CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 11 May 1976)

§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to 855 acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her Prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

§ The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, there is at least one point on which we had expected there would be a Government Amendment before us today, since this is the last opportunity for Amendments to be made. This is on the particular point of forestry. I presume that the Government have decided as a result of our previous discussions at an earlier stage that it is not necessary for the Bill to have an addition made to it. Therefore, I am now seeking assurance at this stage from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, so that he can make clear what the position is and say whether it is the fact that such an Amendment is not necessary.
It is important that this should be done because if forestry is not mentioned in the Bill and no provision is made for it—which is as the Bill stands at present—the Land Court in Scotland might well consider that they had no mandate to take forestry into account. There are only a few crofts with timber of value which might be involved. But this point, none the less, should not be ignored and the Government have accepted that. If it were to be ignored, it could mean that a transaction would be wholly distorted because a valuable asset was not taken into account. For example, the asset of forestry could in certain cases be more valuable than the whole of the rest of the croft put together which was the subject of the transaction. Alternatively, timber might have to be felled when it was immature, and this of course would be against the national interest.
The Bill has as its main principle a system whereby transactions take place if possible by agreement between the landowner concerned and the crofter. 856 Having been the Secretary of State who announced and introduced this principle—and, indeed, took the Second Reading of a Bill in another place just before an Election—I am well aware that the Government have reintroduced exactly the same principle and almost the same Bill. Therefore I accept that the absence of a mention of forestry is something which my own Government at the time would also have had to consider and take into account during the course of the subsequent debates.
The situation which we have to consider is when agreement is not reached between the crofter and the landowner, because then the Land Court has to adjudicate. It must be made clear that they will have a mandate to take into account forestry and not simply the other assets of a croft. The timber may belong to the landlord or it may belong to the crofter. It is perfectly clear from its history of planting to whom it belongs. That value should be taken into account during the Land Court's consideration of each case. The Minister has written to me about this. I understand from his letter that the situation is covered by the Bill, but this should be made public and should be on the record not only for the guidance of the Land Court but also for others who have been involved with this Bill and the future of the crofting system.
May I also take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the way in which he has dealt with many points, largely technical, on a subject which affects only one part of the country and the way in which he has taken a great deal of trouble in dealing with everything which has been raised on both sides of the House.

§ Lord SLATER
My Lords, in the absence of the Leader of the House, may I direct a question to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who is sitting on the Woolsack. When a Bill comes up for Third Reading, is the form of procedure that we can only ask questions on the Bill as it is before the House and no other matter may be raised?

§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE
My Lords, in answer to my 857 noble friend, may I say that it is perfectly in order to have a general discussion on any matter at this stage of the Bill.

§ Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE
My Lords, I cannot let this Bill pass without saying that those of us in your Lordships' House who have taken an interest in crofting and the way of life of crofters hope that the result of this Bill will enrich the life of crofters and bring them greater prosperity. I should like to reinforce the words spoken by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and say that although we have differed with the Minister, we thank him for his courtesy within the House and the trouble he has taken outside it. I am sure that we have the common wish that this Bill will improve the lot of crofters in the future.

§ Lord KIRKHILL
My Lords, I am glad to be able to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said about the valuation of timber on croft land. This is a minor problem which the Government recognise may nevertheless have significance in a small number of cases. I made it clear, however, at Report stage that croft land with timber on it cannot become part of a croft without the specific agreement of the landlord. The question of timber is not therefore a point which, in the Government's view, calls for a specific provision in the Bill, because the problem is accepted as being a minor one and because adequate 'means 'of dealing with it are available to prevent any possibility of injustice to those few landlords who may be affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has indicated, the landlord's safeguard lies in his right to make a submission to the Land Court, and I have the fullest confidence that landlords will continue to receive justice in accordance with the very high tradition which the Court maintains.
My Lords, before we end the consideration of this Bill in your Lordships' House, I should like to express my appreciation of the contribution that your Lordships have made. We have had some useful and well-informed debates which have focused attention on subjects of primary concern to noble Lords as proprietors of crofting estates but, at the same time, have reflected their general feeling for the interests of crofters and the rights of the individual.
858 I should like especially to thank publicly the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his constructive help to me at all times and for his consideration to me as Minister as I sought to guide the Bill through your Lordships' House. I should also like to thank publicly the noble Lords, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Burton, for their acuity and diligence in going through the fine print of the Bill and formulating Amendments on a wide range of important issues. At the same time I think I have been able to reciprocate by clearing up one or two misconceptions about crofting law.
My Lords, as I said on Second Reading, the objectives of the Bill are to remove the constraints on crofting development and give proper recognition to the crofter's interest in his land by conferring on him acquisition rights in relation to his house site and his croft land, as well as a right to share in the value of any of his land taken for development; and by these measures to bring flexibility into the use of the crofter's most precious asset, his land. In the constructive debates which we have had—and I have already confirmed that in my view they were constructive—on many different aspects of the Bill, we have made a number of Amendments which I feel have resulted in a better Bill. I am confident therefore that it has the support of the whole House as we refer it back to another place.

§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE
My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, put a slight gloss on what I said a moment or two ago. I was slightly taken by surprise by my noble friend. Where I said it was perfectly proper to discuss any matter, may I say "any matter arising out of the Bill in front of us".

§ Lord SHINWELL
My Lords, I am bound to say that I am confused by this rather strange procedure. As a matter of clarification, do we understand from what my noble friend has said that on Third Reading one can introduce new matter, matter that has not been considered on Second Reading or during Committee stage?

§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE
My Lords, we all know that 859 my noble friend is capable of introducing new matter under any guise, and we will never discover it. In fact this would not be proper on Third Reading. It is what is relevant and what has been discussed during the passage of the Bill.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, and others who have raised this matter, and have been interested in pursuing it, it is clear that the matter which I raised has been discussed at various stages of the Bill. The question I was asking concerned the interpretation of the Bill as it is now before the House.