SCOTLAND (LAND SETTLEMENT CROFTS) (Hansard, 18 March 1963)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grim-stoat)
Sir David Robertson.

§ Mr, John Hall (Wycombe)
On a point of order. Am I to understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are adjourning the House without having had opportunity to debate the spending under the Army Vote of more than £500 million and, if so—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is not a point of order. The House is on the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it possible that next year it will at least be feasible to put the Army Vote at the head of the list so that we get an opportunity of talking about the Army?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is not a question for the Chair.

§ Sir David Robertson (Caithness and Sutherland)
The Secretary of State for Scotland is the greatest landowner in my constituency. His possessions include land settlement crofts carved out of large farms, mainly after the end of the First 166 World War, to provide land for returning soldiers and agricultural workers who were anxious to obtain land of their own.
I would say that successive Secretaries of State have developed the original intention and a very good job has been done. I have inspected land settlement crofts at Watten, the central parish of Caithness, and I have greatly admired the work which the Lands Branch of the Department of Agriculture has done in providing well-equipped crofts, good farmhouses, good steadings and sheds, and so on. for men of small means to come into it.
A change, however, has come over the scene in recent years. I learned of it first from a letter which received from my constituent, Mr. A. D. Sutherland, who wrote to me on 3rd July last year, as follows: For 17 years I was shepherd on the farm of Reaster, Lyth, occupied by Mr. G. M. B. Henderson. Scrabster. When Mr. Henderson sold the farm last October to Mr. George Sinclair. West Murkle, the latter wished to assign one of his department holdings at Murkle to me. Mr. Sinclair applied to the Crofters Commission for approval of this assignation. but in the enclosed letter dated 3rd May, 1962. the Commission refused the application on the ground that the holding should be made available for re-letting on the open market. In order to allow Mr. Sinclair's parents to join him at Reaster, I had to vacate the house I occupied there, and as I had nowhere to go at that time, Mr. Sinclair gave me the occupation of the house he had occupied at Murkle until his let of the holding ceased on 28th November next, when, as he had assigned the holding to me, I expected to become tenant. Since moving in here have been virtually unemployed apart from attending Mr. Sinclair's stock on the holding. I am writing to ask if you, sir, can assist me to get the tenancy which was assigned to me. I have experienced the insecurity of living in a tied house for many years having been on farms all my working life and once again the threat of having to move to God knows where looms on the horizon. A married man with three sons at school and a fourth whom I had intended to work the holding with me now working in Thurso in view of this uncertainty, I feel as many people here do, that I have suffered a gross injustice I would be anxious to know how recent holdings let in Caithness were acquired by the new tenants and where do I fall short, possibly insufficient influence? It is signed, "A. D. Sutherland." He enclosed with it this letter from the Crofters Commission.
I am sorry to have to quote these letters, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but they are the kernel of the case. It is dated 167 3rd May, 1962, and addressed to Mr. Sutherland at West Murkle: Assignation of Croft 3. I refer to the application Croft: 3 West Murkle, Thurso, Caithness, which Mr. George Sinclair lodged with the Commission for consent under the provisions of Section 8 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 (as amended by the Crofter's (Scotland) Act, 1961), to the assignation of the croft at 3, West Murkle, Thurso, Caithness, to you. At their meeting on 30th April, 1962, the Commission gave further consideration to the case and to the representations made at the hearing on 16th April, 1962, and I am directed to inform you that they decided to refuse the application on the grounds that the croft should be made available for re-letting on the open market. The Commission's decision has been intimated to the landlord and to the applicant. I wrote immediately to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as I always do about a matter raised by a constituent, asking him to make inquiries and to reply to me, which he did. I want to quote from the most recent and important Act, the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955. This is the Preamble to the Act: An Act to make provision for the reorganisation. development and regulation of crofting in the crofting counties of Scotland; to authorise the making of grants and loans for the development of agricultural production on crofts and the making of grants and loans towards the provision of houses and buildings for crofters, cottars and others of like economic status; A cottar is invariably a farm servant in Scotland. This is what Mr. Sutherland was. The Act could not apply to anyone with greater force than to him. He had been 174 years on Reaster Farm and he is the outstanding livestockman in the north of Scotland. He has won prizes for his employers and for himself. He is allowed to keep some cattle and sheep of his own on his employer's farm. That is usual in Caithness.
Mr. Sutherland came to that croft with the support of the farmers in Caithness—the National Farmers' Union, and, I believe, supported by the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland from Edinburgh. He was also supported by the farmworkers' union, which wrote to me on the 18th January: The local branch of the farm workers' union are behind Alex Sutherland in his fight for the holding at West Murkle. As secretary of the Thurso branch I would like very much to see Mr. Sutherland get the holding. It 168 would be a change to see a farm worker get a bit of ground in this county. I am, Yours faithfully, A. Mackay. We have a very long and bad record of farm servants being compelled to emigrate from the homeland. There are more Caithness people in Canada tonight than in Caithness, and the same I suppose applies to Australia, the United States and other places overseas. We have dozens and dozens of men like Alex Sutherland who have spent the greater part of their working lives working for farmers and it is quite impossible for them to get land. Here was this man, with all his experience and quality being brought into this matter because it was the tenant of the croft at West Murkle who bought the Reaster farm where Sutherland was the shepherd, the man in charge. Mr. Sinclair needed a bigger house than the one on the croft and if the deal was to go through it was essential that Sutherland should vacate the farmhouse, which he did on the assurance from Sinclair that he would assign the croft to him.
Sutherland is not a lawyer, and he believed all that had been told him, so he got out. So the farmer got what he wanted, the sale; and the buyer got what he wanted; but the man who made it possible and went into West Murkle was told he should not have gone in. He had no authority to go in, because when Sinclair went out he had to renounce the croft. Sinclair may not have known that, but for Sutherland it was an act of good will.
I would support the case that as crofts become vacant they should be put up for open competition, but I was very surprised to learn that the objector in this case was the Secretary of State. He objected to this outstanding farm worker getting into West Murkle, and I doubt if there is a man his equal in the north of Scotland or who would be more qualified for it, even if there were 50 or more applicants. But he did not get it.
But other crofts have changed hands for money—large sums of money. Crofters who were just wanting to get out have had sums of money instead of renouncing their crofts. They go to the open market and look around for the 169 highest bidder, and with the prosperity in agriculture, agricultural land is in demand, particularly by land-hungry men. I received the information from farmers in Caithness. This is to the outstanding credit of the farmers. It was they who brought this matter to me first. They are not willing that a first-class farm servant should remain without a croft for ever. They wrote to me, and I learned in October that crofts were being assigned for cash to the highest bidder.
Once again, I wrote to the Secretary of State giving him the information which had come to me. Simultaneously I read the Reports of the Crofters Commission. I had not seen this before. The first I refer to appeared in 1959. This is what the Crofters Commission had to say about assignations: In administering section 8 of the Act, relating to assignation, the Commission have constantly been mindful of the crofter's right to nominate his successor. They have felt bound to approve an assignation where there was no valid objection to the proposed assignee, provided always that the other statutory requirements were satisfied. It is now clear, however, that apart from simple transfers within the family, a practice of 'selling' the croft to the highest bidder is spreading. When assigning to a stranger, the temptation is strong to secure the highest possible price for the permanent improvements, and in pursuit of that the outgoing crofter may give scant consideration to the crofting qualifications or suitability of the bidders. This is an extraordinary statement, that he seeks to get "the highest possible price for the permanent improvements". The improvements on any croft owned by the Secretary of State or anyone else are the owner's responsibility, the man who owns the land and the buildings. He is the inheritor of all improvements made throughout generations, maybe, of tenants, and he should compensate the tenant for all permanent improvements.
The Act does give a crofter the right to nominate his successor, but it is, of course, up to the Crofters Commission to approve, and how the Crofters Commission approves some of the cases which I will mention hon. Members will be as good judges of as I am. The buyer gave £8,000 for the croft at 6, West Murkle, for a croft into which the first tenant went—I imagine in the 1920s—without having to pay a penny down, into a fully equipped croft having to buy only the seed to produce a crop. Now the croft is sold for £8,000, but the land 170 and the buildings still remain the property of the Secretary of State.
The newspapers rang me up about this time and, as they so frequently do, they also went to the other side. This statement appeared in the Scottish Daily Mail about the end of 1962: One of the crofts mentioned by Sir David was recently taken over by Mr. Robert Mackay, at West Murkle, Thurso, His father, Mr. I. Mackay, farmer of Stitley, Thurso, said: My son took the holding over as a going concern. He paid about £8,000, but that was for the buildings, improvements and stock, including 30 dairy cows'. I find it difficult to understand how it could be for the buildings, and when I looked up the valuation roll I found that the buildings belonged to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, £8,000 was paid. What crofter or cottar within the meaning of the Crofters Act could find £8,000? He could not borrow money from the banks to buy dairy cows, because banks in Scotland are not allowed to advance money for that purpose. This practice is entirely contrary to the basic and fundamental principles of all the crafting Acts, which are designed to meet the needs of small people.
The second case, No. 3 Hoy and Braal, concerns a croft which was let to a young incomer, not a farm worker but a young Englishman. Englishmen are always very welcome in my constituency, but not when they come ahead of men who have been on a long waiting list and who have been farm workers and have done the heavy work, not acting as pupils and paying for their tuition. He paid a sum for assignation. There is no doubt about this. Farmers from the area who were down here for the Smithfield Show came to see me and told me that a premium was paid for the assignation of that croft, hut was hidden in the total amount paid for improvements and livestock and crops.
I cannot prove these figures, but the best estimate I can get is that for the croft at 6, West Murkle £2,960 was paid for the cows; £450 for 15 oat stacks; £250 for 10 acres of turnips; £1,000 for implements, including one tractor, one rotovator and one binder; £400 for mill and milking plant; £50 for a shed; and £390 for young grass cultivation, a total of £5,500, leaving a remainder of £2,500. If those figures are correct. that is what was 171 paid for a croft into which the original man went paying only for the seed.
This sort of thing is making it quite impossible for the objects of the crofting Acts to be carried out. I take the greatest possible exception to the attitude of the Secretary of State in approving the assignations without question and to the Crofters Commission, which complained in 1959 and again in 1960. The Commission is all-powerful. The Secretary of State has power only to object to a crofter's nominee, but the Commission has the right to select a tenant and to put him in.
On 13th February, 1963 I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland a Question about these crofts. I asked why the Government-owned Land Settlement crofts No. 3, Braal, Halkirk, and No. 6, West Murkle, Thurso, were not advertised to let; and why their assignation to men of means who paid for the assignations were approved without competition. My right hon. Friend replied: 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. My supplementary question was: 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. My right hon. Friend said: 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."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 13th February, 1963, Vol. 671, c. 1297.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) then asked a supplementary question, which I hope will be dealt with tonight.
172 In the A. D. Sutherland case, when the Secretary of State objected, the Crofters Commission fell into line immediately. What the boss wanted came about. The kind of man for whom the croft was intended does not get it. When the moneyed people buy the assignations, which it was never intended in circumstances under any Crofting Act should take place, the Secretary of State does not object, nor does the Crofters Commission. They are both guilty, and it is the duty of this House to see that this stops, and stops quickly.

§ The Under-Secretary a State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White)
I have a little over five minutes in which to reply to all these important points. I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) wants to get into the debate, and if I can manage to telescope my remarks to allow him a minute at the end I will do so.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) will realise my reasons if I abbreviate what I have to say. My hon. Friend's main worry is that some crofts may be going to people who can afford to pay more for them rather than to those who need them most. We checked up on what has been happening with croft-lettings during the past seven years in my hon. Friend's constituency. During that time 16 crofts have become vacant. They have been re-let as follows: 10 to crofters, three to farm workers, one to a farmer's son, one to a small farmer, and one to an ex-Service man with previous wide experience in agriculture. Therefore, without saying that everything is perfect in our arrangements—these are difficult arrangements to make—we can claim that at least there is nothing widely wrong with the type or category of people who have been getting crofts in my hon. Friend's area.
I know that my hon. Friend appreciates this, but I will say it for general information. In his area there are certain special difficulties. There are about 2,000 crofts in Scotland in the hands of the Secretary of State. These vary from very small ones of one acre to what are in fact viable small farm units of 50–100 acres of arable land and sometimes 2,000 acres of grazing. The small crofts are 173 on the West Coast and the larger ones are mainly in Caithness and Easter Ross.
When it comes to the assignation of these larger crofts, the successful applicant must necessarily be not only a person of good farming experience but also a man with some capital. He must have the sort of capital needed by somebody who would be prepared to take on a small farm and run it successfully, because that is what he is going to do.
These large crofts are legally crofts, but economically, the running of them, as my hon. Friend appreciates, makes the same sort of demand as would a small farm. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that when a large croft changes hands, it should come into the hands of a person with sufficient capital to pay a reasonable price for the stock, buildings and equipment and have sufficient money to run the place properly when established. I do not think that that point is at issue.
Then comes the difficult question of whether the outgoing occupant, the previous holder, should be entitled, as he is now, to ask something more than a pretty strict valuation of the assets as they stand. If someone offers a fairly generous price to the outgoing tenant for the assignation, should the outgoing tenant remain free, as at present, to accept the offer, subject to the agreement of the Commission as to the suitability of the applicant to hold the croft?
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the law which was passed by this House in 1955, and not materially altered in 1961, is quite clear. A crofter who wishes to give up his croft as opposed to a case where the lease is automatically terminated for some reason or another, is, under the existing law, a person with the right to pass it on to whoever he chooses, the only limitation being the right of the Commission to veto the choice if, for example, it considers that the person chosen is not a competent person to run the croft efficiently. When the 1961 Act was being passed no one suggested that there should be any bar to a sitting crofter securing the best offer that he could for his croft, if he decided that he wished to hand it on to someone else. That is a right of the sitting crofter which one would be very hesitant to restrict. My hon. Friend appreciates the importance 174 of this and he has on occasions argued in favour of the small crofter exercising this right. It is not a question of principle, it is a question of being reasonable.
No one wishes to restrict the right of a sitting crofter. Equally, no one wants crofts to change hands at unreasonable prices simply because there may be a considerable demand for them. The Commission has mentioned this problem in previous Reports. On 13th February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would ask the Commission about this matter. We were told by the Commission that from recent experience, and from limited information available, it appeared that this practice of virtually selling a croft to the highest bidder still continued. But it did not seem to the Commission that the problem was acute throughout the crofting counties. The Commission has said that it will continue to watch the situation and will not hesitate to make the appropriate recommendation for legislative action should it think that necessary. So much for the financial point.
On the question of the crofts falling vacant the general arrangement is that any croft owned by the State has to be advertised. We select the applicant whom we think most suitable and inform the Commission. The final responsibility rests with the Commission. The proceedings are similar in the case of a privately-owned croft. But I must make clear that in cases where the tenancy is to be terminated it would he wrong for the holder to suggest to anyone that he had any say about who his successor should be.
If anyone moves into such a croft when it is terminated, and before it has been advertised or he has been selected, or before the selection has been endorsed by the Commission, he would be gambling with his chance of being deemed the most suitable applicant. It might turn out that he was. But it might also turn out that he was not, and in that event he would have no ground for protest or complaint. He would have to give way to the person who had been selected as having the better claim.
In reply to the question by my lion. Friend regarding the West Murkle case, it was found that the applicant for the croft, the proposed assignee, was the most 175 suitable person, and his name has been submitted to the Commission for its consideration.

§ Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)
I wish to tell the Under-Secretary that the reply he has given is not very satisfactory. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has done a first-class job by raising this subject which has been referred to in successive Reports of the Commission. Allegations have been made that the assignations have been becoming so high that 176 unless an applicant had a considerable sum of money he had little chance of securing a croft. The whole purpose of the Act is destroyed when it is necessary to ask an applicant for a croft to spend £8,000 on security—