploy was to privatisation the estates, to sell them on the open market, and to leave it to the fate of that market to decide who ended up owning the estates that were held in trust by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That was repelled. The current Secretary of State returned with other proposals, which are embodied in the Bill.
The crucial element of the Bill is the lack of compulsion. The estates will be sold only if the people who live on them want them to be sold, and they can be sold only to the local community. Those two advances are vast, and they transform the nature of the legislation compared with the original concept in the 1980s. The first comfort is that there is no compulsion, and the second is that there will be no Tories to carry through the legislation. Even in its much muted form, this legislation would be dangerous in the wrong hands. It would be possible for the element of pressure, if not the element of compulsion, to return.
The general rule of thumb for land legislation in the highlands and islands is summed up in the old saying, "The law favours the landlords, because the landlords made the law." That has literally been true for most of Parliament's history, particularly in the other place. However, during one period in its history, that was not the dominant theme. From the 1880s to the 1920s, Governments of all persuasions were compelled to listen to the voices of the people instead of to the voices of the landlords, because of the pressure for land and the pressure from people who were without land.
When we hear rubbish such as that spouted by the Secretary of State in Stornoway a couple of weeks ago about the sacred rights of property, it is worth noting that the crofting system is probably the biggest incursion into the rights of private property for which the House has ever legislated. To an enormous extent, crofting law removed the rights of private landowners, removed the market-led approach to the ownership of land in the highlands, and certainly removed the right of landowners to act capriciously towards tenants whom they had previously evicted at free will and subjected to various other indignities.
The crofting laws changed all that, and did so in response to the pressures from the people who lived on the land. Crofting laws were by no means perfect, for some of the reasons to which I alluded earlier--for instance, they left sporting and mineral rights outside the rights of communities, and large areas of the highlands and islands are not subject to them.
We are dealing with estates owned by the Secretary of State on behalf of the nation and, in debating a Bill dealing specifically with these lands, it would be amiss not to recognise that the only reason the lands are in common ownership today is that landless ex-service men--many of whom were returning from the first world war--were prepared to struggle, to fight and to demand the right to remain on the land, and were not prepared to be driven off to the four winds at the whim of any landlord. It is because they took that stand that the state was obliged to intervene to acquire land in areas where there was great congestion and great demand, but where land was in the ownership of people whose sole interest was to clear as many people as possible from it and to use it for private economic and sporting interests.
It is because ordinary people in the communities stood up to be counted, often physically resisting the forces of landlordism, that the state was obliged to intervene and to bring the estates into public ownership. That is why we have Scottish Office-owned estates to discuss today--because, in the early part of this century, men and women alike were prepared to go to gaol, to physically resist and to say that the rights of common people were greater than the rights of any landowner or Government.
I salute today the people whose struggles created the publicly owned estates in the highlands and islands, and allowed succeeding generations to live on those lands. The only reason there are healthy and lively communities in the crofting areas of Scotland today is that that struggle was engaged in and those rights secured.
One of the problems was that the crofting laws did not cover the whole of the highlands and islands. One score that I would like to see settled while I am still in this House is the omission of the island of Arran from the crofting laws. It is a particular irony that today we have two Ministers on the Front Bench--one by the name of Robertson, and the other by the name of Douglas-Hamilton.
When the crofting laws were introduced in 1886, they included the county of Bute, which at that time included the island of Arran. The only reason why Arran was taken out of the protection of the crofting laws was that there was a Tory Member of Parliament for Bute at that time named Robertson and a landowner--who needs no introduction to the Minister of State--called the Duke of
Hamilton. Each of them used his lobbying power in this Chamber and in another place to get Arran excluded from the crofting laws.
The result of that successful piece of vested interest was that, instead of coming within the crofting system--in which case, it would be a different community today--Arran was excluded. Right down to the present day, Arran is run on a feudal basis by some of the most unpleasant and interventionist landlords in Scotland, who constantly use the powers open to them to extract money and to implement feudal power against the people who live on the island.
What a wonderful thing it would be if at least those who are renting on the island of Arran under the smallholders legislation were to be given the status of crofters and the protection of crofting tenancy. The same argument applies in parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), where people are rented under the legislation. They are crofters in all but name, but they do not have the protection of the crofting laws. That is one of the elements that will be contained in real crofting reform legislation in the future.
This is only the start. The Secretary of State thought he could pull a publicity stunt by saying that he was addressing the highland land question. What an unlikely thing for a Tory to do--giving crofters the right to buy their own land.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |