§ Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ 1.9 pm
§ Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is with great pleasure that I move the motion, as I am a member of the Scottish Crofters Union and was born and brought up on a croft. I took up this issue before I came to the House, in the context of the campaign being fought by the Scottish Crofters Union, and I have raised the issue on frequent occasions in the House, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will know, as he served with me on the Committee that considered the Farmland and Rural Development Bill in which this topic was raised.
Over the years the Government have moved from giving support in principle to giving support in practice. I acknowledge the Government's help and assistance. I acknowledge also the help and assistance of officials in the Scottish Office in the drafting and preparation of the Bill. Thanks are due also to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who placed the Bill before the House in the last Session, thereby giving the public a chance to consider their comments before it was again moved in this Session.
Great thanks are due to the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Crofters Commission, which worked together in a co-operative and constructive spirit to put flesh on the bones of the original ideas that were presented some years ago. Thanks are due to various environmental organisations that have given advice during the preparation of the Bill and during its progress through the House. In particular, I refer to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wide Fund for Nature. Thanks are due also to several local authorities, including the Western Isles islands council and Highland regional council for their comments and support.
The Bill complements two defined trends in forestry policy over the past decade. The first trend is the increasing emphasis on private planting. Over the past decade the Forestry Commission's estate agency has been responsible for only one third of new forest planting. The Bill, in giving forestry powers to crofting townships, would be in keeping with that trend. Obviously, that trend commends itself to the Government, but, in so far as my Bill would also introduce a new sector of private planting by local townships, it also commends itself to this side of the House.
We should not forget that in socialist Sweden and socialist Finland, 50 per cent. of woodland—that is, woodland outside the control of large companies—is privately controlled. Those countries have a developed system of farm forestry. Much of the continent has a developed system of local farm forestry. We lack such a system. I hope that the Bill will begin to introduce such a system on a considerable scale in the highlands of Scotland. Also, on the increasing trend to private planting, my Bill would give the Government a new option in privatising or selling off various assets currently held by the Forestry Commission.
As the Minister knows, for several years the Government have engaged in considerable sales of Forestry Commission land and wood plots. The 564 enactment of my Bill would give the Government new and alternative purchasers or private owners of Forestry Commission estates which would be an alternative to the usual recourse to speculators or large companies that are not based in the highlands and islands where most of the sales take place. As the Government seem determined to continue that trend, I hope that they will seriously consider the practicalities of allowing portions of the forestry estates to be given to crofting townships so that control can be retained in the local communities.
The second trend of forestry in the 1980s which I believe that my Bill complements is the desire, which has not yet become practice, to shift away from an alien monoculture, in the hills which has the sole aim, of maximising the timber yield for some notional strategic reason, such as the national economy needing to make up the deficit in timer imports. I hope that we shall move away from that monoculture, which serves a single aim, towards a more flexible, multi-purpose vision of forestry, which will chase after other goals, such as amenity, nature conservation and the rehabilitation of degraded and exhausted soils. Equally important, given that public money will be required to maintain a healthy forestry sector, the goals of public access and aesthetics should be at least two of the targets of that multi-purpose approach to forestry.
It might help the House if I quickly summarise the basic objectives of my Bill. It seeks to enable crofting townships to engage in forestry and tree planting and to derive benefits from trees planted on common grazings controlled by the townships. The Bill includes various safeguards which accompany the increased powers for the grazing committee. The first safeguard is contained in what I hope will become subsection (1E), which will provide that the grazings committee cannot exercise its new power
in such a way that the whole of the common grazing is planted with trees and used as woodlands.The RSPB has expressed its concern that the acreage of common grazing that is planted in that way should not be such as to impinge on the environmental quality of the grazing. Although subsection (1E) will provide one safeguard, clause 1(2) contains the second safeguard that the approval of the Crofters Commission is required before any planting on common grazing is undertaken. The commission has a duty to safeguard the integrity of crofting in the long term and will consider those factors and, I hope, factors such as environmental quality before approving any approach. I hope that when the Bill is enacted the Crofters Commission, the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland will co-operate in drawing up an advice pamphlet that the townships can use before embarking on any forestry projects. Such a pamphlet could include advice not only about where to obtain financial support and so on but about the type and scale of forestry to be undertaken. In preparing that pamphlet, the advice of groups interested in the development of responsible and proper forestry, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the new Scottish Natural Heritage, would be taken into account.A further safeguard in respect of the new power for crofting townships is that the consent of the landlord will be required before the township can proceed. That safeguard was specifically included at the request of the 565 Scottish Landowners Federation, which has been co-operative and constructive in the preparation of the Bill.
Clause 2 largely deals with the technical consequences of giving crofting townships the new power. One such consequence is that the landowner will no longer have the power of resumption of common grazing land while it is being used as woodland. Another is that common grazing woodlands would be excluded from the definition of permanent improvements. Those technical measures are necessary to safeguard against hypothetical, rather than likely, possibilities.
Clause 3 enables crofting townships to have access to the support payments that are available for forestry through the Forestry Act 1979 and the Farm Land and Rural Development Act 1988 while they are engaged in forestry.
It may be helpful to the House if I give some general statistics on the extent of common grazing in the highlands and islands, to give some notion of the general impact of the Bill. There are almost 18,000 crofts in the highlands and islands. The vast majority of those are in the northern and western isles. Indeed, my constituency has almost half the total number of crofts in the highlands and islands, although it does not necessarily have half the total acreage of crofting land because the average acreage of crofts in the islands and on the Scottish mainland varies dramatically.
Taking the list of members of the Scottish Crofters Union as an indication of the number of active crofters, there are about 5,000 active crofters in the highlands and islands, of whom 95 per cent. have a non-agricultural occupation to complement the income that they obtain from crofting. It should be emphasised that crofting is not subsistence agriculture, but an example of a diversified approach to the rural economy which is becoming more relevant as reforms of the common agricultural policy become urgent.
The average income gained from crofts is about £1,500 per annum. That is usually from holding a small flock of sheep. The average number of sheep per active crofter is about 30. A croft consists of a small area of inbye land and a share in grazing land held in common by several crofters who share a township. The total amount of land held in crofting tenure—both inbye land and common grazing land—in the Highlands and Islands development board area is about 15 to 20 per cent. of the total land area. The typical inbye land area is five to 10 hectares. There is a legal maximum of 20 hectares, of which I was unaware until I researched the Bill. There are 753 separate common grazing areas, covering 573,880 hectares in the highlands and islands. The average size of each individual common grazing is between five and 1,000 acres. The number of shareholders in a common grazing area can vary between 10 and 100.
In evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture during its inquiry into forestry and land use, Dr. Jim Hunter, the director of the Scottish Crofters Union, said that of a common grazing area of 1,000 acres, as many as 400 acres could come under timber in the long term without reducing its stock-carrying capacity. The stock-carrying capacity is low because of the effects of exposure. The planting of the right kind of woodland would not necessarily displace the grazing function because woodland would contribute shelter, so would enhance its stock-carrying capacity. The figure of 400 acres 566 in every 1,000 is a long-term figure dependent on the system of financial support and incentives as it evolved over time. It is my firm belief that the system should be designed to achieve the many purposes of forestry to which I have already alluded.
Some are sceptical about the financial viability of crofter forestry and whether it will be worth while for crofters to engage in forestry. In March 1987 George Campbell, who is the new director of the Scottish Crofters Union, but who was then a student at the North of Scotland college of agriculture, wrote a paper called, "The Feasibility and Viability of Small Scale Afforestation on North West Highland Crofts". The paper was part of his degree course. He showed conclusively that trees offered a higher return than sheep even in the most marginal areas, although not enough of a return to offset the increased managerial input and work required for managing woodland as opposed to looking after sheep.
Two subsequent developments make the forestry proposition even more attractive compared with sheep. The farm woodland scheme, which is already in place, provides a new source of income to farmers engaged in forestry. It was not available when George Campbell made his study. The second development, which I hope will come about, is the passage of this Bill which would make it much easier for crofters to engage in forestry, so making it financially viable.
There are various sources of finance available to crofters if they are enabled to engage in forestry. As well as providing various plantation or planting grants for different kinds of trees, the farm woodland scheme provides an annual payment of £30 per hectare up to a maximum of 40 hectares. I quote the figure for severely disadvantaged areas, which is much less than the annual management figure available for farmers in better areas.
After the passage of the Bill, I shall be pressing for the support given to farmers in less advantaged areas to be increased, perhaps not up to the level of that given to farmers in the best areas—given that the purpose of the farm woodland scheme is to try to attract farmers away from other types of farming activity—to make it more attractive and viable for crofters to engage in forestry.
The Forestry Commission has its own woodland grant scheme. That is another source of funding that crofting townships can access in pursuing their forestry planting. The crofting counties agricultural grants scheme provides a range of financial support for fencing, drainage and general improvements undertaken in crofting areas. That would be available for improvements made in pursuit of forestry aims as much as improvements that are currently undertaken.
There is the possibility of support from the Scottish Natural Heritage Agency. After all, the old Countryside Commission used to pay 85 per cent. of plantation costs for small plantations in national scenic areas, and some of the common grazings would be national scenic areas. That is why the Scottish Natural Agency might have a financial role to play.
A further source of financial support that I would advocate is the introduction of a forestry equivalent of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. We could call it the hill forestry compensatory allowance. It would have exactly the same justification as the allowance for livestock, which is the need to maintain populations in rural areas and disadavantaged areas. If forestry is a form 567 of economic activity that can retain rural populations, it is as justifiable to give it additional support as it is to give livestock management additional support.
Indeed, given the way in which agricultural policy seems to be evolving as we move into the next century, there is every reason to begin to promote forestry in disadvantaged areas in the way that in the past we have tried to promote livestock management in disadvantaged areas.
Another source of financial support would be the kick-start, so to speak, that would be gained from implementing my earlier suggestion that any new Forestry Commission wood lots that are privatised should be given to townships rather than speculators. That would obviously enhance the financial viability of crofter forestry.
In addition to strict financial returns, there are many other returns that crofting townships could gain from engaging in forestry. They could get shelter in the way that I described, and that would enhance the quality of the common grazing. The right kind of forestry—I stress that it must be the right kind—would improve the soil and drainage and increase grazing and so on by increasing grass growth. It would maximise the use of machinery because machinery that now lies idle for part of the year could find a dual use in forestry. Wood could over time become available for fencing and firewood.
There might in the long term be downstream activities related to the development of a local timber industry in some of the areas to which I have referred. I would also hope to see jobs arising from the enhanced amenity and environmental quality of common grazing areas.
Finally, I should like to mention my hopes for the future of crofter forestry. Many people come to the highlands imagining that it was always the bleak, treeless wind-swept landscape of today, but historically that is not so. Historically, the highlands were covered by the great Caledonian forest. Sadly, by the end of the 18th century, most of the trees had been destroyed by various encroachments—accessing wood for boat-building and, later, when the industrial revolution was under way, the use of highland trees for charcoal. Often, people are unaware that the industrial revolution had a direct impact on the ecology of the highlands and islands. In fact, various smelting processes were undertaken in various parts of the highlands. The cannonballs shot at Trafalgar were smelted in the highlands, which provided a readily accessible source of charcoal.
The impact on the ecology of the highlands and islands has been such that nowadays in Scotland only 8 per cent. of the existing forest consists of indigenous, native woodland. To take one example, the district of Inverness has lost more than 30 per cent. of its native woodland—its small precious resource—even since the war.
It is sad that the great amount of forestation undertaken in the past decade has not, by and large, replaced or enhanced the native woodland source. On the contrary, between 1971 and 1980 more than 90 per cent. of Scottish planting was of alien conifers—sitka spruce and lodgepole pine. I hope that the passage of the Bill will open up a sector of private forestry which will begin to counteract some of the less attractive trends of the past decade.
568 An alternative vision of forestry which I should like to see is that now being pursued by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on Isle Martin—one of the Summer Isles—which lies off Ullapool. There has been an extensive programme to regenerate the natural woodland and to plant some indigenous trees such as the downy birch, the common alder and the grey and the gold willows. They are all species that are able to grow reasonably quickly and to cope with the extremes of climate because they are all based on local seeds. They could not only provide amenities of environmental value, but would be of great value for crofting townships should they wish to follow that example.
This is a short Bill, but it could have substantial benefits for the highlands and islands, and not just economic benefits. In the fullness of time, it could have a profound effect on the environment and even on the appearance of the highlands and islands. It could redress some of the destruction wrought by man over the centuries, and one might think of the Bill as a small seed or even a sapling from which substantial consequences may grow.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on introducing this important Bill and I acknowledge, as he did, the help that has been received from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
I hope that the hon. Member for Western Isles does not mind my saying that we all look on him as the respected, authentic voice of the Scottish crofting community. He speaks with the authority of someone who lives in and understands that community. The hon. Gentleman is not motivated by narrow prejudices. What is so refreshing is that he bases his approach on what he believes to be in the best interests of the crofting community and what is viable. That is evident from the Bill and what he said today.
The hon. Gentleman, in common with the rest of us, wants to keep families in those crofting communities. It is not enough for those communities to be peopled by the old because they will eventually disappear with the death of those people. It is important to create an environment in which people can bring up their children and those children can, in turn, look forward to carrying on the traditions and activities of their parents and grandparents.
The hon. Gentleman properly drew attention to the fact that the crofting community, in order to make anything work, must operate within a framework that includes landowners, environmentalists, the Crofters Commission and local authorities. He also drew attention to the constructive approach that those different bodies have taken to the Bill. They have done so because they realise that the Bill is founded on what is practical, possible, realistic and can be delivered. It is important to remember that.
The hon. Gentleman was also right to talk about the increased use of private planting, which has been much encouraged by Government policy. The hon. Gentleman is aware that I represent a large highlands constituency and I agree with him that it would be better for that region if the increasing trend towards private planting helped the local people. The hon. Gentleman and I want the local people to benefit, not someone who lives 100 miles away 569 who has made an investment. I have no objection to such investment, but I want the local people to be more directly involved in private planting.
The Bill provides new options, including the selling of Forestry Commission land. Crofters and farmers are the life-blood of the highland communities and if we are serious about retaining people in the highlands and islands we must consider things that can be done to keep them there. It is a case not just of making their lives economically viable, but of looking after the environment. That calls for a flexible, multi-purpose forestry policy.
There is no doubt that many of the large plantations have not always been a success in terms of their aesthetic contribution to the area and the problems that are caused to rivers and water courses. The local people know better than anyone what is viable. I am frequently astonished that authorities allow planning applications for dwellings in areas that are known to the locals as bogs that always flood. There are many examples of such planning mistakes in the highlands and the same is true of planting.
The hon. Gentleman talked about active crofters, but they will remain so only as long as we adopt a sensitive, sensible approach that enables them to continue their way of life. The management of the region and common grazing are not readily understood by most hon. Members or people who live in cities. They do not realise that crofting communities take a flexible approach to the way in which they handle such matters. Crofters' lifestyles could not continue if they were bound by written regulations. Their sensible, practical way of life has been properly organised and structured through the Crofters Commission and crofters' input at local level and it calls for a degree of flexibility which those who write legislation do not always understand. I hope that the flexible approach mentioned by the hon. Member for Western Isles will be recognised when it comes to planning and grants.
Those of us who understand how the highlands operate realise that the Bill is not intended as a means of milking the Treasury. Crofters have no desire to leave their crofts and go elsewhere, but regard the Bill as an opportunity to develop common grazing. The hon. Member for Western Isles drew attention to the fact that common grazing areas are large and often exposed and that tree plantations would provide protection. For that reason alone, the provision should be implemented. I hope that the approach to the provision of shelter will be flexible. It will improve the area's appearance, amenities and possible downstream activities and, in the short term, will provide the means for fencing.
Clause 1 contains several safeguards. Landlords must consent to common grazing. Speeches in the Chamber are often hostile to landlords, but crofters know that they could not continue their lifestyles were it not for the positive and constructive approach taken by most landlords to the Crofters Commission and the wishes of crofters. Although there are always instances of landlords who do not behave as one would wish, the vast majority take a constructive approach.
Another safeguard is that consent must be in writing. It would be wrong for permission to be given simply verbally as, sadly, words can often be distorted. Furthermore, the part where common grazing will be effective must be specified and I would not argue with that. The landlord or grazing committee must intimate a landlord's consent to 570 the Crofters Commission. Naturally, it will not take effect until it is entered in the Register of Crofts. The matter will then be carried out properly.
Hon. Members do not often have an opportunity to speak on a measure that will help people. Although the Bill does not affect vast numbers of people, it will help those who are the life blood of Scotland. Most people who now live in Scottish cities originate from rural communities—indeed, many eminent Scots come from crofting communities. One example is my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is an eminent Member of the other place. He is one of the few Scots to have achieved high office in the Scottish and English legal professions. That is an achievement.
There are many other examples of people who have come from crofting families. My father managed to trace back our family to a crofting family in the western highlands. I cannot claim to know anything about crofting and it would be fraudulent for me to say otherwise. However, my father found that we came from a crofting background. Like so many other Scots after the 1745 rebellion, for reasons on which I will not touch today, my family moved to the east coast of Scotland. We retain an interest. As a Member who represents a Scottish highland constituency, I recognise that it is only through legislation such as the Bill that we can bring about changes that are viable, with the sensible use of public funds.
I stress that through the sensible use of public funds, we can help people to remain in the glens and on the islands, and to retain a way of life that we want to continue. I am often accused of being mean or monetarist, but I have never taken the view that public funds should not be used for sensible, viable projects. That is why I have no hesitation in saying that providing a means to encourage the introduction of forestry on common grazing, and a more economic and viable return for crofters is a sensible use of taxpayers' funds.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)I join my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in congratulating the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on bringing the Bill to what I believe will be an unopposed Third Reading, and on his expertise in his speech. As he said, it is personally appropriate that he should introduce the Bill as it is the result of considerable personal work by him for a long time. I welcome and entirely agree with the unequivocal and enthusiastic support that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, who is no mean expert in piloting private Members' Bills on Scottish matters through the House, has given to the Bill for a number of reasons.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in Committee, the Government fully support the Bill. It will enable grazing committees to plant trees on common grazings and to use common grazings as woodland. The hon. Member for Western Isles was right to stress the agreement between crofting and landowning interests. Some time ago, there was a broad consensus that there was a good case for facilitating commercial tree planting on common grazing without the land being taken out of crofting tenure. As the hon. Member for Western Isles has explained, the result of close co-operation between various interests has been to secure a measure that we are all 571 content to view as generally acceptable. I echo the praise of the hon. Member for Western Isles and of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North for those involved, notably the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Crofters Commission and, in the public sector, the Forestry Commission and the Scottish Office.
The hon. Member for Western Isles rightly told the House that the measure has the full support of the many other bodies, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It also has the support of the Western Isles islands council and Highland region.
The hon. Member for Western Isles was probably instrumental in securing the inclusion of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which in its second report for 1989–90, dealing with land use and forestry, recommended that the Government should give a higher priority to developing farm forestry as part of their wider policies for maintaining rural communities. The Committee was right to note that crofting tenants in the highlands of Scotland were a special case and said that it was convinced in principle of the need for legislative change to allow crofting forestry on common grazings. The Committee accordingly recommended that any remaining difficulties should be ironed out and that any necessary changes should be introduced without delay.
There has been consistent and considerable good will towards the Bill on all sides. I join the hon. Member for Western Isles and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North in recalling that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) introduced the Bill last year so that the proposals contained in it might be more widely known. Everyone is delighted that the hon. Member for Western Isles was successful in the ballot and also that he chose this Bill.
Let me emphasise one or two of the key points in the Bill. It is worth stressing that the Bill does not affect existing provisions in crofting legislation, which, if the appropriate conditions are met, would allow resumption by the landlord on one hand and apportionment and decrofting by the crofter for the planting of trees on the other. Accordingly, strictly speaking, the Bill does not make more land available for planting. It makes the same land available in a different way. The Bill provides a practicable alternative that enables trees to be planted on land that remains in crofting tenure. The hon. Member for Western Isles made the valuable suggestion that we might build on the provisions in future and, the Scottish Office and the Forestry Commission will consider that possibility carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was right to emphasise that, under the new arrangements, both the consent of the landlord and the approval of the Crofters Commission are required before planting can take place. As my hon. Friend emphasised, that provides an adequate safeguard for any landlord who may have reservations about agreeing to tree planting on his land. It also affords a degree of protection to crofters with an interest in a common grazing who have similar reservations. The terms of any agreement on planting are a matter for settlement between the landlord and the crofters undertaking the planting.
572 The hon. Member for Western Isles referred to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has supported the Bill but which has circulated hon. Members regarding one matter of concern to it. I confirm that we understand that in practice the RSPB's concerns can be met under the Bill.
The Bill also provides that a grazings committee will have access to forestry and farm woodlands grants on the same basis as owners and lessees under the respective schemes.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North said about the sensible use of public funds for these worthwhile schemes. The Bill's provisions mean that the statutory provisions and rules relating to those schemes will apply when considering applications under the woodland grant scheme. The Forestry Commissioners have a duty to endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between the development of afforestation and the conservation and enhancement of the natural heritage. The Scottish Office has a similar balancing duty when considering applications under the farm woodland scheme.
The hon. Member for Western Isles spoke of the practical consequences of the Bill. It is extremely difficult to forecast how much of the common grazings might be planted with trees in accordance with the Bill's provisions. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that about 500,000 hectares are held as common grazings. Much of this will be unsuitable for planting and in many areas crofters will choose not to plant because of the value of the grazings for stock management. The hon. Member for Western Isles authoritatively spelt out the economics of stock management compared with forestry.
We do not expect large-scale afforestation, but it is important to give to crofters the opportunity to plant commercial woodlands on common grazings. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North and the hon. Member for Western Isles spoke of the value of crofters. They have a long history of diversification going back to long before the word diversification was invented. I am sure that crofters will seize the opportunity in circumstances where they consider this the appropriate course to follow. I confirm that Government assistance through the relevant grant schemes will be available on the same basis as for other applicants.
The hon. Member for Western Isles suggested that the Bill should be followed by the publication of an advice leaflet which would be issued to crofters after consultation with the parties involved. That is a sensible suggestion and when the Bill reaches the statute book we shall get in touch with the hon. Gentleman to see how best that proposal can be implemented.
There is no need to go through the details of the Bill because they have been outlined by the hon. Member for Western Isles, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North spoke about the key points of the Bill's four clauses. In relation to the timetable, I can confirm that the Act will be brought into effect by means of a commencement order. It will be necessary to check whether any adjustments to subordinate legislation, such as for the farm woodland scheme, are required and to allow time for any necessary administrative arrangements. However, it is envisaged that there will be no significant delay in bringing the new arrangements into operation.
Scottish Members are not always present in the House on Fridays, for good and understandable reasons. I hope 573 that the House will agree that when Scottish Members introduce private Members' Bills it is extremely worth while. The Bill is a short but important measure which has the wholehearted support of all political parties and all the interests involved. I commend it to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.