HC Deb 02 March 1976 vol 906 cc1244-8
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

I beg to move Amendment No 1, in page 2, leave out lines 6 to 9 and insert 'unless the land has been apportioned under section 27(4) of the Act of 1955 and is either—

  1. (i) adjacent or contiguous to any other part of the croft, or
  2. (ii) arable machair;'.
There was some discussion on the drafting of this subsection during our consideration of the Bill in Committee, and certain hon. Members were critical of the wording. I assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that most of the Government amendments are helpful amendments, their drafting taking note of some of the points made during the Committee stage. I do not visualise that in many of them there should be much delay or criticism.

It is a very important Bill, and the crofters, as I understand it, want it. I think we should take the chance, while we can, to get the Bill on its way. A Bill is often very much more important than the speeches made on it.

As I have indicated, there was criticism in Committee, and as proof of my willingness to meet, if possible, all reasonable criticism I asked the parliamentary draftsmen to re-examine the drafting to see whether it could be clarified in any way. I think it was the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) who had something to say about this. We therefore propose the wording in the amendment, which, I think, meets the criticisms made at the time.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 23, at end insert 'unless that dwelling-house is occupied by a member of the crofter's family in which case this subsection shall not apply'. This amendment again refers to a point that was touched on in the debate in Committee. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) raised this matter and I supported him in it. I hope that the Secretary of State will be as flexible and generous in relation to this as he was in relation to the previous point.

The Under-Secretary, who handled the matter in Committee, very kindly wrote to me about this, and I believe that he sent a copy of the letter to the hon. Member for Western Isles. In his letter the Under-Secretary refers to the problem we are trying to cover in the amendment. Where there are two houses on a croft and one is occupied by close members of the family of the crofter himself, we believe that they should have the same rights in buying the site of the house as the crofter himself should have. We think that this is important because of the provision that crofters make to ensure that there is proper housing available for close members of the family.

While I appreciate the explanation that the Under-Secretary has given to me by letter—that in one way or another there should not be real difficulties in the way of the title to the site of the second house being available to the people who are in it—what worries me is that it is necessary to go through a number of procedures before this can be achieved. I wonder whether at the end of the day there will not be some final obstacle still to be overcome and whether my amendment—which is the same as that put forward in Committee—is not better in making the position certain by enshrining the right in the legislation rather than having to go through all the procedures which might involve difficulties and delays.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

I support the submission made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on his amendment.

There is a certain number of cases—not numerous—in the crofting areas where the crofter, his predecessor or a member of his family has had a second house built. In some cases, although a new house has been built, a member of the family—perhaps an aged relative—has stayed in the old house.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the houses were provided by the crofter or his predecessors. There is no question of their having been provided by the landlord. If by certain procedures these could be taken over by the crofter, this would be a useful amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Mr. William Ross

In Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) that this matter would be looked at again. I have given a good deal of thought to the difficult issue raised in the amendment, with which I have some sympathy, but I have concluded that on balance—I stress that the matter is not clear-cut and the arguments are somewhat finely balanced—I must resist the amendment.

I am informed by the draftsman that the amendment is defective for the purpose for which it was moved by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).

I resist the amendment for two reasons. First, the fundamental principle in the Bill is that the crofter should have an incontestable right to acquire the site of one dwelling-house—the one which he identifies as the house pertaining to the croft. This, as was said in Committee, is in accordance with the principle inherent in crofting legislation since 1886 that a crofter has a right to erect one house on his croft without his landlord's consent. If we were to extend the incontestable right, it would breach that principle.

Secondly, it is a basic principle in the Bill that the landlord has a right under Clause 3(3) to a share in the value of any part of the croft land, other than the site of the croft dwelling-house, which the crofter realises by disposal within five years of acquisition. We are talking about the site of that second house. If the incontestable right were extended to the site of a second dwelling-house, that site would no longer come within the definition of croft land and the landlord would lose his right to a share in the value of the site on disposal within five years. It must be understood that the amount would be unlikely to be very significant; but the principle is established in Clause 3, and we want to try to be consistent throughout the Bill.

Having said that, I repeat the point made in Committee that the Bill as drafted gives the crofter what is in practice virtually an incontestable right to acquire the site of a second house. If he cannot buy it by agreement with the landlord, he can seek an order from the Land Court authorising him to acquire the site as part of his croft land. The landlord can contest the application only on the grounds that the acquisition of such a part would cause him substantial hardship or be substantially detrimental to the sound management of his estate.

I am sure that hon. Members would agree that the chances of a landlord succeeding there are, to say the least, very slight. The only point about acquisition in this way as part of the croft land is that it carries the liability to make a second payment to the landlord if the site is resold within five years. In the situation that we are examining, however, where the house is occupied by a member of the crofter's family, such disposal is unlikely and, as I have said, the amount would not be significant.

Those are the facts. I can understand the desire of hon. Gentlemen to make the matter as simple as possible, but there are difficulties regarding the basic principles of the Bill from which we do not want to depart, because we could be forced to depart in other ways which might not be helpful.

With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Back to
Forward to