Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for giving me an important opportunity to restate an assurance on this vital matter.
The amendment proposes an insertion into Clause 2(2) which deals with the matters to which the Crofters Commission should have regard when advising the Secretary of State in relation to a proposed transfer of land from himself to a crofting trust. I believe that it was intended to introduce an amendment which would require a crofting trust which wished to sell or otherwise dispose of any of the land transferred to it by the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the commission.
However, the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, raises is in relation to selling on. We have never stated that crofting estates are free from threats, pressures or an erosion of the current patterns by which their lives are guided. However, as I explained, we believe that there are sufficient safeguards to protect crofting land.
Land in crofting tenure is protected by the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 which requires any landlord wishing to take land out of crofting tenure, which is known as "resumption" to obtain the approval of the Scottish Land Court. Before authorising the resumption, the Land Court must be satisfied that the landlord wishes to resume the land for some reasonable purpose in relation to the,
I hope that is the assurance which the noble Lord seeks. It is an important assurance which I am happy to give and I am glad that it should go on the record. We could not agree to the imposition of an additional or unnecessary hurdle on those crofting trusts which have assumed land that originated on the Secretary of State's estate, unlike other crofting landlords. We see the discrimination that would create. In a sense, it would create also a separate class of crofting landlord. That would be unjust and unnecessary. However, I am happy to repeat the safeguards which are very important and which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, suggested should be repeated for the record, and they exist in the 1993 Act.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask whether he agrees that it would be a good idea for the Crofters Commission to scrutinise an incoming new estate owner in the same way that somebody who has purchased his croft has then to apply to become the crofter of it?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the point that I should make to the noble Earl is that if land was being resumed--in other words, taken out of crofting for a development purpose--then the Scottish Land Court must be satisfied with that resumption; that it is being done for a reasonable purpose; and that the benefits will flow to the crofters, the local community or the public interest.
If the ownership of the crofting land changes hands, that crofting land remains as crofting land and remains within the protection and security which exists to look after all crofting land in successive pieces of legislation. Therefore, a change of ownership should not increase the threat which might be posed to land which remains in crofting.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the Minister again for his comments. I take heart from the fact that the noble Earl spelt out yet again the view that he takes and the assurance that he gives as regards the role of the Scottish Land Court in that regard. However, it is possible that only practice and experience will provide us with the evidence. I have a nagging suspicion that there is a problem here to which we may have to return subsequently, once we see how the operation of the scheme actually beds down in reality. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Rights of pre-emption]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 7, I should point out to the House that if the amendment were to be agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 8 owing to pre-emption. As it is being debated at the same time, the same applies to Amendment No. 9 which pre-empts Amendment No. 10.
The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 7:
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. The amendments will extend the period allowed to claimants for compensation in respect of loss of rights of pre-emption from six weeks to four months. I am grateful to various Members of the Committee who queried the original drafting of the Bill on this point, and especially to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. I agreed to consider the matter further and I now propose that claimants for compensation should be allowed four months.
I would reiterate that the period allowed for the process does not in any way delay the transfer of the Secretary of State's crofting estates to crofting trusts. Indeed, it is only when a transfer has actually taken place that the process of seeking any compensation that might be due for the loss of pre-emptive rights is triggered in the first place.
I should also remind the House that the procedure for dealing with claims once they have been lodged is a very fair one for claimants. Where claimants fail to reach agreement with the Secretary of State, they will have a right of appeal to the Scottish Land Court. Proceedings in the land court are straightforward and inexpensive but the court has the power, where it deems it appropriate, to award costs. That should reassure possible claimants and those organisations which might represent their interests. Claims will be dealt with fairly and efficiently.
I feel sure that noble Lords will accept that the Government's proposal will allow adequate time to lodge a claim, wherever the claimant may be resident. Amendment No. 9 is consequential upon Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Earl did indeed promise in Committee to produce amendments to extend the six weeks to a longer period. I tabled my amendment only about five minutes before the Minister tabled his. I did so to enable us to talk again about the matter in the event of the Minister not bringing forward such amendments. As it is, I tabled my amendments and asked for a six-month period in the hope that I might achieve three, like a Persian carpet seller. However, I have got more than I even dared hope for. I am most grateful to the noble Earl and shall not, therefore, be moving my amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I do not mean to oppose these amendments but I am still not convinced that we need any time limit for pre-emptors to show up and claim their extinguished right. As the noble Earl said, the pre-emptors' permission does not in any sense get in the way of a successful transfer between the Scottish Office and a group of crofters.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, to my amendments. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that we would not seek to impose a time limit unless there was a very good reason for so doing. If there was no time limit and there was a possibility that there might be more than one claimant to pre-emptive rights, it would be impossible to reach a conclusion of negotiations in that, from the Secretary of State's point of view, there might be a need to wait and see whether any other siblings or collateral branches came forward with perhaps a stronger right in law. We must, therefore, impose a time limit to conclude the process. By doing so, we will actually deliver any compensation which might be payable to the just recipient.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 9:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above regulations I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to the Executry Practitioners (Scotland) Regulations 1997 which follow on. Both sets of draft regulations were laid before the House on 13th January this year. They relate to the new professions of qualified conveyancer and executry practitioner for Scotland which were established by the
Independent qualified conveyancers will be able to offer all conveyancing services--some of which are at present reserved to solicitors--and executry practitioners will be able to offer the Scottish equivalent of probate services. Members of both professions will be regulated by the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, which was revived last year after a period of suspension caused by the state of the housing market in Scotland and difficulties which have been experienced in arranging affordable cover for practitioners to cover indemnity insurance and compensation arrangements.
I am pleased to inform the House that the board has been able to arrange a professional indemnity insurance master policy at a premium comparable to that paid by solicitors in Scotland; and a compensation fund is now in place which will provide protection for the customer against fraud or dishonesty. In the period before contributions from practitioners into the fund have built up sufficiently, it will be backed by insurance and a relatively small government guarantee.
It is anticipated that in the early years the number of practitioners participating under the procedures laid out in the regulations will be small. However, there are a number of students currently taking the qualifications offered by the University of Abertay and Glasgow Caledonian University, both of which have been accredited by the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board. A number of students have already qualified and embarked upon their practical training. I understand that those who have completed their courses are finding training available to them in what is now a very competitive market. Courses are also in prospect at two other universities and part-time training opportunities are available.
The draft regulations before the House today were first issued in draft form for the purposes of consultation in December 1995. This was a major consultation exercise, with over 160 copies of the consultation document being issued and over 40 substantive responses received. In the event, those responses were very helpful to the Government and allowed our thinking on the draft regulations to develop. The regulations also benefited from the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading whom my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is required to consult.
Following on from the consultation exercise, a new draft was prepared and a second consultation exercise took place in September last year. The latter produced no new significant points, but gave rise to further discussions between the Law Society of Scotland and the Government to resolve one or two minor points of concern. I am happy to say that that was achieved.
I do not think it is necessary to go through the detail of either these or the following regulations. I am happy to assure the House that they will regulate both these new professions to the highest possible professional standards. On that basis I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("six weeks") and insert ("four months").
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("six weeks") and insert ("four months").
6.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page