HC Deb 13 February 1963 vol 671 cc1296-8
26. Sir D. Robertson

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Government-owned land settlement crofts No. 3, Braal, Halkirk, and No. 6 West Markle, Thurso, were not advertised to let; and why their assignation to men of means who paid for the assignations was approved without competition.

Mr. Noble

In neither of these two cases was the croft vacant or about to become vacant for any statutory or other reason. What was involved was a proposal by the occupants to transfer their tenancies, and, the crofts not becoming vacant in these circumstances, the question of their being advertised to let could not arise. As to the latter part of the Question, I must emphasise that where the crofter wishes to transfer his croft to another occupant, he has a statutory right to choose his own assignee, subject only to the consent of the Crofters' Commission.

Sir D. Robertson

Why does the other occupant have to be a man of means and not a farm worker, for whom all crofts and land holdings in the Highlands of Scotland were designed? Why did he as Secretary of State approve of the principle of the highest bidder, a man who paid £8,000 for one of these crofts, of which £2,500 was for the assignation? He bought himself into a croft in perpetuity, as long as his family lasts. This is something which must be dealt with by the House.

Mr. Noble

My hon. Friend is mistaken in one respect, namely, when he says that I approve of the assignation. I have no such power. I agree with him that there may be a problem here in which perhaps it would be wise for me to consult the Commission to see whether it is more widespread than in this one area, and I will do that.

Mr. Hoy

It is true that the right hon. Gentleman does not have the right of approval, but he has the right of objection, which is equally important. As the Crofters' Commission in its last two Reports expressed considerable concern at the unduly high sums of money which are changing hands in the course of these assignation transactions, will he not cause some inquiry to be made? If he has not got the power, will he tell us what power he requires to deal with this problem?

Mr. Noble

I have said that I will inquire from the Commission whether this is a widespread matter, not one confined to this area. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that, when dealing with a question of tenancy, if one takes away the right of a tenant to assign his croft to somebody else at the best price he can get he suffers some damage, and that it is a question of balance between the ingoing and the outgoing tenant.

Sir D. Robertson

In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory answer which has been given, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.