§ Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer new rights on crofters and cottars to acquire subjects tenanted or occupied by them; to confer rights on crofters to share in the value of land resumed by landlords; to make further provision as to financial assistance for crofters, cottars and certain owner-occupiers of crofts; to amend the law with respect to common grazings; to extend the powers of the Scottish Land Court; to make provision for pensions and compensation for members of the Crofters Commission; and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise—
1. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under—
2. The payment into the Consolidated Fund of all sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]
§ 11.20 p.m.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)I am disappointed that we have had no explanation of the resolution. However I am not surprised, as the Under-Secretary did not know what motion he was supposed to move.
Mr. Ian Mac Arthur (Perth and East Perthshire)Come off it.
§ Mr. RossI am on my feet and I shall stay on them.
This is a simple motion and the Standing Order makes it clear what is in order. I gave the Under-Secretary the opportunity to withdraw it. It is obvious that he needed more time to consider it and he might have been wiser to have withdrawn it. This is one of the reasons why we were dissatisfied with the handling of the Bill on consideration of principle.
The resolution is fairly clear in its wording but it requires some explanation, in two respects. First, I want to know how much Government expenditure is involved. Secondly, I should like to know the extent to which it will limit us in tabling amendments which might be desirable in Committee. Anyone who is concerned with Standing Committee procedure knows that, unless an amendment is consistent with the Money Resolution, it is out of order. It is therefore important to examine the resolution to see whether the Government have deliberately drawn it narrowly or, if it is not their intention to crib the Scottish Standing Committee, whether they are prepared to interpret the resolution loosely, although that may be a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee rather than for the Government, or whether they would be prepared to introduce another resolution. Only a Government can table a Money Resolution to cover amendments they may think to be desirable.
The resolution states:
it is expedient to authorise—1. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under—How much do the Government think they will have to pay out annually under that head? It continues:
- (a) section 3(10) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911".
I believe that these are payments payable in respect of loans and grants for crofters' housing, and there is an extension to cover the new position of owner-occupiers. How much is involved annually? This will give us an indication of how the Government see the whole matter working.
- "(b) section 22(2) or 31(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955".
193 The resolution also refers to
Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1955 in the payment of pensions or compensation to members of the Crofters Commission".How much is involved there? What is the justification? The commission has been in existence since the passing of the Act about 18 years ago. Have any members retired and not received compensation.' Would it be in order to pay compensation to them under the resolution? If it is discovered that it is intended only for existing and future members, will it be in order for the Government to consider the position of members who have already retired? It would be unfair if we were to discover an injustice and the resolution did not allow us to put it right.Next we read of
The payment into the Consolidated Fund of all sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.As far as I can see, those sums are received in respect of the sale of crofts to those who have their crofts on land owned by the Secretary of State. That is a considerable number. In the opinion of the Department, how many are likely to take advantage of the Bill? There must have been certain soundings.There are other moneys that must be paid out by the Secretary of State, but as far as I can see no authority is given specifically within the resolution for him to pay out the additional compensation. A change is made in the compensation procedure in respect of land that has been resumed by the Secretary of State, as for land resumed by any other owner. Having bought his croft from the Secretary of State, the crofter still has a right in respect of the value of land which is to be developed, and in respect of that there is a formula within the Bill stating that the Secretary of State will pay the crofter a percentage of that value. There is no specific authority in the resolution for that to be done. I presume that it is unnecessary, but what statute makes it unnecessary? These are additional moneys. It is a completely new power in respect of compensation, and I should like to know exactly what the assessment is.
The Financial Memorandum to the Bill states that what the Secretary of State will have to pay out can be met by what is coming in. But there must still be 194 an authority to pay out any moneys paid by the Government. How is that covered?
Mention is made in the first paragraph of the resolution of
certain owner-occupiers of crofts".But there are existing owner-occupiers—I think about 750—who have not got certain rights. What exactly is the limitation of that phrase? Are the rights to be given to existing owner-occupiers of crofts as well as to future owner-occupiers who use the rights under the Bill?Additional duties are placed upon the Land Court, which will take over certain duties of the Crofters Commission and of the Secretary of State. What additional expenditure is likely to be involved here? In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which of course is not part of the Bill, an indication is given that as many as 12 posts might be involved, but there is certainly nothing in this Money Resolution about the amount of expenditure involved.
I believe that in Clause 10 power is given to require the Secretary of State to purchase croft buildings in certain circumstances. This will mean a further expenditure of money by the Secretary of State, and I see no mention in the Money Resolution of authority to do that.
Then there is the question of legal aid. I do not think there is any doubt that crofters are not the wealthiest section of the community in Scotland, and the question of exercising their rights in respect of disagreements with the landlord—who may be the Secretary of State—and in connection with many other aspects of the Bill may well involve them in considerable charges. What rights do they have in relation to legal aid? I do not think they have any. I should certainly like it to be in order to move an amendment in Committee providing for the further expenditure of money under the legal aid Act. As I read the Money Resolution, I do not think this would be in order. I do not want any crofter to be inhibited in exercising to the full his rights under the Bill.
I said in the debate on the consideration of principle that it was an extension of the rights of crofters, but I do not want them to be inhibited by the cost of litigation and by the cost of what some people have thought to be a formality 195 but in respect of which I saw figures about a year ago of from £30 to £80. Such figures may be beyond the purse of crofters. I am concerned lest, if we pass this Money Resolution tonight, we might be denying ourselves the right to make a desirable amendment, because there is no provision in the Money Resolution for the extension of legal aid to crofters in pursuit of their rights.
One matter on which there will be controversy during the Committee stage is that of mineral rights and sporting rights. We have already had indications of that—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)Order. I am afraid I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot bring that sort of matter into the debate. He must confine himself—I think he appreciates it—to the terms of the resolution and he must not refer to matters which would involve legislation or other extraneous topics.
§ Mr. RossI think I am right in saying that I am entitled to raise matters which would be the subject of acceptable amendments to the Bill but which would be ruled out by this Money Resolution. One of the most important points in the Bill is the question, owner-occupation having been established, what happens in the case of a resale. The Crofters Commission and others have suggested that there must be a pre-emptive right to purchase.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerSo that we can be quite clear, because I want the right hon. Gentleman to have every chance to do what he is entitled to do, may I point out that Erskine May says quite clearly:
Debate on a motion for a financial resolution is confined to the terms of the resolution itself and must not be extended to the related bill, nor to the merits of matters excluded from the resolution.I think that the right hon. Gentleman will follow me.
§ Mr. RossBut we are being asked to agree to the Money Resolution. One of the reasons for a decision to vote against it would be that the resolution was too restrictive. I am asking whether it is so restrictive in this case as not to allow the Secretary of State to purchase the sporting rights and then hand them to a township or, in the case of a pre-emptive purchase, for the Secretary of State to 196 purchase a croft that is to be resold and then administer it in such a way as to benefit the township.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIs that in the Money Resolution?
§ Mr. RossIt is not in the resolution, but I want to know whether it is ruled out by the resolution. There are many things that are not in the resolution which may be covered already by the powers of the Secretary of State. I have mentioned some tonight which are in the Bill and which are responsibilities being accepted by the Secretary of State. I want to know whether these things should have been in the resolution or, if they are not in, whether we shall be ruled out of order if we seek by amendment to give the Secretary of State some other powers.
Let us take the example I have mentioned in respect of the Secretary of State's responsibility to purchase buildings. There is nothing in the Money Resolution which says it, but in the Bill it is provided that it is his duty. If the Under-Secretary assures me that it does not need to be in the resolution, I shall be quite satisfied. That leads on to the fact that I can put further responsibilities upon the Secretary of State by amendment. I am sure we shall all be happy about that, because we want the widest interpretation of the Money Resolution to enable us to amend the Bill in the most constructive way for the benefit of crofters.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised the question of mineral rights. The Liberal Party is showing its usual interest in the Bill by its complete absence. There are times when the Liberals say that they are terribly interested, but if they want to make certain amendments to the Bill they should be here questioning the terms of the Money Resolution. They are not.
Paragraph 2 of the resolution refers to
The payment into the Consolidated Fund of all the sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.There is no doubt that all sums received by the Secretary of State must go into the Consolidated Fund. Surely I am not out of order in asking what sums are involved, and how much.If we are given some indication of the amount coming in in respect of the 197 number of crofts and croft houses that the Secretary of State will sell to the crofters on the land, we might have some indication of what the cost will be to the crofter. Many crofters would like to know exactly what it will cost them, first, for the croft and, secondly, for the croft house and garden land.
The Secretary of State is the biggest landowner in the Highlands. I am surprised that the Under-Secretary shows such a distaste for nationalisation, bearing in mind that so much of the land is already nationalised. He should have a fair idea of what is happening to his own estates. Can he give an indication of the number of crofts and croft houses that are likely to be concerned in payments into the Consolidated Fund? Will he indicate the average cost of crofts in Inverness, Skye and other areas where the Secretary of State has crofting policies? That information would help us to understand what will happen under paragraph 2.
I do not ask these questions in any carping manner. I ask them because I think we have the right to this information before we start the Committee stage, to ensure that we have the kind of freedom of constructive discussion that all hon. Members want. On Second Reading I declared that I wanted to improve the Bill for the crofters. I am a reasonable man, but if I let slip the opportunity of raising questions on the Money Resolution I might deny not only myself but other hon. Members the opportunity of securing amendments.
We are not entering into the Committee stage for some time. If the Under-Secretary should have second thoughts, he has plenty of time in which to consider the possibility of withdrawing the Money Resolution and re-presenting it before we reach the Committee stage.
§ 11.42 p.m.
§ Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) say that he was not approaching the Money Resolution in any carping spirit. I was particularly glad to hear him say that because, frankly, I thought he was carping. The whole tone of his speech suggested yet again that he was approaching the Money Resolution with the intention of making a nit-picking study of its entrails in a way which we are 198 accustomed to from him, here and elsewhere.
The Money Resolution is drawn in the widest possible terms. I accept, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that we must be satisfied that any Money Resolution is drawn in terms which will not in any way restrict the framing of amendments at the Committee stage. But this Money Resolution is drawn in very wide terms indeed.
I hope that we shall not be seeking to make changes in a spirit of inhibition which would restrict the new rights which the Bill will confer on crofters in Scotland. The purpose and spirit of the Bill and the Money Resolution is illustrated by the very words on crofters and cottars,
to acquire subjects tenanted or occupied by them",That, surely, is a purpose which all reasonable people in Scotland would applaud. It also uses the words:to confer rights on crofters to share in the value of land resumed by landlords.Again, that surely is a proposition with which all reasonable people would agree.The Money Resolution goes on to refer to making
further provision as to financial assistance for crofters, cottars and certain owner-occupiers of crofts.In view of those terms of the Money Resolution, I find myself at a loss to comprehend the right hon. Gentleman's motive in making what I can only regard as his carping criticisms of a particularly generously drawn Money Resolution.The right hon. Gentleman asked for precise figures of the cost to the Exchequer of the Bill. I know why he asked that, but surely it is not reasonable to ask for a precise definition of what public moneys might be involved when one cannot prejudge the valuations which might be placed on these lands. I should regret it if lurking at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind were any wish to restrict the rights of crofters or the benefits conferred on them by the Bill in terms of sharing in the value of land, which is specifically referred to in the Money Resolution.
I do not approach this subject in the same restrictionist spirit as the right hon. Gentleman. The Money Resolution seems to be drawn widely enough to make any reasonable amendment possible. I 199 do not take the same parsimonious approach as the right hon. Gentleman seems to take. I believe in giving to crofters the new rights and freedoms which are conferred by the Bill and the Money Resolution, and I believe that they are welcomed by crofters and by all reasonable people in Scotland.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now resolve to stop the time wasting to which he is so prone and that we will get on without any further unnecessary delay to approve a Bill which transforms the position of crofters in Scotland.
§ 11.47 p.m.
§ Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)I should like forcibly to add my protest to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about the procedure the Government have adopted of forcing this Money Resolution through so fast that, as you yourself said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has not been possible for us to exercise our democratic right to a debate on the Floor of the House. You have acknowledged that, although technically it might have been possible, in practice it was virtually impossible, as the Government know perfectly well.
One of the main additional costs that the Government will have to bear as a result of this legislation is for the extra personnel and administrative expenses of the Land Court, which will have important new functions in fixing the price the crofters will have to pay and—assuming that the Bill is not amended—in deciding whether or not land can be taken out of crofting tenure. We must understand what these extensions of power involve.
I am sorry, because of a prior and very important engagement, I was not able to be present to hear the Minister reply to the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. I have no complaint about the spirited way in which he replied to my remarks, but his rather wild statements were unjustified, especially when he said that I had made it clear to him that I
did not begin to know the first thing about this subject. He had not taken the proper trouble to understand the provisions of the Bill or the issues with which it is trying to deal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 24th January 1974; c. 93.]The Minister then went on to speak about a Labour Party working party 200 document, with which it would be out of order for me to deal. I read on eagerly to see what I had misunderstood, to see what facts, according to the Minister, I had got wrong. He went on to refer to me twice. The first time was simply to accuse me of hyprocrisy because the working party document of the Labour Party had suggested abolishing the Commission.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member is going too wide of the resolution.
§ Mr. StrangI am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This increased cost which the Land Court will incur arises because it is taking over functions which might well have been carried out by the Crofters Commission. I should have thought the Minister would know that one of the consequences of the commission's 1968 proposals would have been the winding-up of the Commission.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am afraid that that is out of order too.
§ Mr. StrangI am grateful again for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My final point is that when it comes to fixing the price of the croft by the Land Court the Government will have to pay for the court's activities. The Minister said that I was under a basic misconception of the real facts, but he did not say what that misconception was. I therefore challenge the Minister for making wild accusations while being unable to cite one instance from my speech on that Tuesday which was a misconception or was factually inaccurate. I shall be grateful if the Minister will take the earliest opportunity to explain how he justifies his allegations that I had not studied and was not cognisant of the Bill.
§ 11.53 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)The last thing of which I should ever dream of accusing the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is carping criticism. Both sides of the House are well accustomed to the way he deals with this and other Bills, and I have certainly listened with interest to what he said tonight. I 201 have no doubt whatever that every remark he made was put forward in a constructive sense to try to improve the debates we shall have in Committee, and it is certainly in that spirit that I shall deal with them.
There is one point I should like to make in connection with the tabling of the motion we are discussing.
§ Mr. RossOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I made no complaint about the motion we are discussing, which is the Money Resolution.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithThere are certain procedures in the House which have to be followed before some of the motions we discuss can be taken and of which the right hon. Gentleman has made complaint. If he has cause for complaint, I can assure him that no discourtesy was intended.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am sorry, but I must also pull up the Minister. He is straying outside the terms of the Money Resolution. We must keep to it.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithWith my usual courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman I was trying to reassure him, but I take your advice on the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On the specific details of the Money Resolution, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention in the terms of the resolution to crib, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own term, the Scottish Standing Committee in its later deliberations. The resolution has been drawn up in such a way as to cover the purposes of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has pointed out how widely drawn is the resolution. There is no intention through its terms in any sense to seek to make our task in the Scottish Standing Committee of improving the Bill difficult or restricted. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to be in the Committee last week and he therefore missed the firm assurance I gave that it is my desire, as I know it is his, to deal with the Bill constructively and to improve it in the course of the Committee stage. The resolution gives us the opportunity to exercise the good intentions which we 202 have and which I hope the Opposition have.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the detail of the resolution and the amount of money to be spent. The money comes basically under three heads. The first is Section 3(10) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911, which authorises expenditure on the administration and staffing of the Scottish Land Court. Under the Bill, the court is to be given new functions arising, first, from the right being given to crofters to acquire croft land or the site of their dwelling-house and, secondly, to cover the transfer to the court of the power at present exercised by the Secretary of State in relation to the enlargement of crofts and the removal of land from crofting tenure.
The increased responsibility which the Bill proposes to give to the court will necessitate an increase in its staff, but in turn this will be partly offset by a reduction in the Secretary of State's staff. We estimate the net increase in expenditure to be about £46,000 a year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there were other ways in which this responsibility could be exercised, although I do not think he was questioning the power given to the court in relation to the rights of crofters to acquire croft land but was dealing rather with land being taken out of crofting. He asked what scope there would be for amendments in Committee and what powers might be given in other directions.
Under the 1955 Act there is provision relating both to crofters and to the Secretary of State. It was not suggested in the Grand Committee that powers should be given in other directions, but I do not think that this part of the Money Resolution puts any restriction on our debates in Standing Committee. I hope not.
§ Mr. RossIt was the Crofters Commission itself, in an interesting paper, which suggested independent trustees. That would require financing. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that it is ruled out because it does not directly involve the Crofters Commission and the Secretary of State?
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithSuch a suggestion was not made in the Grand Committee. I have considered carefully 203 whether it could be covered, depending on what kind of amendment might be proposed in Standing Committee as to financing. The Money Resolution is drawn for the purposes of the Bill.
§ Mr. RossWhen we consider the court's latitude, it is not the Government which decide what is in order. If the Money Resolution is passed, the Table will decide what is in order. That is why it is necessary as far as possible to give enough latitude in the resolution.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithNor is it possible not to draw the Money Resolution in terms of the purposes of the Bill. We are not making it any more difficult in this case than the right hon. Gentleman made it difficult in any Bill which he introduced as Secretary of State. This bears out some of the earlier comments about carping criticism.
I wish to deal with a point about expenditure under Section 22(2) or Section 31(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 Clause 9 of the Bill provides that financial assistance towards the erection or improvement of dwelling-houses and related services shall continue to be available under Section 22(2) to crofters and their family nominees and successors and cottars for a transitional period of seven years following acquisition of the site of the dwelling-house. Under present legislation a crofter who becomes the owner of his croft or house is ineligible for such assistance. Therefore, this provision applies to those who become owner-occupiers.
The crofting communities have always attached considerable importance to the assistance available for the erection and improvement of croft houses and the continued availability of such assistance has been much welcomed by them. The seven-year extension should allow ample time for the crofter who acquires his house site to replace or improve his substandard house before his eligibility for assistance runs out.
Taking account of the fact that those who apply for assistance under Clause 9 would in any event have been eligible for housing grant and loan had they not purchased the house site, the effect of the new provision will simply be to accelerate expenditure which would otherwise have 204 taken place over a longer period rather than create new expenditure. The resulting increase in expenditure is estimated at £75,000 per annum in the seven years following enactment of the legislation and decreasing thereafter as those who purchased their house sites in the early years of the legislation become ineligible for further housing assistance.
There is also provision in Clause 9 for extending the range of assistance available under Section 22(2) and 31(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, including roads, water and electricity supplies. Assistance for such works is already available to crofters through schemes made under Section 22(1) of the 1955 Act but subject to the requirement that they are necessary for the purpose of aiding and developing agricultural production. This has had the effect of excluding from eligibility small crofts with very little stock where the main need for roads or an electricity supply is as an appurtenance of the croft house. The clause therefore transfers these items to Section 22(2) of the 1955 Act and thereby removes the criterion of agricultural justification. The increase in expenditure resulting from this transfer is likely to be fairly small—we estimate about £5,000 per annum.
That leads me to the third heading of the Money Resolution, namely, the amendment to Schedule 1 to the 1955 Act, which is to enable the Secretary of State to pay pensions and compensation to members of the Crofters Commission. Because the provision will be applicable only to certain members of the commission, expenditure is unlikely, on current scales of remuneration, to exceed £1,500 in any year in which payment is required to be made. The only exception would be in the circumstances for which there is provision when a lump sum payment had to be made to a person ceasing to be a member of the commission. As was explained on Second Reading, there is nothing unusual in the provision. It is common to all Bills recently introduced concerning statutory bodies such as the Crofters Commission.
I am sorry that I do not have time to deal with all the points which have been raised. However, I hope that I have dealt sufficiently with the detailed questions.
§ Question put and agreed to.
205
§
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer new rights on crofters and cottars to acquire subjects tenanted or occupied by them; to confer rights on crofters to share in the value of land resumed by landlords; to make further provision as to financial assistance for crofters, cottars and certain owner-occupiers of crofts; to amend the law with respect to common grazings; to extend the powers of the Scottish Land Court; to make provision for pensions and compensation for members of the Crofters Commission; and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise—
-
c205
- PUBLIC ACCOUNTS 13 words c205
- RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION 26 words
- ADJOURNMENT 12 words
-
c205