15:49 Informal session opened. The Convener (Sarah Boyack): We now move into our open session. As I said, this is a chance for people to give their views a bit more informally. I have a list of eight people who would like to speak, the first four of whom are in front of us. If other members of the public would like to speak, I ask them simply to raise their hand and we will arrange for them to come to the table. We are happy to hear from people who have experience of crofting about what crofting needs to help it to thrive and about what they think of the bill. People are free to comment on what they have heard this afternoon or to raise issues that they feel should be considered by the committee but which have not been aired today. I give people the very heavy hint that they should not speak for hours. I will chop off anyone who is going on for too long, but people will be allowed to say more than two sentences. The aim is to let people get their points of view across efficiently. The four people who are before us, whom I will ask to speak in turn, are Councillor Angus McCormack, Councillor Annie MacDonald, Margaret Mackay and Steven Graham. [Interruption.] I remind everybody to turn off their mobile phones—I hope that I do not have to do that again. I ask Councillor Angus McCormack to say which ward he represents and to make his comments. Councillor Angus McCormack (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar): I represent Plasterfield ward, which is on the outskirts of Stornoway, and I live in Sandwick. I am a crofter and a former grazings clerk. I am currently a member of my grazings committee, which is a very go-ahead committee— we have a forestry scheme and we are about to embark on a rural stewardship scheme. I am speaking in a personal capacity today. I am happy with the notion that we should have new crofts, created appropriately with local agreement, and that we should specify what crofts may or may not be used for. I am not happy with the current Crofters Commission, which, I believe, should have its members elected. The commission should use its existing powers and it should have greater regulatory powers, especially over development matters, in conjunction with local authorities. I am unhappy at the prospect of a bigger market in crofts for sale, because the situation is bad enough at present and is a positive disincentive to young people, who are unable to get into crofting because they cannot afford to buy. I would like something to be done about that. I also have concerns about a move away from the idea that development in crofting areas should be agricultural. I will say a bit more about that in a moment, with your forbearance, convener.
Others have covered specific aspects of the bill, but I want to talk about section 34. I will mention two aspects—wind farm development and the law on development in general. On the former, it would be beneficial for the outer Hebrides if benefit and compensation payments were paid to the community, for the benefit of the community. That would remove the anomalies that the current legislation creates of neighbouring crofters receiving differing benefits just because of where their crofts are located. It would also mean that the compensation would be spent more meaningfully for the benefit of the community, as it would attract additional funding for local projects. Carefully invested moneys could accrue and be of benefit for many years, and substantial improvements could be made in crofting communities, which is what the bill is all about. I cite the experience of many grazings committees in the outer Hebrides that have used moneys that they have received from forestry schemes carefully to benefit the community, rather than hand out shares to individuals. The second aspect that I wish to mention, development in crofting areas, should be considered carefully. Although development in such areas is to be welcomed, the removal of the current restrictions on non-agricultural development might well be a retrograde step. Random development without control will lead to countless semi-industrial eyesores that will not enhance an area. Regrettably, there are already examples of that throughout the islands. Industrial areas should be determined by the community and the council, and careful controls should be put in place. The law should insist that all development proposals be subject to planning control and, as a separate issue at the local level, the Western Isles local plan should determine areas where industrial or semi-industrial—that is, non-agricultural— development should take place. That should also apply to housing sites. It appears to me that we are losing the best of crofting ground to housing development by way of backland and similar types of development occasioned by the right to purchase crofts. The bill could lead to speculative bids for housing development sites. Such sites should come under planning legislation and landowners and grazings committees should be encouraged to engage in discussions about appropriate sites for development. We are already considering that in the outer Hebrides. Proposed new section 19A(2) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 uses the phrase “for a reasonable purpose”. Who is to determine what a reasonable purpose is? Surely some definition of the term “reasonable purpose” is necessary. Planning law should decide what a reasonable purpose might be, which might differ depending on
location, or be affected by designation, local plans or community preference. I am not sure that proposed new sections 19A(3)(a), (b) and (c) satisfy my concerns. Certainly, 19A(3)(b) favours development regardless of the consequences. How might we define, in the case of a wind farm, for example,
“the area affected by the development”?
Let us move forward together to ensure the best for this island. The Convener: Thank you. As a quick point of clarification, the committee is not entirely in charge of its destiny as far as timetables go. We are working to the Scottish Executive’s timetable for consideration of the bill. We put the Western Isles at the top of the list because we wanted to come here first. As you will know, the committee is also going to Oban and Inverness. I hope that the number of people here today is good enough. Mr Alasdair Morrison (Western Isles) (Lab): Councillor McCormack helpfully detailed exactly where and how he wants the bill to be amended. It would be useful if Councillor MacDonald could reinforce what she said by referring to the specific areas in the bill. Perhaps she could do that in writing. Councillor MacDonald: I shall do that. The Convener: As I said to an earlier panel of witnesses, if people want to submit extra comments in writing they are more than welcome to do so—with the caveat that the later a comment arrives, the less time we will have to reflect on it and let it influence our report. I repeat to everyone that, even if you do not speak today, there is nothing to prevent you from writing to us in future. The next person on my list is Margaret Mackay, who I understand will speak to us in Gaelic— headphones at the ready for those of us who need them. Margaret Mackay (Western Isles Language Plan): Tha mise an seo an-diugh a’ riochdachadh plana-cànain nan Eilean Siar, a chaidh fhoillseachadh an t-seachdain a chaidh. Tha am plana airson ar cànan is ar cultar a neartachadh anns na h-Eileanan Siar. Thàinig am plana bho na coimhearsnachdan agus tha e stèidhichte air beachdan nan coimhearsnachdan. Chan ann dìreach air a’ chànan a tha am plana a’ buntainn ach air a’ chultar agus, mar sin, air ar dòighbeatha. Mar a bhios fios agaibh uile, tha croitearachd na phàirt bhunaiteach dhe dòigh-beatha nan Eilean Siar. Ma thig atharrachadh air suidheachadh croitearachd agus, mar eisimpleir, ma tha—rud a tha a’ cur dragh orm fhìn—margaidh fhosgailte gu bhith ann ’s gun e a bhith cho comasach do dhaoine òga croitean a bhith aca is a bhith ri obair croitearachd, bheir sin buaidh air dòigh-beatha nan eilean. Ma dh’atharraicheas an dòigh-beatha, aig a’ cheann thall is dòcha gur e bàs cànain agus cultair a thig. Leis an sin, tha mise dìreach airson moladh dhan chomataidh gu bheil e deatamach a bhith a’ dìon nan coimhearsnachdan. Tha barrachd na dìreach fearann air cùlaibh seo; tha cànan, cultar is dòigh-
Paragraph 149 of the explanatory note states:
“It would also not be necessary for the scheme to have the consent of the community.”
The explanatory note also makes it clear that the scheme would be binding in perpetuity. We have to consider those matters very carefully. The Convener: Thank you. That was quite specific and detailed. Having read the bill, most of us know about the points that you made and we will reflect on them. Your contribution was probably at the outside limit of the length of contributions that I am looking for, but because you referred to the bill so extensively and gave us some detailed points, I was quite happy to let you talk. Councillor Annie MacDonald (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar): I represent the Lochs area. I live in Lacasaidh and have been crofting all my life. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. You might notice that there are not too many people in the public gallery. That might be for the obvious reason that it is lambing time. I do not know whether that was taken into account when the committee set up this meeting. I welcome the 20-year rule for mapping and boundaries. That is positive. The Lochs area includes Pairc. As you all know, the community went through all the hoops and ballots and so on, but then the landowner put into place an interposed lease. That is all just a legal process that takes time, but procrastination seems to be the name of the game. The sooner that things get done, the better it will be for the area. The two key planks of Scottish Executive policy are renewables and land reform, both of which are in a fine brochan, for want of a better word. Renewables and land reform should be tackled by and for the people. From what I see, both issues are sinking in a quagmire of planning and will be stunted by the bill. Our island needs progress on renewables, whether the developments are large or small. Our island also needs strong land reform. My plea is that we should seriously and maturely move out of planning and get out of the swamp of legislation, the Scottish Land Court and the whole procedural brochan that we are in at the moment.
beatha nam pàirt chudromach de chroitearachd cuideachd. Following is the simultaneous interpretation. I am here today to represent the Western Isles language plan, which was published last week. Its purpose is to strengthen our language and culture in the Western Isles. The plan came from the communities and is based on their opinions. It touches not only on language but on culture, and therefore on our way of life. Crofting is a major part of life in our communities. If there is to be a change in the nature of crofting, something that will bother me very much is that, in an open market, young people will not be able to buy crofts and take part in crofting. That will have an effect on the life of the islands. The way of life will change and, ultimately, that may sound the death knell for the language and culture. I say to the committee that it is important to protect communities, and culture and language are an important part of the way of life in crofting communities. 16:00 The Convener: Thank you. That point has not been made today, so it is useful to have it as one of our core ambitions for crofting. The final contributor from this panel is Steven Graham, who will also speak to us in Gaelic. Steven Graham (Comunn na Gàidhlig): Tha mise an seo a’ riochdachadh Comunn na Gàidhlig. Tha mi airson leantainn air puingean a chaidh a thogail ann an litir gu Ross Finnie an-uiridh—an ìre mhath na h-aon phuingean a thog Mairead NicAoidh cheana. Tha sinn air chluinntinn an-diugh mu dheidhinn a’ chroin a dhèanadh margaidh fhosgailte air eaconamaidh nan eilean, ach tha sinne mothachail gun dèanadh seo cron mòr air cultar is cànan nan daoine cuideachd. Air ur beulaibh an-diugh bha croitear òg à Leumrabhagh. Chuala sibh e ag ràdh nach biodh dòigh aige air lot a cheannach airson, can, £40,000. Is e òigridh an àite a tha fìor chudromach. Ma tha margaidh fhosgailte gu bhith ann, bidh a’ mhargaidh coltach ri margaidh taigheadais, anns a bheil an ìre mhath a h-uile taigh a thèid a reic shuas an seo anns na heileanan air a cheannach le Goill a’ tighinn asteach bhon taobh a-muigh. Ma tha na coimhearsnachdan traidiseanta—na Gàidheil fhèin—gun dòigh a bhith aca air lotaichean a cheannach, tha e a’ dèanamh iomagain mhòr dhuinn gur e dìreach daoine bhon taobh a-muigh a thig a-steach. Tha sinn airson ur n-aire a thogail gu Achd na Gàidhlig (Alba) 2005, a chaidh a chur an gnìomh bho chionn ghoirid. Tha sinn airson is gum bi sibh
mothachail gu bheil uallach oirnn uile ar cànan is ar cultar a dhìon. Tha dleastanas air Alba air fad dualchas na dùthcha a ghleidheadh. Mar cho-dhùnadh, tha eagal oirnn gur e na daoine aig a bheil na sporain as motha a gheibh na croitean seach na daoine a bhuineas dhan Ghàidhealtachd. Following is the simultaneous interpretation. I am here to represent Comunn na Gàidhlig and I would like to follow up on points that were raised in a letter to Ross Finnie last year. I will also touch on points that Margaret Mackay has just raised. We have heard today of the effect that the open market will have on crofting and on the economy of the islands. That in turn will affect the language and culture of the people. In front of us today was a young crofter from Lemreway. You heard him say that he would not be able to buy a croft for £40,000. The young people in our communities are really important. If there is to be an open market, the crofting market will be just like the housing market. Every house that is sold up here is sold to people from the lowlands—people from outside. That is what will happen with crofts. The traditional communities—the Gaels, the Highland people— will not have the resources to buy crofts. It gives us great concern that people from outside will come in. We would like to raise the committee’s awareness of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, which has come into operation. We want you to be aware that our language and culture are important to us and that we want to preserve them. Scotland has a duty to reflect on that. We are afraid that people with big purses will get the benefit of the crofts, rather than the people who belong to the Highlands. The Convener: I thank all four of the witnesses for giving us such articulate comments. I now invite our second panel to come to the table: Councillor Angus Graham, Donald Murdie, John Macdonald and Stanley Davey. If you are in the room, this is your chance. [Interruption.] Apparently John Macdonald is not here. If he does not arrive by the end of the session, he will forfeit his place. I thank the three others for volunteering. Councillor Angus Graham (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar): I represent the Gress ward, which about seven miles north of Stornoway and is still an active crofting community. It is one of the more populous ones because of its proximity to Stornoway—it is in the Stornoway travel-to-work area. I am a small-time crofter and have 30 sheep. I enjoy my crofting and was involved for many years with the Scottish Crofters Union.
I do not have detailed comments on particular aspects of the bill, as Councillor McCormack had. Crofting reform is a contentious issue and I disagree with some of the things that have been said today. Some grand statements have been made, but no one has worked out the alternatives. For example, I agree that there should not be an unfettered free market in crofts, but when we consider the alternative we enter a bureaucratic morass. I am all for state intervention, although that is not a politically correct view in the circles that I move in. These days, I would be in favour of the state’s involvement in all sorts of things, but I do not know whether that is on anyone’s political agenda. I have one or two examples of what I mean. We should be careful when we talk about derelict crofts. If you travel throughout these islands and the north-west Highlands, you will come across pieces of land that are full of rushes and bracken and that you would assume to be derelict. Your colleagues in the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Development Department are giving attractive grants nowadays to keep crofts in rushes and bracken because that is useful wildlife habitat. The essential point about that is that crofting regulation is not an island. The issues surrounding crofting have to be considered as a whole, and regulation is part and parcel of that. There has been a diminution in services to crofting. For example, the crofters building grants and loans scheme has been diminished. Many things, including some of the regulations, are eating away at the ability of crofters to continue crofting. Someone else asked whether the landlord or the commission should have the say in what is a derelict croft. That question is a bit naive. I remember a dispute some years ago with crofters on the North Harris estate. The landlord at that time was a society anonym, and the croft was registered in Panama City and owned by nominee shareholders. There are many large estates in the Highlands that are still owned by nominee shareholders and directors and where no one can find out who the end-owner is. Before saying that landlords should have a big say on what goes on in crofting, one has to consider all of that. Finally, I make a plea to the members of the committee who are involved in rural issues. My point is not about the Crofting Reform etc Bill, but I ask members to reconsider the croft house grant scheme. The Scottish Executive and our authority made a big mistake when they suggested that the loan element of that scheme should be done away with, as that has meant that many people who previously had access to housing no longer do so. Ironically, those are the people who are least able to go to financial institutions and get a mortgage. The difference between £22,000, which is the highest level of grant, and £80,000, which is the
typical cost of a croft house, has to be financed through a mortgage and is beyond the reach of many crofters. Not many financial institutions advance mortgages to crofters on the basis of three years of croft accounts, so the Scottish Executive made a big mistake in not allowing that loan scheme to continue. Anybody can now obtain a grant as long as they have a croft, but we should be conscious of the need to provide housing in crofting counties to people who find it difficult to obtain housing in other ways. In my village, 80 per cent of the houses were provided by the crofters building grants and loans scheme, which started in the 1920s and provided an excellent system for building houses until the mid-1980s. The Tories diminished that scheme by letting it wither on the vine and by not upgrading it as they should have. In the 1990s, what was provided became totally inadequate for building a house. Nonetheless, it was much easier for people to approach a financial institution with £30,000-odd in the house and to seek a mortgage for the balance than it is to find a mortgage now for the balance between £22,000 and the cost of a house. I urge the committee to reconsider that scheme. No matter what many people say, I think that your Crofting Reform etc Bill has a lot of good things; it would take ages to go through the detail. I, too, am pretty guilty of looking for smart headlines, but just because there are a few smart headlines around, you should not go away with the view that the bill is a bad thing; it has an awful lot of good things. The Convener: People are guaranteed to focus on what they dislike in a bill; it is interesting to have your take on that. Mark Brough has told me that the new Croft House Grant (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/214) were laid before the Parliament on Friday, so they will come to us as we consider the bill. If members wish to comment on the regulations, they can see them on the internet. Mr Morrison: The croft house grant scheme is to be formally reviewed at the beginning of January 2007, when it will have been in place for two years. Councillor Graham: I have one final question to ask members, because you have much influence with your colleagues. I do not need an answer today. Is the Scottish Executive still willing to give the crofting community the Scottish Executive’s crofting estates at no cost? The Convener: We can ask the Scottish Executive that question when it appears before us in about five weeks’ time. Thank you for that question, which will go on the record and which the clerks will retain for the right time. The next person on my list is Donald Murdie.
Donald Murdie (Scottish Crofting Foundation): I work for the Scottish Crofting Foundation and I have spent the past 18 years very much in crofting. I do not apologise for returning to the issue of regulation. At the start of the meeting, I gave the committee a piece of paper with information about a township that is not in these islands, but in Skye and Lochalsh. That example is a perfect illustration of the long-term failure of the current regulatory mechanisms, which have been wantonly allowed to fall into disrepair. The information is about a small township of 18 crofts in the parish of Glenshiel in the Lochalsh area. Of those crofts, 10 are tenanted or owned by absentees—three crofts are in the hands of one family who reside in Aberdeenshire. On the remaining eight crofts, there is no discernible crofting activity. I offer that to the committee as an example of long-term regulatory failure and ask a rhetorical question: how do we reverse the situation and bring to these neglected areas the social, economic and environmental benefits that we all know are to be had from active crofting? We know that the Crofters Commission has the powers to act in such situations now. If it could arrange for those crofts to be given up, the outgoers would demand the market value, which, in the Skye and Lochalsh area, would be something like £80,000 per croft. I have no answer to that, but that is the sort of challenge that is faced by large areas of the crofting counties. Thankfully, not so much in Lewis, but throughout the west coast of the mainland, such situations are to be found. 16:15 The Convener: Thank you for giving us that case study to illustrate your point. The third panel member is Stanley Davey. Stanley Davey: My contribution will be short because what I wanted to say has been hijacked by a previous speaker. Although I speak as an individual, I stress that I am here on behalf of many friends and neighbours from the west coast of the island. I come from a croft at North Galson, where we are surrounded by many crofts and lots of sheep. I have been asked by at least seven people to come here today and make the point that everybody is interested in the bill and wanted to give you—if you will pardon the pun—grass-roots information and opinion. I know that this is not the committee’s fault, but if it comes up here in lambing season, it will not see many genuine crofters from the west side of the island. That is the message, for which I can only apologise. Look at the public gallery: given that the committee is spending all this time consulting the crofting community, it is a great pity that—if I understand what you said correctly,
convener—it has been forced by the Scottish Executive’s timetable to come up here at this time. The Convener: This is not the only point of public consultation on the bill; the Executive has carried out a lot of consultation already. I repeat what I have said on the record: if people want to make further submissions to us, we would be delighted to receive their comments on the bill as drafted. The timescale is such that we expect the committee’s report to be published in June, so there is still time left if people want to reinforce the points that have been made today. I thank the three of you for speaking to the committee. 16:19 Informal session closed.