CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL

HL Deb 06 April 1976 vol 369 cc1575-630

5.53 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kirkhill.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Baroness WOOTTON OF ABINGER n the Chair.]

Clause 1 [New rights of crofters and collars to acquire their subjects]:

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 5, after ("may") insert ("within ten years of the passing of this Act,").

The noble Lord said: I hope this is a constructive Amendment which should improve the Bill in every respect. If we could first of all look at it from the crofters' point of view, they will have ten years in which to make up their minds as to whether or not they wish to purchase their crofts. I think even the slowest thinking crofter should have penty of time in ten years. They will undoubtedly have a very slight limitation, but if the Bill turns out satisfactorily I should have thought that at the end of the first ten-year period it would have been possible for the period to be further extended, if need be.

If one looks at it from the landlords' point of view, it seems to me that the landlord is being burdened with a quite intolerable situation. He will have a cloud over his head for ever and a day unless my suggestion of ten years is accepted. It will be quite impossible in many cases for satisfactory economic planning of an estate to take place if the landlord does not know from one moment to the next whether he is going to own a piece of land or whether it is going to be compulsorily acquired. Take, for example, the letting of shooting. Possibly a foreign syndicate may have rented the shooting, and then all of a sudden, in the middle of the area, a crofter decides that he wants to acquire his piece of ground. The whole of the arrangements made for the syndicate to come over could well fall. It could upset the whole of at least one of the day's shooting. The landlord might well find himself in breach of contract through absolutely no fault of his own. Again, it is quite impossible to budget if you do not know what rents you are likely to have coming into the estate. Finally, from the landlords' point of view, there is a worry over rents, because as soon as you go to a crofter and say, "The rent ought to go up to so and so", he will turn round and say, "Well, if it is going up to that, I am going to acquire the croft". It really makes the situation quite impossible.

If one looks at the position from the national point of view—and surely the Government must have sonic regard to that—the intention of the Bill is progressively to wind up crofters. It may be that the Government will deny this, but it is only thinly disguised as a benefit for crofters. If one assumes that one of the main intentions is to wind up the crofting tenure, which I think it undoubtedly is, then there should be considerable advantage in expediting this; instead of having it dragging out over endless years it will be over a period of ten years. I know the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, comes from the East, but he must be aware of the increasing lethargy of the crofter as you move to the West. I think possibly even the Crofters Commission would not deny that many crofters would benefit from a slight spur.

This Amendment would do this without materially altering the principle of the Bill. The end of the ten-year period will produce a time for reflection and a chance to note the reduction in the number of crofts, and, one then hopes, a substantial reduction in the number of civil servants required to administer crofts. The result would be a substantial saving in unremunerative public expenditure. This being Budget day, I would strongly commend this Amendment to your Lordships, and I move accordingly.

Lord KIRKHILL

Let me at the outset admit to the usual type of non-lethargic North-East Scot activity. To continue the simile, I would with some vigour resist the Amendment. The noble Lord has argued forcibly that the rights which have been given to crofters to acquire the land will hang over landlords like the Sword of Damocles and it would be wrong not to put a time limit on the threat, imposing a time limit on the crofters' right to purchase the land is not an effective way of preventing loss of sporting rights, since a great deal of land could go in ten years' time. Indeed, the effect of introducing a time limit would in practice be contrary to the noble Lord's intentions, since it would lead to a surge in purchases to beat the deadline.

Moreover, imposing a limitation on the period for which the right to acquire would apply would be completely contrary to the spirit of the Bill. The intention of the Bill is not to offer crofters a short-term concession which they would be under pressure to take advantage of before they lost it, but to give them a continuing right, which they would be entirely free to exercise or not without any influence being brought to bear. As I said during the Second Reading debate, the object of the Bill is to remove the constraints which prevent crofters from developing their land to its full potential. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, puts a somewhat different nuance, a slightly different construction, on this interpretation, but I reiterate what is the Government's intention behind the Bill.

It achieves this by recognising their rights (that is, the rights of crofters) to become owners of the buildings which, in most cases, they or their predecessors have erected, and in acknowledging their special affinity with their land. For crofters who, for one reason or another, are still tenants in ten years' time, these factors will still be valid and it would be wrong once again to put them in the position of haying to rely entirely on the good will of their landlords should they be desirous of purchasing their land. If, however, as the noble Lord appears to expect, the crofting situation at the end of that period has altered sufficiently to require changes to be made in the legislation, it will be for the Government of the day to undertake whatever action they then consider necessary. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will not pursue his Amendment.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My noble friend Lord Burton has pointed out, among the reasons that he has put forward for his Amendment, that the landowner will want to be in a position to plan ahead. I can understand my noble friend's concern on this. I am also well aware that the intention of the Bill is that the crofting system should be allowed to change in its own time (not necessarily disappear in due course but change), and it is different from the original proposal of the Crofters Commission in 1968 under which the whole crofting tenure system would have disappeared on an appointed day and every crofter would have compulsorily become an owner-occupier. I think in all the discussions that have gone on since then it has been agreed (and it has certainly been agreed between the two Front Benches) that crofters should be given the option and not compulsorily be made owner-occupiers on a certain date.

I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can add to what he has said to reassure landlords about what provisions there are in the Bill or elsewhere that they would receive reasonable notice, because I think that the main point of concern is that the landlord should be able to plan ahead and that there should be reasonable notice if there is going to be a change, or a number of changes, which would upset the plans which he is making, or has already made. If that reassurance were there noble Lords on both sides would, I think, be happier.

Lord KIRKHILL

I cannot be specific as to the exact time-scale posed inherently in the question directed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I would give him an assurance that there would be a reasonable time allotted.

Lord BURTON

There are only about 14,000 crofting units, and if all went in ten years this would be only 1,400 a year. After all, it is the intention of the Bill that we should take on six extra staff. With the existing and six extra staff and the thing gradually winding up, I cannot see that the noble Lord's excuse that the machinery would get cluttered up holds water. One cannot expect the whole lot to come forward, so even if one assumed about half, 700 a year, that would not be too severe on the administrative machinery.

I am rather shocked that the noble Lord should not consider anything regarding the efficiency of land management, a matter mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell. One cannot manage one's property if one does not know what one is going to have from moment to moment. However, if the Minister is really adamant I fear that one has no option, with your Lordships' leave, but to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.5 p.m.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 10, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a")

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendment No. 2 and speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 6. There is not a great deal to this Amendment. Although the crofter has an automatic right under the Bill to purchase his house site and garden, he has not quite but almost as much right to purchase the other land and other houses pertaining to it. This means that if a crofter was tenant of two or more crofts which are amalgamated, he could therefore buy only his one house. If, on the other hand, he is tenant of two or more crofts which are not amalgamated as one unit, he would have the right to buy two or more houses. That does not seem to be quite fair.

At December 1974 there were 18,149 crofts and 14,162 croft units. Therefore, there are probably about 4,000 croft houses. It does not mean that every croft has a house on it, but there could be as many as 4,000 houses involved in this slight unfairness. It appears to me that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, and what is fair for one crofter should be fair for his neighbour also. Further, it seems unreasonable that an absentee crofter should have the same privileges as a hard working local resident. Therefore, I should hope that to produce equality in the crofting fraternity, and for no other reason, this Amendment should be accepted: that is, that the crofter should be allowed to buy the house which he is occupying,. I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

I am unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and I think I must respond in some detail to his proposition because it is contrary to the principle of the Bill that a crofter is to have an incontestable right to a conveyance of the site of the dwelling-house on or pertaining to any croft of which he is tenant. I do not consider that there is any good reason for deviating from that principle where a crofter is tenant of two or more crofts which he runs as a working unit. If there are other houses on the crofts apart from the one which the crofter occupies, these may be used by members of his family or they may be uninhabited. But they will most likely have been provided by the crofter or his predecessors in the tenancies. Even if surplus to the crofter's individual requirements it is equitable, in the Government's view, standing such provision, that the crofter should have the right to a conveyance of them. The landlord, in the Government's view, can lay no moral claim to these houses and I see no justification for seeking to impose any restriction on the crofter's right of acquisition.

In any event, such a restriction on a crofter's incontestable right would not in practice prevent him from acquiring the site of other houses on his crofting unit. He would have the right to acquire these sites as part of the croft land by order of the Land Court if necessary. The landlord could oppose such acquisitions only on the grounds of substantial hardship to himself or substantial detriment to the sound management of his estate, and it is hardly conceivable that a landlord would be able to establish such grounds to the satisfaction of the court in relation to the small parcels of land which would be involved.

I must also resist this Amendment because it would provide a blanket discrimination against absentee crofters by depriving them of the incontestable right to acquire the site of their dwellinghouse. I hold no brief for absentee crofters, I hasten to assure noble Lords, but I think that to make no contribution to a remedy for dealing with the absentee problem would negate the Government's true concept of this Bill, and I think that the Government are entitled to use the existing power of removal given to the Crofters Commission under Section 17 of the 1955 Act.

Lord BURTON

Perhaps the noble Lord did not fully understand me. I do not think I suggested at any time that the landlord had a moral right to claim the house—but more of that later—nor did I suggest in any way that the landlord was to get any benefit from this. I was simply saying that there was an unfairness as between one crofter and another. Because, perhaps for the sake of efficiency, he has amalgamated his two crofts as one, he will be given the right to buy only one house, whereas a man who, for one reason or another has not bothered to do that but is working two separate units, has the right to buy two houses. This does not seem to be equitable. It is not a big point because I suppose that a man in that position could buy it along with the croft land later on it is somewhat more complicated and it is not just the incontestable right. In the hope that the noble Lord will examine the matter again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.11 p.m.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("minerals") to ("pertaining") in line 13.

The noble Lord said: It may seem strange that, as a landlord, I should be moving this Amendment, which is really only a drafting one. The deletion of these words would make no difference to the results of the Bill. Most of your Lordships will by now have appreciated—I am certain that this applies to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—that crofting law is complicated. Perhaps that is an understatement. I am suggesting, therefore, that unnecessary wording should be deleted from the Bill. Salmon fishings are a separate heritable right and therefore, except in Orkney and Shetland, do not pertain to any croft. The words which I propose to delete would seem to be unnecessary.

Lord KIRKHILL

I recognise that what the noble Lord has said has an air of logic about it, but I can assure him that if the words in question were omitted from the Bill changes would be made as to the crofter's rights of acquisition which could impose a threat to the landlord's salmon fishings. Salmon fishings are, as most noble Lords will be aware and as the noble Lord mentioned, a separate estate in law but nevertheless, as a hereditament, they would come within the definition of land. They are not, however, normally within the crofter's possession as tenant of croft. This is an oversimplification perhaps of a rather more complex situation, since in Orkney and Shetland under udal law the right to salmon fishing is not a separate estate but runs with the land.

What we are seeking to do in the Bill is broadly to give the crofter the right to acquire the subjects which he holds on tenancy. His tenancy gives him no rights in relation to salmon fishings and it is, of course, no part of our intention in the Bill to alter that position. In order, therefore, to avoid the definition of croft land being interpreted as including salmon fishing rights and also to cater for the special position in Orkney and Shetland, it is necessary in our view to retain the words in question in the Bill. I hope, in the light of that explanation, that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

Before my noble friend rises to do that, I simply wish to say that we are grateful to him for tabling this Amendment, so enabling the Government to give their interpretation, which is presumably an authoritative one, as to how the Bill will be interpreted if it is tested in the courts at any time. It is clear that the purpose of both my noble friend and the Government is the same, so far as the Bill is concerned, and that it was simply a matter of interpretation and whether the words should be in the Bill. I am glad that the Government have been given an opportunity to state quite clearly what they regard the position to be.

Lord KIRKHILL

I assure noble Lords that it is my fervent hope that it was an authoritative interpretation.

Lord BURTON

I fear that I did not quite follow all the reasonings of the noble Lord, but I will read carefully what he said in Hansard. I am grateful to him for having explained the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 15, after ("thereon") insert ("or part of any building").

The noble Lord said: I shall have more to say on this matter when we come to Amendment No. 18 on valuation. I will simply say in the meantime that there are many instances where the landlord has produced the materials but not necessarily the whole building. Thus, it would appear that one should add to the definition the words "or part of any building", as well as the whole house. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is looking rather puzzled. There are a number of croft houses, and indeed fences and other fixed equipment, for which the material is supplied by the landlord without him having supplied the whole house; they may have been erected by the crofter. I should have thought, therefore, that in the definition there should be added the words, "or part of any building".

Lord KIRKHILL

Like the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I should like now to deal with Amendment No. 5 and No. 18, and I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord that I find myself in full accord with the intention of the first Amendment which is, however, unnecessary since provision to the desired effect is already included in Clause 4(2)(b) read along with the definition of the site of the dwellinghouse. This provides that where the landlord has provided any fixed equipment on the site of the dwellinghouse, the consideration to be paid by the crofter will take account of any contribution which the landlord has made to the value of the developed house site. Whether the landlord's contribution amounted only to the provision of timber or stone, or to an improvement to part of the dwellinghouse, or involved the provision of the dwellinghouse itself, this will be allowed for in the consideration to be determined by the Land Court. The assumptions made are somewhat complex but their effect is to provide for a basic assessment of the value of the landlord's equipment at its existing use assuming vacant possession and no application of the crofting legislation.

I hope that, in the light of that rather complex explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 5. However, I regret that I cannot assure him of the same sympathetic approach from the Government's point of view to Amendment No. 18, the substance of which was discussed in Committee in another place.

Lord BURTON

Is the noble Lord now going on to discuss Amendment No. 18?

Lord KIRKHILL

Yes, I was about to do so.

Lord BURTON

I had not moved that; I said that I would have more to say about that later.

Lord KIRKHILL

I was proposing to take the two together.

Lord BURTON

But I have more to say on the subject of Amendment No. 18.

Lord KIRKHILL

In that case I will resume my seat and the noble Lord can now say whatever more he has to say about Amendment No. 18, thereby taking them together.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I think that my noble friend Lord Burton simply referred to his Amendment No. 18 in passing and was not expecting it to be considered completely in relation to the one he moved. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Kirkhill, will agree to take just the one Amendment, which is what I understand my noble friend wants, and leave Amendment No. 18 to be dealt with later.

Lord KIRKHILL

I am always willing to be flexible, as noble Lords will agree, and if that kind of flexibility is demanded of the Government Minister at this stage, I will resume my seat, having been somewhat sympathetic to Amendment No. 5.

Lord BURTON

It seems that we are making some progress, the noble Lord having said that he is able to be sympathetic to an Amendment. Perhaps we are now doing rather better than we were. Perhaps it also goes to show how complex the matter is, as the noble Lord pointed out. He has assured us that the matter is covered later in the Bill. I must say that I have read through the measure with some care and I have not been able to see how it is covered; but with the assurance the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.19 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I have given the Minister notice that I would raise several points on, whether the clause shall stand part? I am one of those who would agree immediately with what my noble friend just said about this being a very complex subject. I wish, first, to take up a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, on Second Reading when he asked about the payment of rates, because a crofter will move from the very special and unusual crofting system to become a kind of owner-occupier. This might mean that he would have to pay more in rates than in the past or than he was expecting.

Since the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has written to a number of us who raised points in that debate and furnished us with information in reply, as he said he would. I am exceedingly grateful for all the information he has given. What he has said about rates is that, in certain circumstances, crofters at present enjoy a derating of 50 per cent. on their houses. He has pointed out that Schedule 2, paragraph 15, has the effect of continuing this for a certain time, depending on the lifetime of the crofter after his croft house has changed to owner occupation. My questions—and if the noble Lord cannot reply now, perhaps he will take an opportunity to do so later—are intended to find out more about the conditions in which the 50 per cent. derating applies to a crofter or a cottar who is to make a change under the Bill and to discover how long that will last.

I believe that a lot of questions will come up about this. I shall give some examples. Will the 50 per cent. derating continue after the crofter has ceased to work his croft? He may be in his 90s; he may be disabled and quite incapable of working the croft himself. Will the derating continue after the crofter has died and while his wife is continuing to live in what was the croft house? If he is succeeded by a son who is working the croft, what will be the situation if either the original crofter or his wife is still living with him in the house? There are various matters here and I do not expect the Minister to reply to all these points. I am just pointing out that paragraph 15 raises many questions which will be in the mind of crofters. I suggest that, if possible, the Government should reply to these points at some stage.

The noble Lord has also given us information about taxation which was sought by several speakers during the Second Reading debate. The noble Lord has pointed out that a number of present taxes will apply, as well as taxes which are in the pipeline. I am not here referring to today's Budget proposals, because I have not had an opportunity of hearing about the Budget because I have been here. I refer, for example, to the proposed development land tax, the legislation for which is still passing through Parliament. The noble Lord has pointed out that a development gains charge will now apply to crofters and that the capital transfer tax will apply if the estate of the crofter is above a threshold of £15,000. I remind your Lordships that crofts in different parts of Scotland vary greatly in value. Crofts can be exceedingly valuable in certain parts of Scotland whereas those in other parts can be of very little value in comparison. That is why I am raising these points which affect quite large sums of money.

I am glad to note from what the noble Lord has let us know that, where the proposed development land tax applies, a special agreement has been reached with the Inland Revenue that the liability for tax will fall separately on the crofter's and the landlord's share of the gain under the provisions of the Bill. This means that each of them will have the benefit of an individual exemption of £10,000.

My main purpose is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having provided this information to those of us who took part in the Second Reading debate and also to say that crofters should know where they stand vis-à-vis taxation before entering into some of the transactions for which this Bill provides. When they are considering acquiring croft land and selling it themselves, they should know what is likely to be the effect in the form of taxation. Similarly, they should know what is likely to be the effect upon their total capital assets when the crofter and his wife have both died.

The last point I should like to raise relates to forestry. I cannot see a provision in the Bill which deals in particular with the position of trees on croft land. I recognise that there is not likely to be much forestry on croft land in relation to other parts of Scotland but there may be small plantations or enough trees to be of consideration in the transactions which we are considering under the Bill. Can the Government therefore make a statement about how planted land or growing trees are to be dealt with in the transactions and the valuation procedure visualised in the Bill?

Lord KIRKHILL

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has asked about the duration of the rating concession which is to be given to crofters who become owners of their house sites. Perhaps I should begin by explaining to noble Lords what is the present position in regard to the rating of crofters' dwelling-houses. Under Section 7 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, the net annual value or rateable value of dwellinghouses which are occupied by crofters or those of like status whose holdings are within certain limits of size and rent, is the gross annual value subject to a special deduction of 50 per cent. In giving crofters the rights of purchase we would not wish to remove any benefits which they previously enjoyed. We have therefore provided in paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Bill that the rating concession of a rateable value equal to 50 per cent. of the gross annual value contained in the Valuation and Rating Act shall apply to all dwellinghouses whose sites have been conveyed to crofters or cottars after enactment of the Bill. This concession will apply so long as the crofter or his or her spouse continues to occupy the dwellinghouse but will cease on termination of that occupancy, whether on death or otherwise.

I am also advised that the concession will last as long as the ex-crofter or his wife occupies the ex-croft house. It will not apply to the son's occupation and "occupiers" in this context are well defined in rating legislation. I would imagine that this would extend to a situation in which the ex-crofter or his wife were living with the son so long as they were the occupiers of the ex-croft house.

The noble Lord also asked questions relating to the effect of taxation on the new rights being given to crofters. As he explained, I have written to a number of noble Lords on this and other points. The tax which will have the most relevance to the rights conferred by the Bill will be the proposed development land tax, if a crofter who has acquired croft land disposes of it within five years of purchase, Clause 3(3) imposes an obligation upon the crofter to share with the landlord the difference between the market value and the original purchase price.

Similarly, there is a liability upon a landlord who resumes croft land for development to give the crofter a share in the gain under Clause 9(1). In this situation where land is disposed of for development purposes there would, following enactment of the Development Land Tax Bill, be a liability to development land tax at the rate of 66¾ per cent. on the realised development value in excess of £10,000 and up to a limit of £160,000, and at the rate of 80 per cent. thereafter. Exemption will be provided on the first £10,000 of development value realised by an individual in any year. Agreement has been reached with the Inland Revenue that liability to tax will fall separately on the crofter's and landlord's shares of the gain under the provisions of the Bill. This will have important advantages for crofter tenants who will each have the benefit of an individual £10,000 exemption. Prior to the introduction of development land tax gains on disposals of land for development would be subject to development gains charge, which taxes such gains as income but provides for exemption for gains by an individual, not exceeding £10,000 in any one year.

Capital transfer tax which supersedes estate duty applies above a threshold of £15,000. The main effect of the Bill's provisions is that on his death a crofter's house, if he owns it, will be assessed at its open market value, whereas if it were tenanted it would be assessed at its value as a tenant's permanent improvement. A crofter who acquires his house site could therefore incur liability on death for capital transfer tax if the open market value of his house, when added to the value of his other heritable property, amounted to more than £15,000. Bequests to a spouse are, however, exempt from tax. Capital gains tax, which is levied at 30 per cent. on gains accruing on the disposal of assets, will be chargeable on sales for agricultural purposes which will not be subject to development land tax.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also asked a question relating to the valuation of forestry on croft land. This question of how the value of any timber planted on croft land by a landlord will be reflected in the price paid by the crofter for the land in question is an interesting point to which the Government should respond. This is a point which has already been raised with the Department by the Scottish Landowners' Federation. I understand that this point can arise only in a very few cases of conveyance of croft land under the Bill, because in practice it is most unusual for a landlord, as I am given to understand, to plant trees on croft land. Any landlord who has done so without first resuming the land for the purpose has, I imagine, been either benevolent or improvident, depending upon one's point of view. But it is a point which, in the view of the Government, can be dealt with under the terms of the Bill.

I should like to deal with the question in two parts, covering the different situations in which the problem may arise. First, if the landlord has planted trees on croft land as a shelter belt this will constitute a landlord's improvement to the croft land, and the value of the improvement may be reflected in the rent which the crofter pays for his land. Therefore, when the crofter comes to purchase his land its value as shelter will be reflected in the price determined by the 15 years' rental purchase order, which is mentioned elsewhere in the Bill. Alternatively, if the full value of the improvement is not reflected in the rent paid for the croft land, then the landlord can ask the land court, as provided in Clause 3(2) to determine a fair rent for the land in question, including a fair reflection of the value of the landlord's improvement.

The second case is where the landlord's timber does not constitute an improvement to the land; that is, cases where the landlord has planted trees on the croft land as part of a forestry development without going to the trouble of resuming the land in question. In these cases the landlord has three possible lines of approach. First, it is open to the landlord to come to an agreement with the crofter to exclude from the sale of croft land the land on which the timber is growing. Alternatively, the landlord and crofter can come to an agreement about the price to be paid for the land, including a suitable payment for the landlord's timber. Thirdly, if the landlord and crofter cannot agree either about a price to be paid for the timber, or to exclude the relevant land from the sale, then the landlord can represent to the land court that the land on which the timber is growing should be excluded from the conveyance of the croft land. The landlord might be in a position to prove that it would cause him a substantial degree of hardship to convey the land in question without recompense for the value of his timber on it, but that would he a matter for the court to determine upon.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I thank the noble Lord for replying to the points raised, and in particular for replying so fully on the matter concerning trees. I am sure that when such cases occur—and, as I said at the outset, they will not be very frequent—the guidance which the noble Lord has just given will be helpful.

Clause 1 agreed to.

6.35 p.m.

Clause 2 [Authorisation by Land Court of acquisition of croft land]:

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 46, leave out ("a substantial degree of").

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' consent I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. The wording at present in the Bill is, to my mind, absolutely iniquitous. On further examining the subsection it is clear that the words, …having regard to the extent of land owned by him", should also be deleted. Land in this day and age is not run for amusement; in almost all cases it is managed so as to bring about the best economic return and long-term benefit for the land. It is a shocking state of affairs when any Government turn round the laws and say that land must not be managed efficiently, and indeed, say that there must be substantial detriment to sound management before the law is allowed to alter it.

I know that the present Government are not always the best informed people on rural matters and values, but we on this side of the Committee cannot allow such wording to go on the Statute Book. Then, again, the Land Court are instructed both to look at the size of the landlord's holding and to bear in mind the relevance between the croft and the landlord's overall holding. Again, this is an appalling state of affairs. A large estate can have a mass of detrimental sales—that is what the law is saying.

Surely in this day and age we should be looking for the best possible land management? I feel very strongly indeed on this matter. Most of my life I have tried to look after my estate, and improve it. Now this Government turn round and tell the landlord that he must perform detrimental regulations on the estate. I go so far as to say that I consider this to be vandalism, and I am sure that we can have no part in it. I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has spoken cogently in support of these Amendments, arguing that it is unfair to landlords to require them to show substantial hardship or substantial detriment to sound estate management in order to prevent the Land Court from authorising the acquisition of croft land under Clause 2(1). However, I would remind noble Lords that this is a crofting Bill, which, frankly, is intended to benefit the crofters. It is one of the basic principles of the Bill that the crofter should^* except in exceptional circumstances, be allowed to acquire his croft land, if he wishes to do so, at a price which reflects the crofter's interest in his land. This principle was enshrined in the previous Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, introduced in another place under the then Conservative Administration. That Bill too, incidentally, contained the words, "a sub- stantial degree of hardship" and "substantially detrimental" in the provision safeguarding the landlord's interests in sales of croft land. It is relevant to put on record that no representations against these words were received at any stage from the Scottish Landowners' Federation, which usually make representations when they worry about issues of this kind.

This Government accept—and I think that the previous Government accepted this as well that landlords' interests could be affected, in some cases seriously, by the crofter exercising his right of purchase under the Bill. However, both Governments decided that only in cases where the effect on the landlord of the sale of croft land could be shown to be substantial would the crofter be prevented from purchasing his land. In the Government's view, these Amendments run counter to the basic principles underlying the Bill, and I ask your Lordships to resist them.

Lord BURTON

I am on the crofting sub-committee of the Scottish Landowners' Federation; perhaps I ought to have declared that interest. We made very strong representations on this unanimously, and felt very strongly, and I am sorry if these representations have not got to the Government. It is fairly appalling that to provide what may be quite a small benefit to a crofter, the Government are prepared to encourage substantial detriment to good land use. I trust that it will be noted that the Government are prepared to do this. I take great exception to it, but I take it that at this stage I have little option but to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.40 p.m.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, when requested by the landlord").

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I would also ask to speak to Amendment No. 10. Here, the Government are again saying that there must be material detriment, which is what we have just been speaking about on the last Amendment. It seems an appalling situation that there must be material detriment before anything can be done. Here, again, the Government are saying that Highland land must not be run efficiently. I believe this has been worded in the way it is from ignorance rather than from malice—I am being generous today. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, thought that most of the trouble with the shootings would occur on common grazings. He mentioned that on Second Reading. As was pointed out at the time, he was quite wrong in this respect. On the low ground, the situation is far more dangerous. One small croft upon which one has not got the shooting rights could completely ruin a pheasant or partridge shoot, and in the Uist the snipe shooting could be interfered with very considerably. This is further wilful destruction of the few assets which exist in the Highlands.

There is another small point. I have tried to run a pest-destruction scheme in the North, and the defaulters have almost invariably been small crofters. This has not mattered very materially because the landowner has had the shooting rights and it has been possible to kill the vermin on the crofts. However, it now appears that it may be quite possible that this land will be missed out of these clearance schemes, which would cause very serious detriment to them. These schemes are on a shaky wicket on financial grounds, and I think this could well be the death-knell of the few remaining schemes. So the Government, if they insist on this measure, will also be damaging pest control. I cannot think of any crofters who would object to my proposals. There may be some, but I cannot think of any. But the present wording will certainly cause serious detriment, and I therefore move that we alter it. I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

The Government would wish to resist these Amendments. Their effect, of course, would be to remove all discretion from the Land Court in the matter of sporting/eases, and this is not the Government's intention. I would therefore ask your Lordships to resist these two Amendments.

Lord BURTON

I dare say more will be said about this matter on the next Amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.44 p.m.

Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE moved Amendment No. 11: Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("lease") to end of line 14 and insert ("in respect of shooting or fishing rights appertaining to crofting land compulsorily acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be for a period of not less than twenty years at a nominal annual rental not exceeding £1").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The Minister has said that this is a Bill for the benefit of crofters. I quite agree, but at the same time it must be a Bill which attempts to be fair to those affected by the proposals in the Bill. My Amendment is an attempt to define the outer boundaries within which the Land Court would have to function in granting a lease, as provided for under the Bill; but I think it is worth looking just for a moment at the procedure in the case of a croft owner whose croft is going to be taken from him compulsorily, which croft has some sporting rights which are an asset to his estate. Let me say at once that in the case of the majority of inbye land and crofts this problem does not arise, but I think the Minister will agree that there are cases in Scotland where it does arise, where sporting facilities on a croft are an asset to an estate.

Under the Bill as it is at present drafted it is proposed that the landlord shall be deprived of his sporting assets without any compensation at all and that he shall then be able to obtain a lease of the sporting from the Land Court on terms which the Land Court are to lay down. He is therefore deprived of his assets without compensation, and has to pay to use them in the future. That seems to me a very unfair proposition for any political Party to put forward, even in a Bill which aims at helping the crofters. My Amendment attempts to define the terms of a lease. I say again that I do not like the main provisions of the Bill as regards the appropriation of assets without compensation and then having to pay for them, but I must accept them. I dislike them, but I will not go any further into that. I would say that we ought not to leave the previous owner of the sporting at the mercy of the Land Court, at their discretion. He will not know for how many years he is going to have the sporting rights; that will be in the hands of the Land Court. He will not know the rent he will have to pay for something which was his own and which has been taken from him without compensation. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation.

Then there is another point which perhaps the Minister will be able to clear up. As the Bill is now drafted, I question whether the Land Court in fact have the right, when they are assessing the price of a croft, to take into account the sporting, if your Lordships will kindly read line 37 on page 3, your Lordships will see the basis on which the Land Court have to arrive al a fair price. It must be the crofting value of the croft land". This is a legal point, and I am not competent to give a legal view, but it seems to me very doubtful whether, under that provision, the Land Court would be entitled to say, "The sporting rights are worth so much, and therefore the previous owner must pay such and such a rent". It seems to me that this Bill confines the Land Court to this narrow provision of judging "the crofting value of the croft land", and that they would be powerless when it came to looking at sporting rights. I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but I think this an important Amendment to be considered, and I sincerely hope the Minister will look kindly upon its aims, even if he does not look kindly upon the terms of its drafting. I beg to move.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

May I ask for some information on this Amendment? It appears that it could raise distinct anomalies. For example, if a crofter had land, which he applied to purchase, which included half a mile of a famous river, would the sporting rights and the fishing rights on this half-mile of river fall automatically to him, subject to any provision the Land Court may make?

Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD

May I tell the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on the Liberal Benches—I think that I am allowed to do so—that salmon fishing in Scotland is not tied to the land? I should like to support this Amendment, because surely it would be fairer to do what is always done when you sell land to the Forestry Commission. They always lease you back the sporting rights for 21 years at a nominal rent of, say, £1 a year. They will usually renew that lease after the 21 years are up. I should have liked to see the Government follow the example taken in the Irish Land Act. I agree that was a long time ago, but under that Act the equivalent of the crofter in the Highlands, the small tenant in Ireland, compulsorily acquired his farm, with the help of Government finance, but the landlord, his landowner, kept the sporting rights and the mineral rights.

This would have been a far better arrangement where you have many crofts on the estate, where some of the crofters are going to keep the sporting rights and others are not. To start with, it will not help the crofter at all. In the Highlands there is no use in having sporting rights over a small area of ground. It will probably completely ruin the sporting value of some estates. The majority of the Highlands estates rely on timber, but a great number of them rely for a very large part of their income, if not the largest part, on sporting rights. If you are going to destroy this, you will not only cause unemployment by the dismissal of some keepers and stalkers, you will also spoil the great help to this country of dollars coming into Scotland for sporting rights on the large estates. I hope that the Minister will take note of my noble friend's Amendment.

Lord BURTON

In regard to the point raised by Lord Mackie of Benshie on fishing, I think that this was fully gone into by me on Second Reading. I think I made it clear that the whole situation will be unsatisfactory; and this is really in support of the Amendment. I should like to point out that if there is to be material detriment—and it is only where there is material detriment that the Land Court must grant a lease—then it would be reasonable for the crofter to say, "If there is material detriment, then there must be material value in the fishing or shooting", and to demand a material rent. There is nothing in the Bill which says anything about a nominal rent. I feel that somewhere or other, even if we do not accept the full Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, we should write into the Bill that the lease-back should be at a nominal rent.

Lord SELSDON

I should declare that I have neither an interest as a landlord nor as a crofter, but one thing that the Government may overlook is the valuation of sporting rights. It is difficult to value sporting rights. They are based entirely upon supply and demand and what people are prepared to pay for them. There is no doubt that the fragmentation of sporting rights, which this Bill would imply, can have a detrimental effect on the overall value of sporting rights in a particular area. While the Government may not feel concerned about this at the moment, the points that have been made on the importance of sporting rights in the United Kingdom both as export earner and tourist earner, albeit for a selective element of foreign tourist should not be overlooked. It should not be forgotten that the value of sporting rights of a sector can often exceed the value of the crofting land. On the one hand, we have the landlord who will be detrimentally affected and, on the other hand, the sporting rights which have a greater value as a group than as a number of individual units. The value of individual sporting rights below a certain acreage is limited, and if we have a fragmentation of this there can be severe detrimental effects. I hope the Government will bear in mind the mood expressed on these Benches, that this is something worth giving thought to.

Lord HOY

I hesitate to intervene but I had some association with this problem over a long period. I do not know how valuable are all these sporting rights on the crofts. They may be very valuable, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchyre, said.

Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE

It depends on the size of the croft.

Lord HOY

I am sure that it does. This applies to all crofts. I have listened to these arguments about the sporting rights and the forestry application. I heard Lord Campbell of Inchrye, who said we should take into consideration the value of these crofts and the forestry accommodation in them; and I hear about all this forestry that is going to be employed on the crofts and, in addition, the sporting rights. I want to know what kind of crofts they are. I am sure they are important, but I have never come across very many of them.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

That is what I said when I introduced that particular point. I said that it would only arise infrequently; but as there is nothing about it in the Bill, we wish to ask the Government about it. The noble Lord acknowledged that it was a matter where the Government were glad to take the opportunity to describe the procedure because it would arise. Can I take the opportunity also of saying that I am not Croy of Inchrye?

Lord HOY

I hope I did not say that. I said, "Lord Balfour of Inchrye", and when I dealt with forestry I said "Lord Campbell of Croy". I cannot be held responsible for the noble Lord's hearing. He must accept it for himself. When I hear about these great crofts with all these tremendous sporting rights and forestry accommodation on them, I find them difficult to understand. It may be there is a point. But even if noble Lords have a point, let them not exaggerate it. I think that the purpose of going through a Bill of this kind is to find out what are the problems confronting us. I rather liked the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who sent me a note about what I said last week. I do not want the noble Lord to be disadvantaged by anything I have to say: but all that I have to say is that if all these tremendous values are on these little patches of land (for that is what they are) let us have a clear understanding of what we are discussing before we get rid of this legislation. I have never come across crofts of this kind. It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, there are only a few of them. I do not know how many. I do not know what "a few" means. In the context of legislation that we are enacting tonight they must be infinitesimal. That is my view.

Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD

You might have 100 altogether or 200. That is quite a large area of land.

Lord HOY

I find it difficult. At least I can provoke the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, if no one else, to assure me about these troubles. I am saying that if we are going to deal with this, then all I want to know is what is the real extent of the problem. I want the Minister to be able to tell us what proportion of crofts he thinks are involved in this problem. That is not asking too much.

Lord LOVAT

Perhaps I may speak on this for a moment. I owe two apologies to your Lordships. One is for missing the Second Reading debate and the other for being late this evening when this debate started. The only subject that I was going to talk about, which has been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is the forestry aspect of crofts. I come back to that in an indirect answer to his question as I should like to bring it to the attention of the Minister. No croft is the same, either in longitude, latitude or the specific purposes through which the crofter enjoys a livelihood. I do not think that that is sufficiently understood.

I speak with a certain knowledge here, having several hundred crofters on my estate. On estates which have been in the possession of one family for a long time one finds crofters who are the salt of the earth. The equivalent of the English yeoman is the Scottish crofter. On the West coast, as is well-known, they have been the backbone of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in wartime. On the East coast no finer men have served in Her Majesty's Forces as territorials. I have profound admiration for these people. From the Second Reading debate I feel certain that problems have not been foreseen. For instance, I feel that while we are trying to help the crofters, in some ways we may be making a mistake in regard to crofters buying their land and reselling it. We are losing the type of person who is very important to populate the remote areas. We do not want to see these people drifting down to the council houses in the villages. But that is an aside.

No croft is like another. Apart from sailors coming from one side of the country and soldiers from the other, there is fishing on the West Coast and there are all the local crafts on the East coast. They are great stonemasons in the Beauly/Inverness-shire district. They are great carpenters or joiners, as they are called, in the Highlands. They are needed in quarrying and other ancillary works which they do extremely well. There is no value in a West Coast croft from a sporting point of view. Hooded crows and other vermin look after the grouse and any eggs laid on the West Coast. On the East Coast there is a different value in the sport.

To come back to timber, some crofts extend to several hundred acres of outrun. This is the point: the crofter does not think he owns the trees. I feel those trees should be the possession of the proprietor. I want to bring this home forcefully, as has the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I am not thinking of afforestation so much as the value of trees which are on that croft and on its outrun. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is perfectly right, the croft is interpreted as being a smallholding. In fact some of them run to several thousand acres. This is a positive fact. They have been amalgamated over the years and there could be a sheep run which makes them run to several thousand acres. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I feel the standing timber on hill country must be treated entirely separately to the value of the croft, which is the inbye land. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will bear this very much in mind.

Lord BURTON

The Scottish Landowners' Federation Crofting Sub-Committee went to considerable trouble to draw maps to show how fragmentation of the sporting interests would cause serious detriment in certain areas. If these maps have not reached the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, I will undertake to see copies are sent to him, because it is important that he knows about this. Particularly in the Black Isle, and even on my own ground at Dochfour, six miles from Inverness, one croft, about 40 acres, could cause serious detriment to a valuable shooting property.

The Earl of CROMARTIE

I should like to support what my noble friend said about size. It is no longer mine and I should like the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, as an old friend of mine, to understand that the common grazing of the township which I had on the West Coast had 13,000 acres. That is a lot of land.

Lord HOY

But it is not a smallholding.

7.4 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL

Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, posed a major proposition to me several minutes ago. As we have discussed one or two other issues, the Committee might agree with me if I were to treat these in inverse ratio though not necessarily with an inverse serene of proportion. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked a question relating to the purchase of land, and whether such purchase of land includes the stretches of river which flowed on either side. I can tell him that salmon rights do not pass to a crofter with the land. Trout rights go with the land, but the clause provides for the lease-back to the landlord if these rights are of material value to the landlord.

The noble Lords, Lord Burton and Lord Selsdon, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, touched upon a number of matters which tie on the question: should the landlord be entitled to keep his sporting rights? One noble Peer mentioned mineral rights. The Bill is about entitlement of crofters to buy inbye land. In the Government's view this has little relevance to the question of sporting rights. Sporting rights for the major part—and this might be the reply my noble friend Lord Hoy would require—affect common grazings which the crofter has no unqualified right to acquire. Where mineral rights belong to the landlord, the owner of the surface, they are reserved to the landlord owner because they are excluded from the definition of croft land. A number of noble Lords talked in general terms about fragmentation of land. In the Government's opinion the majority of land being discussed in this Bill is not for sporting land use.

I would mention to the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, that I made a more full reply regarding timber to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, at an earlier stage. If he chooses to consult Hansard at the appropriate time, he will see what I said in reply to the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has raised an important question. I have to say at the outset that frankly he and I possibly approach this important question from the opposite end of the political tunnel. Although this is a crofters' Bill, the Government have tremendous sympathy for a real crofting need to create individual owner occupation of crofts. This is part of the Government's underlying political ethos.

With that as an introduction, I have to say to the noble Lard that I must resist this Amendment. I am doing so because in the Government's view it would be undesirable to place any restrictions on the powers of the Land Court in considering the terms and conditions under which the crofter should grant sporting leases to his landlord. But there are a number of safeguards for the landlord. First, the vast majority of croft land which may be purchased under the Bill will carry no sporting value. Generally speaking, sporting value lies in the common grazings. Secondly, there may be a small number of cases where there is sporting value. The Bill recognises this in several respects. First, the landlord can oppose the sale, and will prevent the sale, if he can satisfy the land court that (a) the sale would create substantial hardship for him or (b) there would be substantial detriment to the sound management of the estate. Secondly, where the Land Court determine that the sale should take place, but are satisfied that it would have a material effect on the sporting interests of the landlord, the Court must require that a lease of the sporting interests be given to that landlord, and the Court can specify the terms, which I would expect to include, in appropriate cases, that the rent should be fixed at a nominal value. The question of nominal rent is one which the Government might look at, and I would go as far as that this evening.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

Just before we finish dealing with this point, because a number of speakers have intervened, I should like to intervene following the Government and say that the Government have accepted—this has been repeated again by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—that cases could arise where sporting rights were affected, with the inbye land. On a previous occasion I think the noble Lord felt this would arise only in connection with common grazing. These sporting rights could be a valuable part of the land in the area. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, pointed out that in some cases where valuation of such sporting rights is made, the value can be considerable. I was most interested in what my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said about the Forestry Commission's practice. I am not familiar with it, but I would ask the noble Lord, when he is looking at this as he has kindly said he would—if it is the practice of the Forestry Commission to have a lease of 21 years, which is very close to the 20 years suggested by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye—also to look at this. It seems to be a fairly close example of what can be done.

I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has completely answered the point of interpretation raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye; that is, crofting value referred to on line 37, page 3. He was worried in case, under the terms of this Bill, the value was restricted to the crofting value of the land, although the Government's interpretation hitherto has been that the Land Court have jurisdiction extending to sporting rights. We should like a definite answer on that.

Lord KIRKHILL

If I might just intervene at this point, I can assure the noble Lord that the Land Court have that discretion.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am very grateful for that, and I am sure that my noble friend will also be reassured. My noble friend Lord Lovat spoke not only on the question of sporting rights but also about forestry. I am sorry that he could not have been here when we started our Committee stage, because I did speak on this subject earlier on the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill? I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said, because it came from his own experience and supported what I was saying; that is, that the question of timber can arise in some cases where croft land is concerned. I think the noble Lord answered the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, on this, and I would advise my noble friend Lord Lovat to look at Hansard, because the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, gave a very full answer which I think will be helpful in those cases where the matter of forestry does arise.

Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE

I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister and other noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for reassuring me on my second point as regards interpretation; that is, that the Land Court are fully able to deal with sporting rights as well as value of the croft land. As regards my other point, I hope the Government will look sympathetically at the analogy of the Forestry Commission which my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Campbell of Croy suggested should be done between now and the next stage.

I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. On this occasion he asked about the extent of this problem; let me say that it is a very small extent. Most of the inbye land concerned has no sporting rights, but some of it has and I am sure the noble Lord would agree with me that injustice to one man is just as important for the legislature to look at as injustice to a great number of men. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, in view of what has been said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 3, line 31, at end insert— ("(6) The Land Court where it has made an order under subsection (3) above, and when requested by the landlord, will provide that such a lease will be enforceable on the crofter's successors and the owner's successors.").

The noble Lord said: We have had considerable discussion on these sporting leases, but I should like to point out that regardless of what safeguards may be in the Bill as regards the Land Court being able to lease back, all these safeguards become useless if the crofter sells his purchase a few weeks after he has bought it. What the Land Court has laid down for a lease immediately falls as soon as the crofter passes his croft on to someone else. If the Government see their way to accepting my later Amendment on the right of pre-emption, there would not be the same need for this one. Meanwhile, the position is very different from that described by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard regarding the Forestry Commission, because I think it would be fair to say that the Forestry Commission does not die; but crofters do, and so do landowners. Therefore these leases will not pass on from one to the other and I hope that the Government will look very carefully at this. I beg to move this Amendment.

The Duke of ATHOLL

Perhaps I might be allowed to say just a few words in support of the general tenor of my noble friend's Amendment. I hasten to add that I have no personal interest at all in crofts or crofting. I think I am right in saying that, under the other Scottish Bill which is at present wending its way through your Lordships' Chamber, trout fishing leases will be enforceable on the successors of both the owners and the lessors of the fisheries concerned. If, for instance, an angling club takes on the lease of a certain stretch of water and spends a fair amount of money in improving the trout fishing in that water, it is obviously desirable that this should be so. However, it has not been so, I believe, in the past. I should have thought there would be no difficulty about making the same provision apply in this Bill as regards trout fishing.

So far as shooting rights are concerned, I believe I am correct in saying that the position in Scotland as a whole at the moment is that in the event of the land over which the tenant has shooting rights changing hands, the tenant's lease for shooting rights automatically fails. This seems to me undesirable, and I should have thought it would be much better for the tenant to have a contractual right to continue holding a shooting lease until the terms of the lease come to an end. I see difficulties in making crofting land different from land over the rest of Scotland. I would have thought this was a point which ought to be looked at within the context of the general law of Scotland, because the tenants of shooting rights can be very badly treated if this happens. In most cases, the person who sells the land, or the heirs of that person when they inherit the land concerned, continue the lease in a perfectly normal way, because most people behave in a reasonably moral way. However, there have been cases, I believe, where people who thought they had shooting rights for as long as the lease ran have been dispossessed because the land over which they had these rights changed hands.

Lord KIRKHILL

The noble Lord, Lord Burton, has, as usual, given a cogent reason for his proposition. Indeed, I intended to take this opportunity of congratulating him on the fact that thus far his draftsmanship has been, dare I say it, quite impeccable. But in this instance he has fallen short of the high standard which he has maintained throughout these proceedings. His purpose, if I interpret it correctly, is to ensure that a lease of sporting rights granted by an ex-crofter to his former landlord will, at the request of that landlord, be made enforceable on any change of ownership of the land; that is to say, against a singular successor of the ex-crofter as the new sporting landlord. It is not at all clear that the Amendment as drafted would achieve this.

However, even if the drafting had been effective for this purpose, I would be bound to resist it for a number of what I regard as cogent reasons, which have already been set out at some length in debate in another place. The effect of such a provision would he to make a distinction in law on sporting leases as between the former crofting counties and the rest of the country, and within the former crofting counties as between sporting leases on crofting land and other land and further within that classification, only in the cases where the landlord—in this context, the sporting tenant—requested such provision. The noble Lord will perhaps appreciate the unacceptability, as the Government see it, of such a confused state of law.

It might be helpful to noble Lords, in order to clarify the inter-relationship between this Bill and the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, if I quoted what was said in the other place by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Hugh Brown, during the Committee stage of this Bill. He said: So far as leases of fishing rights are concerned, the proposals for deeming certain agreements to be leases (under the Fisheries Bill) will, if enacted, have the effect spelled out in the amendment"— the Amendment was one of like design to the noble Lord's Amendment. That [effect] is in the other Bill. But the purpose behind that legislation—of encouraging anglers to be in a position to make proposals for a protection order—is quite separate from the purposes of this Bill. Again, there is no need to make special agreements here for fishing agreements in the crofting counties. If Parliament accepts the other proposals, their application will he nationwide. If it does not accept them, then the position in law should remain throughout the country. The ultimate remedy for a landlord, who has at present valuable sporting rights which he considers would not be safeguarded to run under a lease secured under the Bill, would be to exercise his right under Clause 2(2) to contest acquisition of the land and seek a determination that he should not be required to sell.

Before I resume my seat, the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, asked me about the termination of shooting rights on change of ownership. I can tell him, Yes, this is the position and I accept the noble Duke's exposition of the law. But in the Government's view, this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for bringing about any change in that law. I do not know whether I can concede agreement with his principle on this point. I can only hope to convince him of the relevance to the crofter's interest. But I return to the proposition put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and I hope that with the explanation I have given he will not press the Amendment this evening.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I question his logic a little on the evenness of the law throughout Scotland? In fact, crofting is in a quite special position, and no other landlord has to sell his land to someone and get a lease back. I doubt whether it is logical to say that it should be the same law all over when crofting laws are in a very special position of their own.

Lord KIRKHILL

I was hopeful that your Lordships could accept that my logic was impeccable within the constraints of the crofters' Bill.

The Duke of ATHOLL

May I just give comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and say that I absolutely agree with his logic. What I was hoping he would consider was that some suitable vehicle might be found in the near future for changing the general principle of shooting leases throughout Scotland, because at the moment it is extremely unfair on the tenants. Most of the shooting leases in Scotland are on lands which are not ex-croft lands.

Lord BURTON

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, for his interjection, because that is exactly the point I wanted to make. However, I would draw attention to what my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has said about shooting leases being changed and made a separate heritable right. They are a separate heritable right in England, and it seems unreasonable that we are going to lose our sporting assets in the crofting areas if something is not done to amend this Bill in a very few years' time. I appreciate that my drafting of this complicated Amendment may not be correct, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord may bring back at Report stage an Amendment which would meet what appear to be the general wishes of those on this side.

Lord KIRKHILL

I merely wanted to say, without expressing an opinion as to the relevance of the noble Duke's principal contention, that for this evening I must reiterate the Government's view that this Bill would not be the appropriate vehicle.

Lord BURTON

With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Consideration payable in respect of acquisition of croft land]:

7.26 p.m.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 14: Page 4, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was pressed to explain how rents fixed at one-third of open market rents were fair rents. We hoped that he would come back at this stage and give us a fair answer. There are many cases where rents have been agreed as being fair between crofters and landowners, and the Land Court have had to be brought in for one particularly difficult crofter in the area who would not agree. The Land Court have invariably dictated rents lower than those freely agreed round about. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the Land Court award fair rents; indeed, there ought to be an appeal where the rents are obviously at an unfair level. I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

The same Amendment was tabled at Committee stage in another place, and I do not think I can improve on the reply given by the Minister on that occasion. I quote from the Official Report of the First Scottish Standing Committee for Thursday 12th February 1976, columns 126–127. He said: The purpose of the amendment would seem to be to ensure that in all cases where the landlord seeks to have the croft rent raised for the purpose of the Land Court determining the value of the croft land, the Court will be required to determine a rent, and presumably that decision will be in favour of the landlord. It is undesirable that a judicial body such as the Land Court should not have full freedom of decision in every case put to it, and I would not wish to attempt to limit the Court in this respect. The Land Court, like any other Court, are a judicial body which is accustomed to weighing up all the facts of a case before coming to a decision which is fair to all parties. One can foresee—and this is the key point—that there will be circumstances where the Court consider that the existing rent is a fair one and should not be revised upwards in order to enhance the sum paid to the landlord. There may even be occasions where the Court consider that the rent is too high and will reduce it in order to achieve a fair price for the crofter to pay. To achieve fairness all round, it is thus essential that there should be no restrictions on the Land Court's power of decision. The use of the phrase 'may determine' secures this and that is why may' is used instead of 'shall'. The use of "may" also, of course, recognises that the Land Court have power to dispose of applications which are defective in form or substance. With such cases to be kept in minds in the Government's view it would be inappropriate to express this provision in mandatory terms. I hope that with the kind of assurance I have given to the noble Lord he will not feel the need to press the Amendment.

Lord BURTON

I feel that I must press the Minister a little further because he has not answered the question and told us to whom it is fair. I believe that the noble Lord told us on Second Reading that it is only one-third of the rents that one can obtain on the open market. I cannot see that this is a fair rent. If land is to be compulsorily purchased at this rate, we ought to be given a fair rent and not one-third of the open market value.

Lord KIRKHILL

The only comment which I can add to my earlier remarks is that, because of the statutory controls over the letting of croft land, there is in practice no open market in croft rents. The level of rents is generally governed by the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 which provides for the Land Court to determine what the Act describes as a "fair rent". The Land Court take account of many factors in determining fair rents and clearly the considerations which they take into account will normally include such factors as the situation of the croft, the extent and quality of the inbye land, the value to the croft of any landlords' improvements, the extent of any share in common grazings, peat-cutting rights, and so on. The level of fair rent which this determination will produce will, as I think I indicated in the Second Reading debate, normally approximate to one-third of the level of open market rents obtainable for land let under agricultural holdings tenure. Such open market rents of leasehold subjects, in contrast to the fair rent which is a bare land rent, reflect the landlord's capital investment in fixed equipment as well as the land. Upon the last occasion the noble Lord was inclined to cast doubt as I made this comparison, but I can assure him that I am given to understand that experience on the Secretary of State's crofting estates indicates that crofting fair rents approximate to one-third of leasehold rents for comparable subjects.

Lord BURTON: I hope that the noble Lord will look further at this Amendment, because his information is not quite correct. From time to time crofts become vacant. Anyway, there are any number of sub-tenancies from crofters, possibly to other crofters or outside people, which give a very good indication of what rents are ruling. As I said on Second Reading, these sub-tenancies are four or five times what the Land Court are awarding, not one-third. I hope that the noble Lord will look further at this point. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.34 p.m.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 4, line 6, at end insert— ("( ) The cost of conveying the land will be the responsibility of the purchaser.")

The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment because the landlord will be put to considerable inconvenience, and possibly considerable loss, as has already been explained on previous Amendments. As the landlord will be subjected to compulsory sale, it is not unreasonable that the purchaser should pay the costs of the conveyance. In cases of compulsory purchase by a public authority, the costs of the conveyance are usually borne by the purchaser. In these cases of croft purchases, the landlord could well be left with a minus quantity if conveyancing also had to be paid. I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

I must respond to the noble Lord's proposition in some detail. The noble Lord will be aware that in Clause 4, which deals with the terms and conditions for the conveyance of the site of the dwellinghouse to a crofter or cottar, we have provided that the Land Court, in making their order relating to such a conveyance, may determine that any of the expenses of the conveyance and other expenses necessarily incurred by the landlord shall be borne by the crofter or cottar. This provision was inserted for two reasons, one of them technical. First, it was recognised that the price formula for the house site would inevitably, except in cases where there was a substantial element of landlord's equipment, result in a relatively low purchase price. That being so, it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to incur more in legal costs than he was receiving for his interest. Secondly—this is the technical point—it was recognised that conditions as to payment of expenses are not the kind of conditions subject to which an order under subsection (1) of Clause 4 may require a conveyance to be granted. Providing for the crofter to pay the entire cost of the conveyance of his house site is a departure from the usual conveyancing practice that each party to a transaction bears his own expenses.

The noble Lord's Amendment seeks expressly to extend this departure, as the Government see it, to all sales to crofters. This would be too sweeping. Moreover, the Government have it on record that the Law Society of Scotland would frown on any general application of the principle that the buyer should incur all the costs of a conveyance. Having accepted the principle that the crofter has a special entitlement to acquire his land at its crofting value, we would not wish as a generality to see any expenses being placed on the crofter other than those which normally he would be expected to pay. The Government have it in mind, moreover, that the landlord will stand to make a gain should the crofter resell the land within five years of his own purchase.

It is the broad intention, therefore, that in the case of acquisitions of croft land, each party will bear their own costs in regard to the transaction. Nevertheless, the Land Court have power under Clause 2 to fix the terms and conditions of acquisition, and this should give them discretion to take account of a submission by a landlord that he should not be out of pocket as a result of having to pay legal costs in excess of the price he was receiving for the land, and in that situation to determine that the crofter should pay a proportion of the landlord's costs. Finally, I should explain that in the Government's view there is no inconsistency introduced by the proviso to subsection (3) of Clause 4.

Lord BURTON: Perhaps we have made a little progress, because the noble Lord said that the landlord should not be out of pocket. However, there is nothing written into the Bill to that effect. Perhaps the noble Lord will see whether he can write it into the Bill somewhere. Again I am afraid that I find that his information is not entirely accurate. He said that it would be a departure from normal practice, but compulsory purchases—and after all this is a compulsory purchase—are usually paid for by the acquiring authority. Furthermore, I think that almost invariably in feu charters the conveyancing is done by the purchaser. Therefore, it is not departing from the normal practice. If, however, the noble Lord will look again at this point, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.39 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 5, line 16, at end insert— ("( ) The Land Court shall use its powers to appoint valuers to attend hearings and inspect subjects in all cases where, in its opinion, advice on valuation is needed in determining values under the terms of this section.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16 which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. Under the subsections of this clause the Land Court are charged with the duty of carrying out valuations in various circumstances. There will be concern among the crofting community that these valuations are carried out as equitably as possible. They will be concerned that the Land Court have the most expert knowledge and experience at their disposal, if necessary, allied to their own wisdom in these matters.

I recognise that the new subsection which my Amendment proposes is not strictly necessary, since I understand that the Court possess the powers mentioned in it. However, I should like confirmation from the Government that I am correct in assuming that the Land Court possess these powers. I submit that to write this Amendment into the Bill would be an improvement, because it would provide reassurance if it were stated in the Bill that the Land Court shall use their powers in all appropriate cases. In any event we shall look forward to hearing the Government's view on this point and how they visualise the Land Court functioning in these evaluation matters. I would remind your Lordships that crofts vary vastly in values of crofting land in different parts of Scotland. Therefore local advice is needed as well as general expert advice. I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for tabling this Amendment because it gives the Government the chance to explain the position as we see it. We think that the Amendment as such is unnecessary because the Government consider that, under the present rules of the Land Court, the Court have full powers to remit questions to persons specially qualified by skill and experience to enquire into such matters and report, or to appoint such persons to act as assessors and sit with the Court at any hearing, or inspect the land or buildings or other subjects to which an application relates. I have no reason to doubt that the Court, in their desire to achieve a fair determination in cases which come before them as a consequence of this Bill, will not hesitate to obtain expert advice in all cases where they feel this is necessary. In short, that is the Government position, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in the light of my short, but, I hope, comprehensive explanation will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am glad the Minister has been able to give the assurance that the Land Court have these powers and I am sure we shall all expect the Land Court to use them whenever there is a need for special experience or advice in these matters. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for having given such a short and concise answer. In view of what he has said, which answers all the points, although I think it would be declaratory to have this in the Bill, I recognise that it is not necessary and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.42 p.m.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 5, line 21, at end insert— ("(7) The landlord or his successors shall have the right of pre-emption over the relevant land.")

The noble Lord said: I really cannot understand why the word "pre-emption" is such a bogey to the Government. The crofter who is getting the right of compulsory purchase under the Bill would suffer no loss if this subsection were added. The only possible ground that I can see for refusing the Amendment would be malice against landlords. If this Amendment were incorporated in the Bill, it would overcome a good many difficulties about sporting leases, because if it were really important one would have the right to buy back the land when the croft was for sale.

If I may just explain, the crofter compulsorily acquires his croft. This is highly inconvenient and possibly damaging to the estate. However, the crofter has only purchased his croft in order to obtain a "quick buck". He takes the first opportunity to resell his croft and he may well be selling it as a holiday home. The noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, was particularly worried about this on Second Reading. The prospective purchaser offers EX for the croft and all this Amendment proposes is that the crofter must come back to the landowner from whom he originally bought the croft (or the land owner's successor) and offer him the right to purchase at the price which has possibly been offered by the person who intends to make a holiday home out of it. So that the crofter who bought the croft in the first place would suffer no loss whatsoever. It may well be that the land owner has been so inconvenienced by the original sale to the crofter on account of fragmentation or some other reason that it would be worth buying back the croft. It will make no difference to the crofter, who will be getting exactly the same price, but it will make an enormous difference to the land owner. Possibly more important still, it could make a big difference to land management. I beg to move.

The Earl of CROMARTIE

Before the Minister replies, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Burton for two reasons which I gave at Second Reading. As I said then, I welcome the Bill, but what I fear is the possibility of the odd crofter—not all of them, because I know a lot of them will not—who wants a quick and large buck from some developer who comes in. Not only will this possibly completely spoil an area but it will also mean that the crofting community may come to an end, which I think would be absolutely tragic. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Burton, does not agree with me about that, but that is my view. Also it would mean taking land out of agriculture for the benefit of somebody who erects some ghastly building in the middle of it. I should like some assurance from the Minister that the Government realise that there is this danger.

Lord LOVAT

I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has said, and I should like to know the reason why the Government object to the right of pre-emption. I speak as an interested party. The crofters on my estate are old friends they do not want a stranger to take their properties. In the case of most landlords the crofters know that they will be well treated by landlords who have been there a long time and who have known the crofters' families. I feel so strongly about this that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will take it to a Division.

Lord KIRKHILL

While I note the very strong feelings just evinced by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, I am unable to accept this Amendment, since in the Government's view it seeks to impose an undesirable burden on the crofter's title to his land by constituting a right of pre-emption in favour of the landlord and his successors over land which the crofter has acquired under the Bill. As I think I emphasised earlier this evening this is essentially a crofters' Bill. The intention in the Bill is to give the crofter an unrestricted title to his land and to allow him a completely free hand to dispose of that land as and when he wishes. It is no part of the intention of this legislation to make provisions which would mirror reflections of one of the more restrictive attributes of—in the Government's view—the feudal system.

Apart from the objection in principle to fettering the crofter's title with a pre-emption right, this would create practical difficulties—for—the crofter as well as imposing a constraint on development, encouragement of which is one of the primary objectives of the Bill. I fully sympathise with the point just made by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, as I did when he made the point during the Second Reading debate. I can only express again to him this evening the same personal view which I expressed then; that is, that I do not think it will lead to the wrong sort of urban development—at least I would hope not, but cannot give him an unequivocal assurance on that point. A crofter could, for example, lose the opportunity of a sale to a developer because of the delay which a pre-emption right would impose on the disposal arrangements. Furthermore, a landlord exercising a pre-emption right could forestall a sale for a development in which the crofter intended to participate and which would have provided benefits for the crofting community. These are the kind of practical difficulties which could arise, but, as I have said earlier, the Government's objection is one of principle and I have to resist the Amendment.

Lord LOVAT

If I may speak again, I think the noble Lord the Minister has argued very cogently on the obvious possibilities open to a crofter who wishes to sell to whomsoever he thinks fit. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that it is not the right of pre-emption it is an opportunity to buy that croft. As I read the Bill, the landlord has no right of any kind even to make an offer. I feel if Lord Burton would amend on these lines I myself would be perfectly satisfied. The fact is, as I see it now, that you cannot buy back a croft even if the crofter is willing to sell it to the proprietor.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

May I again, with respect, question the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. He says the Bill wants to give the crofter unrestricted right over his own land, but there is a clause in the Bill which says that he cannot sell it for five years without sharing the cash with his previous landlord.

Lord KIRKHILL

I can but reiterate that in the Government's view the purpose of the Amendment is to secure for the landlord and his successors a right of pre-emption—I would have thought this was self-evident—over the land acquired by the crofter. The Amendment would not be effective for the purpose of securing such a right in that it makes no provision for the detail of such a right of pre-emption or for the technical provision required to constitute such a right. That is the background to the Government's resistance. But underlying that background is the Government's resistance in principle; I have explained the principle as clearly as I can, and I cannot add to it.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I would intervene just to say that my noble friend Lord Lovat has argued a slightly different case from that of my noble friend Lord Burton, pointing out that if the landlord had the opportunity of pre-emption this does not go so far as the right. This is in itself a reasonable suggestion. I hope my noble friend Lord Burton might also consider that point, which perhaps we could pursue at a later stage.

Lord KIRKHILL

I should have said in my earlier remarks (I apologise to your Lordships and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Lovat) that nothing in the Bill prevents an ex-landlord from buying back the land. I should have made that point clear.

Lord BURTON

I would certainly be happy to go along with my noble friend. I am not worried about the right, but there are cases when it would be extremely valuable to the landowner to be able to buy it back. I am a little at a loss to see that there is nothing to stop the landlord from buying it back, as the noble Lord said. He might not even know of the sale. As the noble Lord said, it could be sold to a developer. The crofter would not lose out on this. This happens time after time. Rights of preemption are exercised. I have never heard of anyone losing a sale. I think this is just an excuse. I know the noble Lord opposite would like to help on some of these points, and I appreciate the difficulty in which he is placed with, perhaps, some of the Left Wing of his Party on some of these points. I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I must say that we might well desire to press some of these Amendments on Report.

Lord KIRKHILL

Perhaps I might just say that the Government regard this question of pre-emption I touched upon this point earlier, but perhaps did not emphasise it as I should have done—as part of the legacy of the feudal system. At this point there is no suggestion that the Left Wing of the Labour Party, either in your Lordships' House or in another place, is putting this particular Minister under any pressure. The Minister believes very much in a new freedom in the age of owner-occupation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Determination by Land Court of terms and conditions for conveyance of the site of the dwelling-house]:

7.54 p.m.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 18: Page 6, line 1, leave out ("one half of").

The noble Lord said: I know that this argument about getting one half of the compensation was argued in another place. The proposals again are grossly unfair to the landlord, but what concerns me more is that the subsection as worded does not seem to make sense. I wonder whether the noble Lord opposite can explain it. I have read it through several times; I may be very thick, but I cannot make any sense out of this subsection. There are many instances where the landlord has provided materials for the crofter. I wonder, for instance, how would the house timbers be valued? I think my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy touched on this question of valuation. I think it would be very difficult to value the wood in a house. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain the subsection a little more fully. There were many houses placed on fixed security by the 1955 Act. The landlord lost any right of flexibility under that Act. Now it seems that these houses are to be largely expropriated. It really is grossly unfair. I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

I would preface my response to the noble Lord's Amendment by saying that I am advised that the effect of this Amendment would be to require a crofter to pay the whole of the proportion of value attributable to any equipment provided by the landlord. Although this might appear at first sight to be a very reasonable proposition, in reality it is over-generous to landlords. In the case of an acquisition by the crofter of a house site where the landlord has provided the house or part of the house, noble Lords should remember that, although the ownership of the house is vested in the landlord up to the time of the crofter's purchase, it is a frozen asset. Because of the crofting restrictions, the chances of a crofting landlord being able to obtain vacant possession of a dwelling-house and thereafter to sell it on the open market are very slight. Moreover, as long as a house forms part of a croft the return by way of the traditional crofting rent, even in the case of equipped rent crofts, is low. There is a strong case, therefore, for securing, as the Bill does, that the value of the improvement should be shared.

Broadly, the approach is that the value of the landlord's equipment should be apportioned between him and the crofter on the basis that it is being sold to the crofter as a sitting tenant. Accordingly, the formula contained in the Bill to cover the crofter's payment for such equipment produces a price which is roughly equivalent to a sitting tenant's valuation. It would be an unjustifiable benefit to the landlord and an expensive burden on the crofter to require the crofter to pay the full proportion of the value of landlord's fixed equipment to him, and for this reason I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.

Lord LOVAT

I think this very much bears out what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said with regard to valuation and a fair arbitration. Just as a crofter who on the West coast has to carry the tangle of the isles on to the lazy beds to make a better crop, does not expect more than a third of the value of an arable farm, on the East coast round Beauly crofters reseed their fields and rent the first year's grass for £40 an acre. So a poor house at a road end in Arisaig or Morar would not have the same value as a nice croft house with a slate roof above Beauly. I hope this will be borne in mind. I speak with a certain knowledge of those districts.

Lord BURTON

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.59 p.m.

Lord BURTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19: Page 6, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may refer also to Amendment No. 20 at this time. The remarks made on land valuing appear to be even more appropriate where only the site of the house is involved. Certainly the site of the house could well not produce enough capital to pay the lawyers. I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has already given us a fairly full answer on this, because earlier he mentioned house sites as one of the land sites. With your Lordships' leave, therefore, I shall not move this Amendment.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Provisions supplementary to sections 2 and 4]:

8.1 p.m.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 21: Page 8, line 18, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. Here one goes one further. It is not clear where or when a croft can be a feu, in which case I am not clear what the clause means. If there is a case where a croft is a feu I can see no justification for such an arbitrary abolition of a contract freely entered into between two people. It is surprising that the Bill does not give private individuals a right to feu whereas it lays down that the National Trust is not allowed to convey in any other means. It seems that what is desired here is the abolition of the right of pre-emption which may be enclosed in a feu, but I am not quite clear what it means.

Lord KIRKHILL

As I understand it, the only effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to impede the crofter's purchase of land under the Bill. The purpose of subsection (3) is to eliminate any delay or difficulty for the crofter which could arise from the exercise of pre-emption rights over croft land. For instance, a crofter who was negotiating with his landlord or who has obtained a court order authorising the purchase of his house site or croft land might find that in the meantime the person having a right of pre-emption over the land has, in good faith, accepted the offer which the existing landlord would have been obliged to make by virtue of such a condition in the title. This would leave the crofter with no option but to renegotiate the purchase with his new landlord, or seek a fresh order of the court.

As noble Lords will have realised, there would be little reason for the owner of the pre-emption right to exercise that right against croft land being conveyed under the terms of the Bill, because, having exercised the pre-emption right, the new landlord would be under the same liability as the original landlord to convey the land to the crofter. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied.

Lord BURTON

I should like to thank the noble Lord for trying to make that explanation, but I think it only emphasises further how complicated crofting legislation is. Perhaps in the future we might get a Crofting Consolidation Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Provisions relating to existing loans and heritable securities]:

On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I should like to inquire, without raising very technical points again, whether the Minister can give a brief explanation of how Clause 8(4) conforms with the later situation following reform of the feudal system in Scotland. I, and I am sure some other noble Lords, were a little surprised to see that paragraph (a) of subsection (4) proposes that in certain circumstances there should be a burden upon the superiority, whereas the purpose of the feudal reform has been not only to try to change these terms but also to make considerable changes in the feuing system. If this is exceedingly complicated I should not expect the noble Lord to give us a long explanation at this stage of the Committee, but I was able to give him notice that I would raise this since I hoped that he may be able to tell us how Clause 8 fits in with the latest situation regarding the feudal system.

Lord KIRKHILL

I hesitate on this occasion to say that I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has raised this question, as I certainly welcomed the earlier question he posed to me, because in essence this is entirely a technical and legal matter. As the noble Lord raises the question as to whether it is appropriate in the clause to refer to a superiority in view of the changes which have taken place in recent years in the law relating to conveyancing and the feudal system, I can advise him that the reference is appropriate since these changes have not had the effect of abolishing the feudal system which comprises estates of superiority. In 1970 the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act made provision for variation and discharge of feuing conditions, which of course would include rights of pre-emption. In 1974 the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act prohibited the imposition of feu duties but did not prevent a grant of land in feu—in other words, it did not prevent the creation of estates of superiority. It is therefore still appropriate in this legislation to make mention of superiority estates, and of course rights of pre-emption which are supported by such estates.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given us that concise explanation.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Crofter's right to share in value of land resumed by landlord]:

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 22: Page 11, line 22, after ("rights") insert ("or, in cases where the majority of the crofters concerned do not choose to take up their rights, to the relevant grazings committee").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 22. This point has been raised by the Stornoway Trust, and it was raised too late to be properly considered in another place, though a similar Amendment was discussed there. Clause 9(4) relates to compensation when land is resumed; land which forms part of a common grazing. The Land Court is to apportion the value among the crofters who share it. The Stornoway Trust suggest that an alternative should also be available, and indeed this is their own practice. The alternative is that a lump sum should be made available to the grazings committee who decide on improvements for the benefit of all. This is because the land is held on a community basis.

The Trust are not suggesting that this should he done; they are just saying that there should be an alternative. They have made it known to me, and I think other noble Lords and Members of the House of Commons, that this has been their practice and that they would very much regret having to change, because this alternative was not available to them, a practice which I understand is generally acceptable in their area of Lewis. The Trust also think that the Land Court will find it difficult in some cases to find a generally acceptable basis on which to make an apportionment, and this is because of the system.

I must make it clear that the Amendment has been drafted by me, and therefore doubtless contains technical faults, and the Minister need not spend time on that. My object was to make clear the second option which could be open, and which the Bill could make available. If my drafting is inadequate I should be perfectly satisfied just to be told that, because if the purpose of the Amendment commends itself to the Government I would hope that they would give advice or themselves put down an Amendment which would be impeccable. I hope that the Government will find that this is a useful additional point. If so, we can then together prepare a suitable Amendment for the next stage of the Bill.

Lord KIRKHILL

This is a very helpful Amendment because it enables me to state clearly what the Government view is on this point and it enables me to confirm that there is very little between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in this matter. As he correctly said, a similar Amendment was proposed during the discussion of the Bill in another place. It was said then that acceptance of the Amendment would present practical difficulties in its application. It would require the Land Court to investigate the local circumstances in every case to ascertain the use made by each shareholder of the common grazings. One can see that this could lead to acrimony among the individual members of the community and would also delay disbursement of the sum to be shared. It would also take what is a matter for the will of individual crofters out of their hands, and the Government do not feel that there is good reason why this should be done. Common grazings committees, however, under Clause 16 of the Bill are being given greater powers in regard to improvements to the grazings. They are being enabled to put in hand desirable improvements and allocate the cost among, the shareholders, subject to certain safeguards for the individual's interest. Grazings committees will, of course, be aware when a resumption of grazings land is taking place with its consequent sharing of the value of the land among the shareholders. Knowing this, I would expect an enterprising committee to take the opportunity to propose a desirable improvement and this would be a way of ensuring that some of the money at least is used for communal benefit without at the same time interfering with the individual's right to receive the money in the first place.

There is an alternative to this and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, touched on it; I suppose there is an alternative with respect to certain other matters dealt with in the Bill. There would seem to be nothing to prevent a voluntary arrangement being made whereby any crofter's share would be diverted to the grazings committee. This would involve the individual shareholder so wishing to divert his share, signing a mandate in favour of the grazings committee. Provided an arrangement of this kind has been arrived at which is acceptable to the parties concerned and that the Land Court are satisfied that the crofters' interests are not being harmed by the agreement or that it is not contrary to the intention behind Clause 9(4), I am sure that the Court would be willing to endorse it. This would seem to be a particularly suitable arrangement in cases where a comparatively small sum is to be shared among a large number of shareholders. I hope that, with that assurance and the mention I have made of the alternatives, the noble Lord will feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has done is to indicate that without need of an Amendment, the alternative choice which the Stornoway Trust has suggested should be available can be worked out voluntarily. I am sure that the best thing now for us to do is to enable those who are most concerned about this to read what the Minister has said, and if the Stornoway Trust and others who are interested in this feel that the Minister's words have not really met their point, no doubt we shall be able to return to the subject on Report. But with the assurance that the noble Lord has given—the indication that an alternative is available by voluntary agreement without the need for an Amendment to the Bill—and on the understanding that we will read carefully what he has said and translate it into the situations which we have in mind, I beg leave to—

Lord KIRKHILL

I would just confirm that, although it may be an unusual experience, the Minister's words would, I think, stand up on this occasion.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I think the noble Lord is saying that the Land Court would examine what he has said in your Lordships' Committee when considering an alternative.

Lord KIRKHILL

No; I was expressing my view and really giving an assurance that the Land Court would endorse the kind of proposition which is being made.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am sure that the noble Lord is being as helpful as he can be to me at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Provision as respects removal of land from crafting tenure]:

8.16 p.m.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 23: Page 14, line 8, leave out from ("croft") to end of line 11.

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 24—in which there is a typing error; "any" should read "land"—and Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. These all refer to what we were discussing on Second Reading; the possibility of no further land being brought into crofting tenure. In my view, it is important that we do not extend the amount of land under crofting any further. I should point out that one of my Amendments would be of considerable benefit to the crofters because at the moment one may have a piece of ground which is suitable for grazing and which one intends to use for planning; instead of the ground lying idle it might be convenient to let the piece of ground to a crofter for grazing. But if one did this one would never get the piece of ground back again, and indeed it could be sold by the crofter within a few days because any piece of ground let to a crofter automatically becomes part of his croft, which is really a bit of a nonsense. I ask the Government to look at this matter carefully because, clearly, it would be of considerable benefit to the crofter as well as to the land owner. I will not trouble your Lordships further at this hour, but I would refer to the 1961 Act, particularly Section 2(2)(a) and (b) and Section 3. I feel that, although somewhat lengthy, it should be deleted from the Bill which is before us and that we should not allow any further land to be brought into crofting tenure.

The Earl of CROMARTIE

I am not entirely in agreement with my noble friend over this. He stated categorically that no further land should be brought into crofting tenure, which is a rather sweeping thing to say. I happen to know sons of crofters who have had to leave their areas to find jobs and quite a number of them would like to come back into crofting. There are not many of them, but there are some, and I suggest that one should be careful before saying that we want to cut out the crofting system altogether. I do not think that that is the right thing to say.

Lord KIRKHILL

The noble Lord, Lord Burton, clearly explained the purpose behind these Amendments. As he would admit, he is concerned—this point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, though in partial disagreement with him—to prevent more land being brought within the scope of the crofting Acts, and that of course is an aim which is consistent, as I see it, with his general thesis that the crofting system should be wound up as speedily as possible. The Government do not agree with that thesis and therefore cannot accept these Amendments, though if it is a comfort to the noble Lord I can assure him that lie is addressing himself to a situation which is very unlikely to arise after the passage of this Bill. However, the Government are not disposed to remove these minor provisions at this stage, believing that they have relevance so long as there is a fair amount of land held in crofting tenure. At a later stage it may be necessary to re-examine the position, but I could not go further than to say that tonight.

Lord HOY

I do not want to delay your Lordships at this late hour, but I have sat through the whole of the Committee stage and have said only a few words previously, and that produced six interventions. I do not want to repeat that performance at this late hour. However, I should not like this stage of the Bill to pass without telling the noble Lord, Lord Burton, how indebted we are to him. We often wonder where he gets to but, inasmuch as he has moved 23 out of the 26 Amendments, we now know why he stays so long in the Highlands.

Having come to that conclusion, am bound to tell him that the argument, so far as I am concerned, is on the side of the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie. I feel that it was a sweeping statement which the noble Lord made, and I wonder whether he quite understood what he was saying when he said that no further land will ever come into crofting. However, inasmuch as the noble Lord was mopping up the remaining clauses and the Schedules, I feel that we can excuse him for the generalisation in his concluding speech.

Lord BURTON

May I just say that I know of one case where I should be very happy to let a piece of agricultural ground to the son of a crofter, but I dare not do it because he will become the heir to the croft and that piece of land could then well be sold away from the estate altogether. I believe that this needs very careful scrutiny. If your Lordships will excuse me as soon as we have finished with the Amendment, I am hoping to return to the North this evening and I have only half an hour in which to catch the train. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed to.

8.22 p.m.

Clause 14 [Extension of section 3 of Act of 1955]:

On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall part of the Bill?

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I should like to ask the Minister to explain why it is necessary that Clause 13 should be in the Bill. As he knows, I have taken an interest in the definition of "croft" and "crofter" and how in future a crofter will be identified. This clause seeks to extend Section 3 of the Act of 1955 and uses the words "definition of croft and crofter" in brackets. I should be grateful if the noble Lord can tell us the reason for the inclusion of the clause.

Lord KIRKHILL

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has raised the question of the definition of a croft and particularly as to how the definition is affected by this clause. This is essentially a technical and legal issue. As I said in the debate on Second Reading, the Bill does not seek to alter the definition of "croft" which is to be found in Section 3 of the 1955 Act. That definition is a combination of all the definitions which through the history of crofting legislation have identified crofts or land holdings, and substantially in effect defines a croft as a holding to which the Crofters Acts of 1886 and 1911 applied. It also covers holdings in the crofting countries which between 1955 and 1961 were capable of being registered as a croft on an application to the Land Court—that is, a holding with maximum rent of £50 and area of 50 acres; and, since 1961, such holdings as may be directed by the Secretary of State to be crofts, such holdings now being holdings of maximum rent £50 and area of 75 acres. This latter provision is being repealed by Schedule 3 to the Bill.

The 1955 Act makes provision, as did the 1911 Act, to deem any pasture or grazing right held by the tenant of a croft to be part of a croft. I ask noble Lords to note these words: the existing legislation deals with the rights held by the tenant of a croft. The provision thus leaves obscure two matters which become important to enable full effect to be given to the crofter's right to purchase his croft. The first is the position under legislation of the land which may have been subjected to an apportionment of grazing rights which in practice is regarded by the crofter as part of his croft. The other is the position of the grazing right which ceases to be held by the tenant of a croft, when the crofter ceases to be such a tenant.

This clause makes provision to remedy the obscurity by inserting in Section 3 of the 1955 Act, a new subsection (5) deeming land subjected to an opportionment of grazing rights to be part of a croft and restating the existing position as to unapportioned rights, and a new subsection (6) deeming such land and such unapportioned right, when no longer held by the tenant of a croft, to be held by the holder on tenancy and to be a croft until such time as that deemed portion is overtaken by other effects. As a deemed croft such rights and land can be regulated under the legislation provisions for assignation, bequest and so on.

I must apologise to noble Lords for the somewhat technical explanation, but your Lordships will appreciate that the inquiry led towards a highly technical area of the legislation. I have tried to express such technicality with as much clarity as possible.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirk hill, for having given such a full explanation. I know that I and others, not only in this House but outside, will want to read what he has said and may wish to return to this matter at Report stage if points arise. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given that technical explanation.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

May I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for his solo performance over a very long period in answering the many points raised particularly by noble Lords from this side of the House? The noble Lord is following the feats of endurance of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, during the Committee stage of Scottish Bills. Some of us may have felt that his answers were not completely satisfactory, but we thank him for the way in which he has tried to deal with everything that we have raised during the last three or four hours.

Lord KIRKHILL

I appreciate the very kind and thoughtful remarks made about me by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I can assure your Lordships, as I (lid earlier this afternoon, that the noble and rigorous North-East Scot is nothing if not vigorous in pursuit of the constraint of his Government's policy as he views it.

House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.