Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about the arrangements for the scrutiny of this Bill. I believe that the Select Committee visiting Skye, Inverness and the procedure in the Moses Room were particularly helpful.
As regards the amendment, we have to make certain that we are talking about public assets rather than estate infrastructure. I believe that we can see that division. Therefore, we are probably talking about tracks and bridges, drains and fences as being estate infrastructure and the possibility of public roads and bridges have somehow or other crept on to the estate, but which have not yet been adopted by the local authority.I certainly approve of the philosophy involved in the purpose of the amendment. Perhaps the words "normal", "major" and "crofting community" are still slightly undefined. I do not believe that that matters because it certainly explains the approach that should be taken in the negotiations between a group of crofters seeking to take over their estate and the negotiating team from the Scottish Office. It is probably just as well that there is imprecision in words like "normal maintenance", "major infrastructure" and "crofting community". I agree with this amendment and hope that it will commend itself to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I speak to this amendment as an ordinary person who looks after a fairly small estate in Scotland where the drainage was put in probably 200 years ago. The best way to go about this would be to insert into the Bill a provision to allow the new owners of the land to be eligible for a grant. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example. If one replaces lead water pipes from the mains to the first tap in the house--pipes which are starting to leak because of their age--at present one is eligible for a 75 per cent. grant. Such a grant is important and applies whether or not the house is privately owned or rented. On average, such work costs about £1,000 per house. Most of us can afford to spend £250 but simply do not have the money to spend £1,000.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about the advantages derived from the procedure we have adopted with this Bill.
The noble Lord also suggested that despite great proximity on many of these issues, there was perhaps some difference of approach between us in that the Government are seeking to keep the face of the Bill non-prescriptive in terms of exactly how the transactions may progress. We see that as producing the necessary flexibility. However, the noble Lord fears that that may deter applicants from coming forward.
I acknowledge that the issue needs to be pondered carefully, but we have thought this through and we have a greater fear that if we pre-empt and fetter (by cluttering the face of the Bill with prescription) there is a danger that that inflexibility may deter crofting townships and crofters from coming forward. Therefore, I understand exactly the point which the noble Lord explored but, as I have said, we have thought about this carefully. We realise that clarity and some confidence about what is likely to be the result of the Bill are useful in encouraging people to come forward, but I hope that the assurances that I have been able to give to date in Committee and again today on Report will make clear
the policy that would underlie the Government's position in any transaction between the Secretary of State and the crofting townships. I remind the House that the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State are willing sellers. The Government have introduced this initiative because they want to see the transfer of townships into crofting trusts.To pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, we are also determined that any such transfer should be to a viable successor body. We see no merit whatsoever in a transfer to a body which either immediately or within a fairly short timeframe might lack viability.
This amendment seeks to ensure that only normal maintenance burdens and responsibilities are transferred to crofting trusts and that the Secretary of State retains any responsibility he has for wider community assets. Noble Lords will recall that we discussed this at some length in Committee. I am grateful for all the contributions made in Committee and again today by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and my noble friend Lord Balfour. I made it clear then that, although it would be appropriate for crofting trusts to take on the normal maintenance and repair responsibilities that go with ownership of an estate, the Government would retain any responsibility that they have for maintaining assets which have a wider community purpose. I am very happy to reiterate and underline that reassurance again today.
I appreciate that in proposing the amendment the noble Lord is simply trying to reflect that commitment on the face of the Bill. He said that he took some inspiration from my words in Committee. I understand the reasons behind the amendment and I stress that in the minds of some there is a fear that other governments may not be as sympathetic as this one to the transfer of the Secretary of State's estate to townships.
Nevertheless, I suggest that the amendment is both unnecessary and conceivably dangerous. The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide a flexible vehicle to allow for the transfer of the Secretary of State's crofting estates to crofting trusts. Noble Lords opposite have tried on a number of occasions to chip away at that by proposing amendments which would have the effect of constraining the Secretary of State or the trust. In other words, they would potentially constrain that flexibility.
I understand the motives--and they are the best of motives--but we feel that that is unnecessary. The disposal will be agreed between the parties. It will not be imposed on anyone. We have made it clear that the disposal would take place only if the crofting township or the crofting trust involved actually wanted and approved the terms of the transfer. The negotiations would be freely entered into by the crofting trust.
I think the amendment is potentially dangerous because we simply do not know what legal interpretation might be put on the key terms in the amendment,
We should keep the Bill as flexible as possible. The House has my assurance on the general approach of the Government to this matter. I remain convinced that the best way forward is for each estate to be considered separately in the light of those principles. I hope that with that reassurance and explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He has gone most of the way to satisfying the concerns felt on this issue not only by noble Lords on these Benches but by all who served on the Select Committee. The noble Earl has spelt out the terms under which the Government would seek to exercise the disposal, with particular reference to the burdens. Given those assurances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 2:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3 which is grouped with it. Together they seek to define the terms under which the disposal of both the land and the rights appertaining to that land should be transferred. Their objective is to ensure that the transfer of both the land and any rights takes place basically on a no value, no cost basis; and that the trust when set up enjoys without cost the full benefit of the land and any rights associated with it.
The Minister has, with credit, frequently indicated that the intention of the Government is that any property is transferred on the basis that the viability of the trusts set up is assured. The difficulty is that viability can be a very narrowly drawn concept. I suppose that if expenditure is 20s a year and income is 19s 6d that is viability. I am sorry; that is the opposite of viability. If expenditure is 19s 6d a year and income is £1 that is viability. That slip makes the point that the judgment as to whether or not something is viable is finely balanced. This may put too great a pressure on trusts if they are to flourish. We seek to ensure a basis of transfer that leads to a situation where trusts do not struggle to survive but flourish. To secure that, we want the transfer to take place on a no cost no value basis.
I accept the point made by the Minister in Committee that there is a distinction between the west coast crofts which predominantly have common grazings and east coast crofts which are effectively small farms. It is arguable that the basis of transfer may be different in those two situations. However, if one is to have a general approach surely it must be one that enables the
The danger of "viability" is that it can be a very closely and narrowly defined concept. If the trust has the good fortune to have land on which there are rights--the main ones are mineral rights--let it have those rights and exploit them for the local benefit. One is not talking about enormous sums of money. For example, it was made clear that currently the total income from the Secretary of State's entire crofting estate from mineral rights was £17,000. Why do we not have the generosity to say that in order for local potential gains to accrue those rights should be transferred free of charge to the trusts that are set up?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this amendment sets off in the right direction. I believe that the key word is "land". The crofters deserve the right to this land because they created it as agricultural land. When we went to Skye we visited the North Talisker estate. Before it was purchased by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in 1926 it had been a sheep farm. In 1883 the value of that sheep farm was £1,575 a year. I suggest that that exceeds the rent that is currently taken from the 70 crofters on that land. I am very much in favour of the transfer of the land which effectively has been created. It is possible that on some estates there are jetties, fish-processing plants, car parks or even helipads. Perhaps those kinds of infrastructure need to be sold and cannot just be regarded as part of the land, in the sense that there will have been substantial investment by the landlord rather than the tenants who will have brought the land under control.
Referring to Amendment No. 3, I note that, although the words
Page 1, line 25, at end insert--
("( ) In any disposal of property under this Act no value shall be attributed to the land.").
5.30 p.m.
"at no costs to the transferee"
sound impressive, earlier in the provision there is reference to
"may agree with the body acquiring the property"
which perpetuates the philosophy adopted in the first amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page