CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

HL Deb 21 April 1955 vol 192 cc491-511

3.8 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Assignation of croft

8.—(1) A crofter shall not, except with the consent in writing of the Commission, assign his croft.

(2) A crofter wishing to assign his croft shall make application to the Commission for their consent to the assignation of his croft and shall at the same time inform his landlord in writing of his application.

(3) The Commission shall give notice to the landlord of any application made to them for their consent to the assignation of a croft and before giving their consent shall afford to the crofter and to the landlord an opportunity of making representations to them.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved in subsection (1), after "writing" to insert, "of the landlord and." The noble Earl said: The first four Amendments go together, Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I consider that Clause 8, as it stands, is unnecessarily complicated and imposes an unnecessary burden on the people whom it principally affects. As it now stands the clause provides that a crofter shall not assign his croft without the consent in writing of the Crofters Commission; and in subsection (5) it is provided that where a crofter assigns his croft otherwise than with the consent in writing of the Commission, the Commission may declare the croft to be vacant and let it to somebody else. If a crofter wants to assign his croft, the usual procedure is that he informs the landowner, and if the landowner agrees (as he usually does) that the person to whom the crofter wishes to assign the croft is a suitable person to have it, the croft is then assigned. In these circumstances, I cannot see why the consent of the Crofters Commission should be necessary or why it should be necessary, as the clause at present requires, to make the crofter apply in writing to the Commission first and, at the same time, inform his landowner in writing. He is accustomed to inform his landowner verbally and if the landowner agrees there is no more trouble.

If the owner does not agree, then there should be machinery to allow the crofter to make representations to the Commission. My Amendments provide for that machinery, so that if the landowner withholds his consent, application can be made to the Commission and the Commission must then give opportunities for representations to be made by the crofter and by the landowner. That would apply in cases where there is disagreement between them; but when there is agreement, I cannot see the necessity for this unnecessarily complicated procedure, which seems to be an unwarranted interference with the liberty of ordinary people and to impose upon them a burden which they should not have to carry. I am sure we all want this Bill to work well, and I feel that anything which makes the Bill simpler and less trouble-some to the people whom it concerns will make it a better Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 4, after ("writing") insert ("of the landlord and").— (The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD SALTOUN

While I should not be prepared to divide in favour of this Amendment, I should like to say a word in favour of it, for this reason. The whole of this question has been bedevilled by the annihilation of the proprietor's interest in the croft. The proprietor has a far bigger interest in the character of a tenant than the Crofters Commission itself can have, and he may know a great many things (and know them on good authority) which would be very difficult to produce in evidence before a Commission. For that reason I think there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment. But I realise that it is much more important to get the Bill than to get a perfect Bill, and I should not be prepared to divide in favour of the Amendment, though I am glad to support it with my voice.

3.14 p.m.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I rise to support this Amendment, and in doing so I wise to bring out a point which I do not think my noble friend has mentioned. During the Second Reading—my noble friend will interrupt me, I hope, if I misrepresent him at all—I gathered that one of the main points of this Bill was to promote the very desirable qualities of sturdy independence, good manners and courtesy, which have been so characteristic of the crofter. They are all very desirable things. I believe—though I have paraphrased his words—that that is what my noble friend said during Second Reading. He also said, I think, that crofting was a way of life, and with that I entirely agree. But I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that being a laird or proprietor is equally a way of life, and the relationship between laird and tenant and employee in the past—and, I am glad to say, it is so in a great many cases in the present—has been one of the almost unique features in the life of Scotland. It is certainly a thing that should be preserved. Therefore, any action which is not really necessary, but which may aggravate feeling between the two parties is a bad step, and I consider that the added burden placed upon the crofter of writing to and getting written consent from the Commission, before the laird—thereby more or less cutting the existence of the laird out of the whole business—is an unfortunate step to take.

Further, I believe there are some 23,000 crofters. The Commission, I understand, is to be of the order of six individuals. The noble Earl said, if I remember rightly, that it is desired that the relationship between the Commission and the crofters shall be on practically a personal basis. With great deference, I beg to point out that if six people are going to have personal relationship with 23,000, they will have to be pretty busy. Surely when you already have, or should have, good personal relationships between a laird and his tenants, it is worth endeavouring to preserve them, whatever you may think of bad lairds. I do not deny the existence of bad lairds nor do I defend them. They certainly exist. But surely we should tackle this matter on the basis of good lairds, and not tar all with the same brush.

3.18 p.m.

LORD GREENHILL

I had not intended to take part in this debate at all, because I should have preferred that there had been no Amendments and that whatever blemishes there are—if blemishes there be—in the Bill had been allowed to remain, in order that we might get the Bill through. But what I have to say will apply to almost all the Amendments appearing on the Marshalled List to-day; therefore one speech will cover the whole lot. My reason for intervening is that the Bill, as it now stands, tries to a large extent to implement the recommendations of the Taylor Commission, which, after all, was the origin of this Bill; and if noble Lords will look at paragraph 116 of the Commission's Report they will find this statement: As things are, there is no assurance that the landlord, in dealing with a vacant holding, will exercise his power in the true interests of the crofting communities, or with a view to the secure establishment of a small-holding population. And in considering the general relationship of the landlord to the crofter, the Commission go on to say in paragraph 118: It may be asked whether, in the situation which we have depicted, the time has not come to supersede the private landlord in the crofting counties and to vest the land directly in the State. I think we should make the position clear. The position from the point of view of many noble Lords on this side of the Chamber can, I think, be stated something like this. Nowadays the private ownership of land is as unacceptable as the private ownership of drinking water or of the air we breathe. That is not a point of view on which we are prepared to argue: it is a basic principle by which we stand and for which we are ready to fight. But so far as this Bill is concerned it is irrelevant, because we are not concerned at the moment with the nationalisation of the land. We are, however, very much concerned with the control and management of land. We think that this clause, and other clauses to which Amendments are being moved today, provide a satisfactory position which we should be prepared to maintain. For that reason I hope that the noble Earl will not accept this Amendment.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)

I cannot accept this Amendment, but not for the reasons which the noble Lord opposite asked me to give. As my noble friend will realise, this clause enables a crofter to assign his croft, and the whole purpose of the Bill is that the Crofters Commission, who are being made responsible for the welfare of the crofting communities, should be able, in case of a change of tenancy, to give their approval of the tenant succeeding to the crofter who is leaving. My noble friend Lord Dundee is under a misapprehension, I think, about the existing procedure. He said that the clause asks the crofter to do something which he has not to do now. But at the present moment the crofter has to get the con sent of the Land Court, so the only change is that, instead of getting consent from the Land Court, he now has to obtain it from the Crofters Commission. What has been happening in practice, and in common sense, will continue to happen. The crofter will go to the proprietor and tell him that he wants to assign his croft to this or that other man; and, if the landowner agrees, the crofter will then notify the landowner and the Crofters Commission simultaneously.

In another place the Committee on the Bill took a sympathetic view of the point which the noble Earl has put forward, and subsection (2) was deliberately added to the Bill in order to bring the landlord more completely into the picture. When we take subsection (2) in conjunction with subsection (3), in which it is provided that if there is a disagreement the crofter or the landowner can state his case to the Crofters Commission, it seems to me that we have made fairly full provision to cover the position of the landowner. When I first saw the Amendment put down by my noble friend, I thought it was a splendid one because it is a good deal shorter than the clause as it stands. But appearances are deceptive: although it is shorter, it adds complications, because the crofter would have to take one more step—he would have to go first to the landowner and then to the Crofters Commission. I think that, although it looks somewhat cumbersome, the clause does protect the landowner and I hope my noble friend will agree that that is so.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I still feel that this is a good Amendment, and I am sorry that the Government cannot accept it; but I do not think it raises any vital question of principle in relation to the Bill. Certainly, it was not intended to provoke a discussion on the nationalisation of land. Therefore, in the firm hope that common sense will continue to prevail over the law, which is perhaps not always so sensible, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.26 p.m.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved to add to the clause: (6) Any crofter and the landlord of any croft who is aggrieved by the refusal of the Commission to grant their consent to the assignation of a croft or by any terms or conditions subject to which any such consent has been granted may within one month from the intimation of such refusal or from the granting of consent subject to terms and conditions as aforesaid appeal to the Land Court against such refusal or against any terms or conditions subject to which consent has been granted.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 12 hang together and perhaps I may speak to them together, though I will, of course, move them separately at the appropriate time. The first Amendment deals with appeals against refusal of consent to assignation, and Amendment No. 12 deals with appeals against refusal of consent to the letting of vacant crafts. This matter is tied up with the law, in which, I may say, I am no expert, and I move this Amendment largely in an endeavour to get things clarified in my own mind.

If I am right, when a croft is assigned, the lease is not altered, varied or broken, and waygoing valuations are paid by the assignee. In the case of a re-let croft or farm, the waygoings are paid by the laird, irrespective of whether there is an incoming tenant or not, and he then has to recover, if he can. I think that is the difference—if I am wrong, I hope noble Lords will correct me. In the first case the Crofters Commission are acting as both judge and prosecuting counsel, and there is no provision for any form of appeal. There may be good reasons for that, which doubtless I shall be told, but it seems to me that, since the Commission cannot help being an interested party, there should be some form of appeal; and I suggest that that appeal should be to the Land Court. The Land Court in Scotland, I believe, has the confidence of the Scottish people. This is only my own opinion, but I think that one reason for that is that it is an active, live and virile body, with stalwart lay members, who do a great deal of work: it is not entirely a judicial body. In Amendment No. 12 provision is made for appeal to the Secretary of State, but I suggest, with respect, that the Secretary of State is all too frequently considered in Scotland to be the final "rubber stamp" set upon the decisions of a Department situate down in England. I think that is a fair statement of the feeling in Scotland.

I regret very much that more time cannot be given to this Bill. I have no intention of endeavouring to sabotage it, because obviously that would be a completely wrong attitude to adopt. Nevertheless, I feel that there could not be a better forum than your Lordships' House, which is peculiarly well adapted for clarifying these legal and semi-legal matters, in which it has done such great work in the past, to thresh out these points. It is a great pity that more time cannot be found for this Bill, which, although it may seem a small affair, to Scotsmen is very important. The Parliamentary timetable and national events have fallen foul of each other, and that has caused an unseemly rush which, in its turn, has prevented several able noble Lords from being here to-day to support these Amendments with far greater ability and knowledge than I can hope to do. I am sure that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will give weight to these points. He is renowned for his clarity of explanation and his sympathetic treatment of us Back Benchers, and I hope that he will go as far as he can to give us assurances. Of course, we do not propose to press the Amendments to a Division, and the reason for moving them is to get whatever benefit and crumbs of comfort we can by putting our problems as clearly as possible. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Stonehaven.)

THE EARL OF HOME

The proposal of my noble friend is that in this case the Land Court should be the court of appeal if the Crofters Commission will not accept the person to whom a crofter wishes to assign his croft. I feel, however, that it is perfectly legitimate to leave this decision to the Crofters Commission, because no point of law is involved. The Crofters Commission are charged with the general interests of the crofting community. It might be that a person to whom a crofter wanted to assign his croft (and the reason for assignation might be that the crofter was offered a high price for a croft) would be entirely unsuitable as a farmer. That point concerns the quality of the assignee, so to speak. But there is another reason. It might be that in the general scheme of things the croft which the existing crofter wished to assign would contribute much better to the economic production of the area if it were amalgamated with another croft and given to a neighbouring crofter. This is not a matter of law in which the Land Court could properly adjudicate, but a matter of discretion for the Crofters Commission, which we have deliberately set up in order to reorganise the crofting communities in the Highlands.

That answer, by and large, covers both this Amendment and No. 12. If we had thought for a moment that there was anything for a legal body to decide here, we should have left the decision with the Land Court. But we do not think there is. The matter will be decided by the Crofters Commission on the criteria of whether a man, by and large, is a good farmer and in what capacity the future of the croft will fit best into the economic scheme of the area. We feel that the Crofters Commission are the right body to whom to give the discretion.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

Could the noble Earl make clear the points that I raised, about the difference between compensation in the case of assignment and in the case of a new lease. I think that is the only case where a legal consideration might come into the matter. If he could make that matter clear for me I should be happy to withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF HOME

I am not sure that I can do that now, and I should like to look at the point. I do not think it affects the case very much. I feel that this must be a matter of discretion for the Crofters Commission. We could not contemplate the Land Court having the jurisdiction here, on many grounds, some of which I have given. I hope that this will not make any difference to the withdrawal of the Amendment by my noble friend. I should like to communicate with him on this point; I am not sure that I understand it.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

As I, too, am not sure that I fully understand the point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Succession to croft

11.—(1) Where, owing to the failure of a crofter to bequeath the tenancy of his croft or of such a bequest to receive effect, the right to the tenancy of the croft devolves upon the heir-at-law of the crofter, the landlord shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, accept as successor to the tenancy any heir of the deceased crofter, being a person who, failing nearer heirs, would be entitled to succeed to the tenancy, who within three months from the date on which the right to the croft devolved upon the heir-at-law makes application to the landlord to be accepted as tenant; and the landlord shall notify the Commission accordingly:

Provided that the landlord shall not under this subsection accept any person as successor to the tenancy unless he is satisfied that there is no nearer heir who desires to succeed to the tenancy.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I move this Amendment in order to get some clarification. I am not absolutely sure whether the onus of finding the next heir is with the laird or with the Crofters Commission. That is all I should like clarified in this case. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 4, after ("person") insert ("making application as aforesaid").—(Viscount Stonehaven.)

LORD SALTOUN

I do not rise to support the Amendment, but in order to get clarification myself. On page 8, line 4, are the words, unless he is satisfied that there is no nearer heir who desires to succeed to the tenancy. How can any proprietor be so satisfied? It seems to me to be a difficult thing. I cannot be satisfied that there is no nearer heir to the peerage that I hold than myself. If one went far enough back a long lost heir might appear, and I hold only because I am the apparent heir.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This point was extensively dealt with in another place. As the Bill was originally drafted, it might have been incumbent on the owner to search every continent on the globe to see whether there was a missing heir, which would clearly have been an unfair burden to put upon him. The Government met our representations to a large extent, but we are still not clear from the present wording of the clause that there is no doubt in the matter. It still seems possible that some search might have to be carried out which could hardly be capable of fulfilment. We wish to make it clear that the burden of establishing a claim lies upon the person who claims the croft, and not on the owner.

THE EARL OF HOME

I am quite clear this time about my noble friend's Amendment, and I am quite clear about the answer, too. It is that the onus is not on the landlord to chase the heir. The onus is on the heir to reveal himself, and the governing words of the clause are at the bottom of page 7, where it says, "the heir-at-law makes application to the landlord." If the heir-at-law has not made application to the landlord within a period of three months (I think it is), then the croft is in the possession of the landlord and he has to notify the vacancy to the Crofters Commission.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I thank my noble friend for that explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Vacant crofts

(3) The landlord of a croft shall not, except with the consent in writing of the Commission, or, if the Commission withhold their consent, with the consent of the Secretary of State, let the croft or any part thereof to any person; and any letting of the croft otherwise than with such consent shall be null and void.

(7) Where a croft has, in consequence of the making of an order under subsection (1) of section seventeen of this Act or under subsection (5) of section twenty-one thereof, become vacant and has remained unlet for a period of six months beginning with the date on which the croft so became vacant, the Secretary of State shall, if the landlord, at any time within three months after the expiry of the period aforesaid, gives notice to the Secretary of State requiring him so to do, direct that the croft shall cease to be a croft and shall purchase the buildings on the croft.

(11) For the purposes of this section a croft shall be taken to be vacant at the commencement of this Act notwithstanding that it is occupied, if it is occupied otherwise than by a crofter and the consent of the Secretary of State to each occupation has not been obtained.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Land Court." The noble Viscount said: We have already discussed this Amendment. The only difference in this case is that there is provided in the Bill an appeal to the Secretary of State. The Amendment seeks to insert, instead of "Secretary of State", "Land Court," because at the present time the feeling in Scotland is that they would prefer the Land Court to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 11, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Land Court").—(Viscount Stonehaven.)

THE EARL OF HOME

The only comment I have on this question is that it is better that it should be a matter of discretion, and I think the Secretary of State is the right person to whom to appeal. I would say, in defence of my right honourable friend in another place, that I did not recognise him under the description of "the final rubber stamp."

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

This is not an important point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.42 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (7), after "in consequence of" to insert: the refusal of the Commission to consent to the assignation thereof under section eight of this Act or of.

The noble Earl said: On the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, expressed some surprise that any piece of legislation should make it obligatory on the Government to purchase buildings belonging to a private owner. It was pointed out to him that this could happen only in cases where the croft had become unlettable owing to some action taken by the Crofters Commission, and that it was therefore just that if the Commission, owing to the policy they had imposed on the croft, had made it impossible to let it to anybody, the Secretary of State should then purchase the buildings. Under Clause 17 that has to be done in two sets of circumstances: first, if the Commission have displaced a crofter on account of bad husbandry, and if the croft cannot be relet, then they have to repurchase these buildings; and, secondly, if they have displaced an absentee crofter and the croft cannot be relet, then they have to repurchase the buildings. But there is no provision making it similarly necessary for the Secretary of State to purchase the buildings if the croft has become unlettable because the Commission have refused to agree to the assignation of the croft. It seems to me that these three sets of circumstances are exactly on a line with each other. There does not seem any justification for providing that these things should be done in two cases and not in the third. I think they should be brought into line, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 9, after the first ("of") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

THE EARL OF HOME

I think there is a real distinction here. In the first place, where the Secretary of State can pay compensation or is obliged to pay compensation for buildings, it is a result of a direct act by a State organisation. Indeed, noble Lords opposite—I have checked up since the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, raised this point—put a somewhat similar provision into the Town and Country Planning Act. In that case, where, as a result of an action by a State organisation, a landowner's land or buildings are made useless, the landowner can ask for his land to be bought. But this case is rather different. This is a case where the Crofters Commission will not accept the person to whom a crofter wants to assign his croft. That does not render the croft vacant. It means that the crofter can look around for another acceptable person to whom to assign his croft. The existing crofter remains in his croft and is still a tenant. What he can do, of course, is to renounce his tenancy, and in that case the croft reverts to the landlord, the landlord would notify the vacancy to the Crofters Commission, and either the landowner or the Crofters Commission would then proceed to let the croft. I think that is quite different from the case in which the Crofters Commission takes the initiative and makes buildings redundant. First of all, you may find another person acceptable to the Crofters Commission.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

It could happen only if the croft had been unlet for six months as a result of the refusal of the Commission to agree to the assignment.

THE EARL OF HOME

But then the croft will revert to the landowner, and the landowner can then set about getting another tenant or the Commission can let the croft. I do not think there is any reason to suppose that the buildings on the croft would not, in that case, be useful for production on the existing croft. I think it is a separate case.

LORD SALTOUN

May I ask my noble friend upon whom falls the responsibility for cropping a croft which is unlet for six months?

THE EARL OF HOME

At the moment a great many crofts are derelict because they have not been cropped, not only for six months, but some of them for six years.

LORD SALTOUN

And will so remain.

THE EARL OF HOME

Yes. I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment, but I think there is a real distinction of principle here.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

It seems to me that the similarity in principle consists in the fact that the crofts in each case have not been let for six months. Surely, it could be argued that if this had resulted from the displacement of the crofter by the Commission for bad husbandry, the position of the landlord would be exactly the same—that he could relet the croft if he tried. Surely, if it is found that he cannot relet the croft, the object of this provision of a period of six months is that that is considered to be a reasonable period in which to find a new tenant. This is not a point of first-rate importance. I do not wish to press it further, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.48 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved to add to subsection (11): Provided that notwithstanding anything in this section a croft which is occupied by the landlord or as a condition or term of his employment by a person in the employment of the landlord and mainly engaged in work on his estate shall not be taken to be vacant and the provisions of this section with respect to the letting of vacant crofts shall not apply with respect to any such croft.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to protect the position of a man who occupies a croft as part of his contract of employment, whether with a landowner, a farmer, the Forestry Commission, or whoever it may be. There are a considerable number of foresters, farm workers and other whole-time employees who have a croft in their own occupancy as part of their contract of employment.

I am informed that there is probably a technical defect in this Amendment—for this reason. Ever since the first Crafting Act of 1886 a person who holds a croft as part of his terms of employment is not legally a crofter. He has not the status of a crofter, and therefore, technically, the croft which he is occupying is a vacant croft. That is bound to cause, as in fact it has caused, a considerable amount of uneasiness among people who are in that position, because by subsection (11) of Clause 16, it is laid down that any croft which is not occupied in accordance with the provisions of the Act shall become vacant as soon as this Bill is passed into law. I think the position will be that, when this Bill reaches the Statute Book, all these crofts or ex-crofts (I do not know which is the right term) that are now occupied by whole-time employees will become vacant, and the Commission may immediately take steps to re-let them. I think that under subsection (4) the landlord has to make proposals for reletting a croft within a period of two months. It naturally causes a certain amount of misgiving among workers who have these holdings to be aware that, when this Bill is passed, they will have no legal status; that their crofts will become vacant, and that the Commission may immediately take steps to give them to somebody else.

As many of your Lordships are aware, in the Scottish Highlands a great many kinds of agricultural holdings are occupied without any written agreement at all. A great many farmers have their farms without any written lease. Although there is no written lease, their tenure rests on assent and custom. They have all the protection of the Agriculture Acts for their tenure. The fact that a man is in employment as a forester, or whatever it may be, ought not to make it possible for him to be turned out of his holding. Whatever the state of the law may be, and whatever may be the legal effect on those people of the passing into law of this Bill, I hope that my noble friend Lord Home will give an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to allow the Crofters Commission to evict, or to interfere with the present rights enjoyed by, those who are occupying a holding, even though, possibly, since 1886 it has been without the proper sanction of the law. I hope that the Government will not allow those people to be disturbed and that my noble friend will be able to give them an assurance now, so that they may have confidence in their immediate future. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 5, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD SALTOUN

I think that the noble Earl's remarks are very much to the point. I should like to carry them a little further. In the case of a croft becoming vacant, we know that it is commonplace in this business that an ancillary occupation is almost a necessity to the crofter, and the croft may be let to a man who has constant, part-time work as a forester with a neighbouring proprietor. There may be a fault which entirely rules a man out from forestry work and yet it is not an allegation which can be brought against any man without extreme danger. It seems to me that the situation needs clearing up, because, where there are ancillary occupations almost indispensably annexed to a particular land holding, the fitness of tenant for that occupation and the proprietor's acceptance of his fitness ought to be important considerations.

THE EARL OF HOME

I think I can do better than give an assurance here. I have a great deal of sympathy with the case that both my noble friends raise. Let us take the obvious case of a forestry worker who is essential to the working of the estate and should live in the cottage which he now occupies. The croft will be declared vacant, and it will be possible for the Commission to put in a new tenant who is unacceptable to the landowner. It is reasonable, in the first place, to assume that the Commission will be reasonable people, but that will not be enough satisfaction for my noble friends or, indeed, for myself. So the Secretary of State has taken pains to put into the Bill here, which is I think a good thing, that where a landowner feels that the house is absolutely essential for the working of the estate—in other words, it is really much more of an estate cottage than it is of a croft—he should be able, with the Secretary of State's consent, to take that house out of the Crofting Act altogether. So that provision is made. For myself, if I were a landowner in the Highlands, I would rather have it that way.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am grateful to the noble Earl for the assurance that he has given. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17:

Absentee crofters

(4) Where an order has been made under subsection (1) of this section in respect of a croft and the Commission are satisfied—

1. (a) that the crofter or any of his predecessors in the tenancy has provided or paid for the whole or the greater part of the dwelling-house thereon and that the crofter is entitled on the termination of his tenancy to compensation therefor as for an improvement; and
2. (b) that the dwelling-house will not be required after the termination of the tenancy in connection with any future occupation of the croft,

the Commission shall give notice to that effect to the crofter and to the landlord; and thereupon the crofter shall be entitled, if, not later than one month before the term at which the order takes effect, he gives notice in that behalf to the Commission and to the landlord, to obtain a conveyance in feu (under reservation of minerals) of the dwelling-house together with such suitable garden ground and such rights of access as the Commission may determine to be reasonable and on such terms as to feuduty and otherwise as may be agreed by the crofter and the landlord, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Commission to be reasonable.

(5) If the landlord does not within such period as the Commission may consider reasonable execute and deliver to the Commission at his own expense a conveyance for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, or if he requests the Commission to prepare such a conveyance, the Commission shall themselves prepare the conveyance and shall submit it to the landlord for execution; and if the landlord for any reason fails within one month after the conveyance is so submitted to him to execute it and to return it to the Commission, the Commission may themselves in place of the landlord execute the conveyance. Any conveyance executed under this subsection shall be recorded by the Commission on behalf of the crofter in the appropriate Register of Sasines, and a conveyance executed as aforesaid by the Commission shall, on being so recorded, have the like force and effect in all respects as if it had been executed by the landlord.

3.57 p.m.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved, in subsection (4), after "minerals" to insert, "and with right of pre-emption in favour of the landlord". The noble Viscount said: With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to this Amendment and No. 20, which are concerned with the same subject, together. This Amendment seeks to grant the right of pre-emption in feu charter when the feu charter is granted, either to an absentee crofter or to an aged crofter who, through age or infirmity, is unable to work the croft any longer. Both these classes of people are enabled, under the Bill, to obtain a feu charter for their house. The point here is that these houses are scattered widely throughout the crofting estates. If a house is going to be separated from the land, as in certain circumstances it may be, it remains a house for occupation by, presumably (although the Bill does not state so), an agricultural worker or forestry worker.

It is desirable that the proprietor of the estate should have the right to purchase that feu—which is the meaning of "pre-emption." If the feu is sold (there is nothing compulsory about it at all), the proprietor should have the right to offer the same amount of money to the seller and thereby obtain possession of a cottage suitable to house his own workers and for the general benefit of the community. This would protect the community against the sale of the feu to the highest bidder. It would cause no hardship of any sort to the crofter, and it would, or could, create a beneficial state of affairs to the whole community. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 17, after ("minerals") insert the said words.—(Viscount Stonehaven.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

There is one further point on this Amendment. As my noble friend rightly said, its insertion in the Bill may discourage the sale of the feu to the highest bidder; but, of course, the owner who exercises his right of preemption has to give the same price as the highest bidder, so the seller does not suffer any disadvantage.

THE EARL OF HOME

As it stands at present, the Bill provides that the absentee tenant shall be entitled to a conveyance in feu subject to such terms as may be agreed by the crofter and the landowner, and therefore the first stage will be an agreement between the crofter and the landowner. Failing that agreement, the matter may be determined by the Crofters Commission. It will therefore be open to the landowner to agree with the crofter that the feu charter should contain a pre-emptive right. In the event of disagreement the Commission would come in, and no doubt would be ready to regard the right of pre-emption in favour of the landlord as a reasonable matter to include in a feu charter. The Commission, of course, are required to carry out their functions in accordance with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the Secretary of State, and if my noble friends want any further assurance, the question of including pre-emptive rights to landlords in feu charters could be made the subject of such a direction. Although we naturally hope there will be no need for directions in this case, I and my right honourable friend think that the right to pre-emption would be a reasonable matter to include in a feu charter. My noble friends will not get 100 per cent. what they want, but I think this will give them at least 90 per cent.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

That is a most comforting statement. It is a pity that it is not 100 per cent., but I have great pleasure in accepting the 90 per cent., and beg leave to vvithdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.2 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Under Clause 17, if the Commission decide that for agricultural reasons a croft should be taken away from its occupier, but at the same time decide that the house is not essential for agricultural purposes and that the former occupier, either because he has spent money on the house or for any other reason, ought to be allowed to go on occupying it, they may then require the owner to grant a feu charter to the occupier. A feu charter is sometimes an expensive legal document, and it seems reasonable that if the necessity for a feu charter is imposed by the requirements of the Commission, then the Commission should pay the legal expenses of the charter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 17, line 42, at end insert— ("Any expense reasonably incurred by a landlord in relation to the preparation execution and delivery of a conveyance for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection or otherwise in relation thereto shall be repaid to him by the Commission.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)

THE EARL OF HOME

I have some sympathy with the noble Earl's objective, which I think we achieve in this way. Instead of saddling the Commission with the payment of charges incurred by individuals using their own lawyers, which those individuals can do if they wish, we say that if the landlord feels that he does not want to pay these charges himself the Commission will do it for him. I think it really comes to the same thing. He can, if he likes, prepare the conveyance at his own expense, or he can request the Commission to do it for him, in which case they will pay.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

With my noble friend's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 32:

Provisions as to compulsory purchase of land and as to management of land

(3) The Secretary of State may manage, farm, sell, let or otherwise deal with or dispose of land acquired by him under this Act in such manner as appears to him expedient for the purpose for which it was acquired.

4.5 p.m.

THE EARL of DUNDEE moved to add to subsection (3): Provided that in the event of the Secretary of State determining to dispose of any such land he shall in the first instance give to the former owner of such land an opportunity of purchasing such land at a price to be agreed or failing agreement to be determined by the Lands Tribunal.

The noble Earl said: I move this last Amendment with some diffidence, because, unlike my first Amendment, it might give some grounds for the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, to discuss nationalisation of the land. This is an Amendment which provides that if the Secretary of State has bought too much land for a crofting scheme and decides to sell the surplus land which he does not require, then the person from whom the land was originally purchased should have the right of pre-emption. It is a question in which no doubt the noble Lord opposite and many other people became acutely interested after the Crichel Down case. That is not a case about which I am anxious to raise a discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill. In the case of crafting land it appears to be immeasurably less likely that anybody would want to buy back, and therefore I cannot say that I set high store by the Amendment, although I feel it is a point of substance. If my noble friend feels that it is not appropriate to be included in an Act of Parliament, I hope he will nevertheless indicate that it is in accordance with the policy at least of some Governments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

THE EARL OF HOME

I thought the noble Lord opposite would probably rise to his feet, but he has restrained himself.

LORD GREENHILL

My lips are sealed, because I said I would speak only once.

THE EARL OF HOME

I cannot, of course, include in the Bill anything in the nature of the Amendment which my noble friend has moved; but if it gives him satisfaction I would say that it is in accordance with the general policy of the Government, when selling land which has been compulsorily acquired, to offer it back in the first place to the former owner.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think that is all we could expect my noble friend to say about this matter, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.