HL Deb 09 December 1970 vol 313 cc1027-30WA

asked Her Majesty's Government:

In view of the declared policy of the Crofters Commission to increase the number of crofters cultivating the land, why was a croft in the Island of Mull, Argyllshire, of about twelve acres

assigned to a tenant, for entry at Martinmas, 1970, despite the fact that the prospective tenant was unlikely to work it, or to provide another to do so, on grounds of age and past experience;

Further, whether the proprietors of the land advised against such a tenancy;

Further, when object ions were raised, why the Crofters Commission failed to call in their own local assessor;

Further, what sum was arranged to be handed over for the habitable house and for improvements on the croft, to the previous crofter or to his proprietor on his behalf.

Whether, the Martinmas term falling on November 26, and in what direction there is possibility of appeal.


Statutory responsibility in this matter rests solely with the Crofters Commission. I am advised that in giving their consent to this assignation the Commission were satisfied after full consideration that the proposed assignee was a suitable tenant for the croft.

As regards the other parts of the Question, I am also informed that

  1. (a) the landlords indicated that they were not in favour of the assignation;
  2. (b) it is not the Commission's general practice to consult their local Assessor in assignation cases in addition to obtaining a report from their own professional staff.

Any financial consideration attaching to an assignation is a private matter between the two parties concerned. The Commission have indicated that in the present case the croft house and steading are in fact the property of the landlords.

As regards the possibility of an appeal in such cases, Section 4(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1961 provides that an application on a question of law may be made to the Land Court by any person having an interest.