ANNEXE A: REPORT FROM SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Subordinate Legislation Committee

Crofting Reform etc. (Scotland) Bill at Stage 1

The Committee reports to the lead Committee as follows—

Introduction

1. At its meetings on 25 April and 9 May, the Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the delegated powers provisions in the Crofting Reform etc. (Scotland) Bill at Stage 1. The Committee submits this report to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, as the lead Committee for the Bill, under Rule 9.6.2 of Standing Orders.

2. The Executive provided the Parliament with a delegated powers memorandum²³⁵.

3. The Committee’s correspondence with the Executive is reproduced in Appendices 1 and 2.

Delegated Powers Provisions

4. The Committee considered each of the delegated powers provisions in the Bill. The Committee approves without further comment provisions in the following: sections 2, 8 (inserting new section 41A into the 1993 Act: Maps and scheme of charges), 30, 47 and schedule 1 3(1)(d) and 3(2).

Section 1 – inserting new section 1A into the 1993 Act: General duties

5. The Committee noted that subsection (1) authorises Ministers to confer “general duties” on the Commission and that these duties will not be incorporated into an SSI. The Committee considered that if the power could be exercised in the form of an SSI then this would be published and therefore be available to those affected by the provision. It would also mean the Parliament could have an opportunity to scrutinise the instrument.

6. The Committee asked the Executive to comment on this and to explain how the power will be used given the term “general duties” is not defined in the Bill.

7. In its response, the Executive explained that this provision is worded to give more flexibility than is in the current legislation (section 1(3) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993) and is intended to ensure that Ministers have the power to give directions to the Commission. The Executive indicated that it does not expect that the power to give formal direction to the Commission will often be used and spells out in detail how it envisages that the arrangements will work in practice.

8. The Executive gives an example in its response of a use of the power that would relate to administrative matters. This relates to where Ministers wished to apply a crosscutting policy approach across all NDPBs and that this could be done quickly by means of a Ministerial direction to all NDPBs.

9. The Committee notes that the Executive has indicated that the matters might not necessarily require legislation or be matters for which legislation would be appropriate. This suggests to the Committee that in some cases the directions may be of a legislative rather than an administrative character.

10. The Committee is of the view that if a circular or statement of policy is published in some way, the Parliament would become aware of it and could subject it to scrutiny. Under the provisions in the Bill, there would be no means by which the attention of the Parliament or the public would be drawn to any new general duty. The Committee considers that such information should be published, and that it should be widely disseminated.

11. The Committee considers that the Executive’s response does not make it clear whether directions would be legislative or administrative in character. It is also concerned that there is also a lack of clarity from the Executive on what the publication arrangements would be for such directions.  The Committee draws these concerns to the attention of the lead Committee.

Section 4 – inserting new section 42A into the 1993 Act: Power of the Commission to make schemes and arrangements for grants

12. The Committee considered that the power conferred on the Commission to make schemes etc. appeared to be of legislative character and might benefit from Parliamentary scrutiny, perhaps by way of Ministers’ approval being specified in the form of an SSI.

13. It also appeared to the Committee that the wording of the last line of subsection (1) of section 42A applied both an objective and a subjective test as to whether a “holding” is similar to a “croft”.

14. In its response, the Executive explained that it is not normal practice to require that grant schemes developed by NDPBs should have statutory force and cites bodies such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Natural Heritage and others who are enabled to set up schemes without embodying these schemes in statute.

15. On the wording in section 42A(1), the Executive explained that this is intended to allow for a wholly subjective test for the reasons given in the response.

16. The Committee is concerned that the wording in section 42A(1) suggests that there are 2 tests and that this does not reflect the Executive’s stated policy intention.

17. The Committee considers that clarity would be improved by the deletion of the second “and” in the sentence “…make schemes for providing grants to crofters and occupiers of holdings which are, in significant respects and in the opinion of the Commission, similar to crofts”.

18. The Committee is content with the power subject to the point above.

Section 5 – inserting new section 58A into the 1993 Act: Obtaining Commission approval or consent

19. The Committee noted that new section 58A sets down the process by which the majority of applications to the Commission will be determined.  The Committee was concerned about the width of subsection (13) which, among other things, allows the general conditions in subsection (9) to be revoked by order. It considered that this is an important power which has implications for landlords, tenants and others, and should be on the face of the Bill.

20. The Committee asked the Executive to provide further clarification of its decision to delegate this power to subordinate legislation.

21. In its response, the Executive explained that the only delegated power is in section 58A(13) which modifies the criteria which the Commission may use to justify intervention in any particular case.  It added that it cannot be known now what new criteria it may be desirable to apply in future or indeed whether such new criteria will ever be required.

22. The Committee believes that there may have been some misunderstanding by the Executive about the purpose of the Committee’s question. The Committee considered that the power should be restricted because it did not see that the criteria specified were likely to change. It felt that the power in subsection (13) should be limited to adding to or removing additional criteria rather than varying or removing criteria specified in the Bill.

23. The Committee accepts that this is, to some extent, a policy matter and draws this to the attention of the lead Committee.

Section 8 – inserting new section 41B into the 1993 Act: Maps and schemes of charges

24. The Committee noted that this section confers powers on the Commission to make a scheme for charging fees for the maintenance of the Register of Crofts. It considered that there should be a requirement for the scheme, or approval of the scheme, to be incorporated into a statutory instrument.

25. In its response, the Executive pointed to the statutory constraints in section 41B(2) on the amounts that may be charged in a scheme made under the provisions of section 41B(1). It explained that the intention is to provide that a scheme for charging under section 41B(1) may only be put in place with specific Ministerial consent for the scheme and the charges.

26. The Executive added that in contrast, the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) are based on the assumption that charges will be levied for the purposes covered by these subsections subject to statutory rules. It expects that after the rules have been made by statutory instrument, and subject to these rules, the Commission will be free to fix and modify the charges to be levied at its discretion and without further reference to Ministers.

27. It does not appear to the Committee that an instrument to be made under subsections (4) and (5) will be relevant to the fees to be charged under subsection (1).

28. The Committee also considers that it remains unclear about why there is a difference in approach between fees under subsections (1) and (4).

29. The Committee remains of the view that the scheme or approval of the scheme should be incorporated into a statutory instrument.

30. The Committee draws these points to the attention of the lead Committee.

Section 10 – inserting new section 3A into the 1993 Act: New Crofts

31. Whilst the Committee was content that a case has been made for the use of the delegated powers, it noted with concern that there is no statutory requirement for prior consultation before an order under the section is laid before Parliament.

32. In its response, the Executive indicated that its policy is to consult before making a statutory instrument whenever it is possible to do so. It considered that in this case, if this Bill were to contain an explicit requirement to consult, a court might reasonably conclude this to mean that there is no expectation that it should consult on matters covered by the other secondary legislation requirements in the Bill.

33. The Committee is not convinced by the Executive’s argument that because a Bill contains an express consultation requirement in respect of an individual provision this of itself necessarily negates any possibility of establishing a legitimate expectation of consultation on any other provision not containing such an express requirement.

34. The Committee considers that it is not uncommon for Bills to contain delegated powers only some of which include express requirements for consultation.  Whether there is such a requirement depends on the nature of the provisions in question.

35. Whilst the Committee is content that a case has been made for the use of delegated powers, the Committee recommends that there should be an express consultation requirement on the face of the Bill.

Section 12 – inserting new section 5B(10) and (11) into the 1993 Act: Complaints as respects breach of the statutory conditions

36. The Committee noted that this section gives Ministers the power to amend the definition of “neglects” specified in section 5B(7). The Committee also noted that the power is wider than simply updating references and could be used to alter the nature of what constitutes “neglects” in more radical ways which would alter the effect of the section. The Committee acknowledged that the section has serious implications and wondered whether it might be possible to achieve the policy objective by way of a more general provision which would avoid the need for delegated powers.

37. The Committee also noted that this provision illustrates the danger of referring to subordinate legislation in primary legislation given that subordinate legislation is less permanent and subject to change.

38. The Executive accepted the validity of the Committee’s point regarding the nature of subordinate legislation, but considers for the reasons set out in its response that there is no viable alternative to referring to the Common Agricultural Policy Schemes (Cross Compliance) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 in the section. It added that it needs the provisions of section 5B(10) and (11) to deal with the possibility that the 2004 regulations will be superseded by a new standard at some point in the future.

39. The Committee remains of the view, that it might have been possible to avoid the acknowledged difficulties by redrafting the provision in generic terms while still preserving the policy intention and thus avoiding the need for subordinate legislation.

Section 36 – inserting new section 46A into the 1993 Act: Regulations concerning loans

40. The Committee observed that subsection 2(f) of new section 46A provides for the arrangements for recovery of any part of a loan when the borrower dies.

41. The Committee asked the Executive whether provision may be made for recovery in circumstances other than death. It also asked whether the reference to the recovery of a “part” of the loan precludes recovery of the whole loan.

42. The Executive, in its response, explains the policy underlying the grant and loan scheme and why the recovery provisions relate solely to the death of a crofter.

43. It added that reference to any part of the loan is not intended to preclude recovery of the whole loan and it does not think that it does.  However, it added that there is a general expectation that crofters will have managed to repay some part of a loan before death.

44. On the recovery of the loan in circumstances other than death, the Committee is not convinced by the Executive’s response. It cites the example of a crofter who might assign the croft or pass it on in some way, perhaps to a family member, and in which repayment of a loan or at least its renegotiation to apply to the person who succeeds to the croft, would be sought.

45. The Committee draws the attention of the lead Committee to its comments on the recovery of the loan in circumstances other than death, and the Executive’s comments on this issue.

46. The Committee does not find the Executive’s argument about the “whole” and the “part” of a loan credible. It does not agree that “part” necessarily includes the “whole” and believes that it is normal for this to be dealt with in specific terms. It is of the view that the Bill should refer to “part or whole” so that it covers the possibility of recovering the whole loan.

47. The Committee is content that negative procedure is appropriate.

Section 45 – Transitional provision etc.

48. The Committee was concerned about the drafting in subsection 4. It had understood that under the Scotland Act, the term “any enactment” includes subordinate legislation and that this definition applies for the purposes of Acts of the Scottish Parliament by virtue of the Interpretation Transitional Order. Any use of the power to amend either Acts or statutory instruments would therefore be subject to affirmative procedure.  The Executive was asked whether this was the intention.

49. The Executive has replied that it is considering this matter further.

50. The Committee welcomes the Executive’s undertaking to consider this matter further and draws this to the attention of the lead Committee.

APPENDIX 1

LETTER FROM THE SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE TO THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Section 1 – inserting new section 1A into the 1993 Act: General duties

1. The Committee notes that subsection (2) authorises Ministers to confer “general duties” on the Commission, and that these duties will not be incorporated in an SSI. The Committee considered that if the power could be exercised in the form of an SSI then this would both ensure publication and possibly also give the Parliament an opportunity for scrutiny. The Executive is asked to comment.

2. The Committee also asks the Executive how it is envisaged that the power will be used, given that the term “general duties” is not defined.

Section 4 – inserting new section 42A into the 1993 Act: Power of the Commission to make schemes and arrangements for grants

3. The Committee considers that the power conferred on the Commission to make schemes etc is of legislative character and might benefit from parliamentary scrutiny, perhaps by way of Ministers’ approval being specified in the form of an SSI. The Executive is asked to comment.

4. On a point of style, the Committee found the wording of the last line of subsection (1) of section 42A odd. It appears to apply both an objective test and a subjective test as to whether a holding is similar to a croft. The Executive is asked to comment.

Section 5 – inserting new section 58A in the 1993 Act: Obtaining Commission approval or consent

5. The Committee notes that new section 58A sets down the process by which the majority of applications to the Commission will be determined. It considers that this is an important power, which is central to the Act, and has implications for landlords, tenants and others. The Committee considers that this material should be on the face of the Bill. The Executive is asked to provide further clarification of its decision to delegate this important power to subordinate legislation.

Section 8 – inserting new section 41B into the 1993 Act: Maps and scheme of charges

6. The Committee notes that this section confers powers on the Commission to make a scheme for charging fees in respect of the maintenance of the Register. There is no requirement for the scheme or approval of the scheme to be incorporated in a statutory instrument, and the Committee inclines the view that perhaps it should be. The Executive is asked to comment.

Section 10 – inserting new section 3A into the 1993 Act: New Crofts

7. The Committee recognises that the exercise of this power could prove highly controversial, but is content that a case has been made for the use of delegated powers. However, the Committee notes with concern that there is no statutory requirement for prior consultation before an order under the section is laid before the Parliament. The Executive is asked for further explanation on why there is no statutory requirement to consult on the face of the Bill, bearing in mind the potentially controversial nature of the power.

Section 12 – inserting new section 5B(10) and (11) into the 1993 Act: Complaints as respects breach of the statutory conditions

8. The Committee notes that this section gives Ministers the power to amend the definition of “neglects” specified in 5B(7). It also notes that the power is wider than simply updating references and could be used to alter the nature of what constitutes “neglects” in more radical ways which would alter the effect of the section. The Committee acknowledges that the section has serious implications for both a tenant and a landlord and wonders whether it might be possible to achieve the policy objective by way of a more general provision which would avoid the need for delegated powers. The Executive is asked to comment.

9. The Committee notes that this provision illustrates the danger of referring to subordinate legislation in primary legislation, given that subordinate legislation is, by its very nature, less permanent than an Act and subject to change.

Section 36 – inserting new section 46A into the 1993 Act: Regulations concerning loans

10. The Committee observed that subsection (2)(f) of the new section provides for the arrangements for recovery of any part of a loan when the borrower dies. The Committee was not clear why “death” had been singled out and asks the Executive whether provision may be made for recovery in other circumstances.

11. The Committee also asks the Executive whether the reference to the recovery of “part” of the loan, precludes recovery of the whole loan.

Section 45 – Transitional Provision etc.

12. The Committee has a concern about the drafting in subsection (4).  Under the Scotland Act the terms “any enactment” includes subordinate legislation. Therefore any use of the power to amend either Acts or statutory instruments will be subject to affirmative procedure. However, in the DPM it appears to be the intention that only instruments amending Acts should be subject to affirmative procedure even though this is not what the bill provides. The Executive is asked to clarify the drafting of subsection (4).

APPENDIX 2

LETTER FROM THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE TO THE SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

The Scottish Executive responds as follows:-

New section 1A

1. This new provision is intended to replace the existing section 1(3) of the 1993 Act. It is worded to give more flexibility than is in the current legislation and is intended to ensure that Ministers have the power to give directions to the Commission. It is not expected that the power to give formal direction to the Commission will often be used and it is likely that in normal circumstances Ministers would invite the Commission to plan to undertake various tasks and the range of tasks to be undertaken would be agreed in the context of the negotiation between Ministers and the Commission in the context of the corporate plan. The power in section 1A(1)(b) for the Ministers to give written directions on general duties would be utilised where the Commission felt the need to have formal direction from Ministers in connection with a particular issue or task. This would usually be in connection with a particular aspect of Executive policy for which by giving the direction Ministers would in effect be taking full responsibility for any outcome.

2. The other possibility is where Ministers wished to apply a crosscutting policy approach across all NDPBs. This could be done quickly by means of a ministerial direction to all NDPBs. That would probably involve administrative duties of one kind or another.

3. It can be expected that matters in respect of which directions would be given would be fairly urgent. Such matters would not necessarily require legislation or indeed be matters for which legislation would be appropriate.

Section 4 – grant schemes

4. It is not normal to require that grant schemes developed by NDPBs should have statutory force. It is expected that these organisations will produce flexible schemes designed to suit the needs of their clientele and that they should be able to end schemes and set up new schemes in response to changing circumstances.  That is why existing bodies with grant giving powers such as HIE SNH and Scottish Enterprise and local authorities are enabled to set up schemes without embodying these schemes in statute.

5. The last line of section 42A(1) is intended to allow for a wholly subjective test.  There is nothing objective about “in significant respects”. The point about this provision is that it is qualified by subsection 42A(2) and together they require the Commission to decide eligibility criteria based on more than one factor but give it the freedom to decide what these factors are to be for a particular scheme.  Whilst it may be possible to decide what these criteria ought to be now in relation to particular kinds of assistance any criteria devised and incorporated in legislation would be inflexible as they could not be readily changed in future to respond to changing circumstances.

Section 5 – new section 58A

6. The only thing that is delegated to secondary legislation in section 58A is the power in section 58A(13) to modify the criteria which the Commission may use to justify intervention in any particular case. It cannot be known now what new criteria it may be desirable to apply in future or indeed whether such new criteria will ever be required.

7. There is no question of anything which is not on the face of the Bill being brought into force by secondary legislation. The whole process is set out in the primary legislation.

8. Section 58A(2) provides that the Crofters Commission shall specify the content of the application form, the documents which should accompany the application and any fee. This is considered to be no more than normal administrative process.

Section 8 – new section 41B

9. There are already statutory constraints in section 41B(2) on the amounts that may be charged in a scheme made under the provisions of section 41B(1). The intention is to provide that a scheme for charging under section 41B(1) may only put in place with specific Ministerial consent for the scheme and the charges. In contrast the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) are based on the assumption that charges will be levied for the purposes covered by these subsections subject to statutory rules. It is expected that after the rules have been made by a Scottish Statutory Instrument, and subject to these rules, the Commission will be free to fix and modify the charges to be levied at its discretion and without further reference to Ministers.

Section 10 – new section 3A

10. It is Executive policy that we should consult before making a statutory instrument whenever it is possible to do so. In view of that there did not seem to be any need to specifically commit the Executive, on the face of the Bill, to consult on SSIs made under this particular provision. Whilst it would be possible to require the Executive to consult on such an SSI it would seem incongruous to require it to do so in this particular case alone. Furthermore if the Bill were to contain an explicit requirement to consult in this particular case a court might reasonably conclude that to mean that there is no expectation that we should consult on matters covered by the other secondary legislation requirements in the Bill.

Section 12 – new section 5B

11. The point the Committee makes about referring to subordinate legislation in the primary legislation is a valid one and if we felt there was a viable alternative we would not have used the approach we have adopted. The requirements of regulation 4 of, and the Schedule to, the Common Agricultural Policy Schemes (Cross Compliance) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 set a minimum standard for management of agricultural land which is widely used and understood as it sets a minimum standard for eligibility for subsidy. It also sets a range of criteria largely accepted by the industry. It would be extremely difficult for crofters to be expected to meet two different regulatory standards for different purposes and since the 2004 regulations impose fairly minimal standards they are not a significant imposition on any crofter who is not claiming grant or subsidy. Secondary legislation can be ephemeral, as the committee has pointed out, we therefore need the provisions of section 5B(10) and (11) to deal with the possibility that the 2004 regulations will be superseded by a new standard at some point in the future.

Section 36

12. The terms and conditions should be designed to secure repayment whilst the crofter is still alive.  It is possible to secure a loan on a personal bond but recovery of the debt depends on the crofter having funds or being in employment.

13. Loans have in the past been and in the future are most likely to be given towards housing needs. In most other sectors of society loans are usually secured by a mortgage on the home of the borrower but it is not possible to mortgage a croft. In the kind of situation where someone is given a loan for housing purposes the normal way to recover the loan is by repossession. Where the loan is given for social reasons and the borrower cannot repay the loan it would not be appropriate repossess the home whilst the borrower is alive and if the borrower is repaying the loan there will only be a need to recover the balance of the loan if the borrower dies prematurely. The existence of a mortgage means that balance of the loan becomes payable on the death of the borrower.

14. This option is not available with crofters because land in crofting tenure cannot be mortgaged. So there needs to be an alternative mechanism put in place to secure repayment of the outstanding balance of the loan on the death of the crofter. Hence the specific provision. This provision for making regulations replaces existing provisions for recovery of loans in the 1993 Act which have in practice proved to be completely ineffective and largely unenforceable.

15. This reference to any part of the loan is not intended to preclude recovery of the whole loan and we do not think that it does. However, it is generally expected that crofters will have managed to repay some part of a loan before their demise no matter how premature that may be.

Section 45

16. The Executive notes the Committee’s concerns in relation to this section 45. We will consider this further.

Scottish Executive Department of Environment and Rural Development

ANNEXE B: EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

27th Meeting, 2005 (Session 2)

Wednesday 2 November 2005

Present:

Also present: Mr Jamie McGrigor, John Farquhar Munro, Mike Pringle and Mr Jamie Stone.

The meeting opened at 10.04 am.

Crofting: The Committee took evidence on issues arising from the Scottish Executive’s consultation on a draft Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill from—

Rhona Brankin MSP, Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development.

The Deputy Minister agreed to write to the Committee with further information on a number of issues raised during discussion.

The meeting closed at 12.39 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

8th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 8 March 2006

Present:

The meeting opened at 10.06 am.

1. Item in private:  The Committee agreed to take item 4 in private.

4. Crofting Reform etc. Bill (in private): The Committee considered its approach to the Bill at Stage 1 and agreed:

• a proposed programme of evidence, subject to approval by the Conveners’ Group and the Parliamentary Bureau;
• to delegate to the Convener authority to consider any claims for witness expenses arising from this programme; and
• to write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to seek further information on the impact of the Bill on equal opportunities issues and on sustainable development.

The meeting closed at 12:50 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

12th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 19 April 2006

Present:

Also present:  Eleanor Scott

The meeting opened at 10.09 am.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill: The Committee took evidence at Stage 1 from—

Panel 1

Mike Watson, Crofting Reform etc. Bill Manager, Scottish Executive;

Shane Rankin, Crofting Reform etc. Bill Leader, Scottish Executive;

Aileen Imrie and Ethel Burt, Solicitors, Legal and Parliamentary Services, Scottish Executive;

Panel 2

Derek Flyn, crofting lawyer, Consultant with Macleod & MacCallum, Solicitors, Inverness;

Brian Wilson;

Professor Jim Hunter;

Panel 3

Hughie Donaldson, Director, Scottish Crofting Foundation;

Andy Robertson, Chief Executive, NFU Scotland; and

Ian Cairns, Area Consultant for Lewis and Harris, Scottish Agricultural College.

The meeting closed at 1:52 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

13th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 24 April 2006

Present:

Apologies were received from Mr Mark Ruskell (Deputy Convener) and Elaine Smith.

The meeting opened at 2.01 pm.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill: The Committee took evidence at Stage 1 from—

Panel 1

Neil Macleod, Director and Steve McCombe, Harris Area Representative, Scottish Crofting Foundation;

Kevin Kennedy, crofter, South Lochs;

Simon Fraser, Solicitor, Anderson MacArthur & Co., Stornoway;

Panel 2

Iain Maciver, Factor, Stornoway Trust;

Morris Black, Company Secretary, Pairc Trust;

Angus Macmillan, Chairman, South Uist Community Company;

Panel 3

Duncan MacPherson, Community Co-ordinator, South Lewis & Harris Rural Community Housing Pilot Group;

Angus Lamont, Director, Hebridean Housing Partnership;

Panel 4

Murdo Mackay, Economic Development Officer, Crofting & Land Resources, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar;

Donnie Macaulay, Chief Executive, Western Isles Enterprise; and

John Price, Development Director, Lewis Wind Power Limited.

The meeting closed at 5.23 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

14th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 3 May 2006

Present:

Also present: Mr Mark Ruskell

The meeting opened at 9.38 am.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill: The Committee took evidence at Stage 1 from—

Panel 1

Dr Jean Balfour, Member of Crofting Group, Scottish Rural Property and Business Association;

Andrew Hamilton, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland;

Iain Russell, CKD Galbraith and Scottish Estates Business Group;

Panel 2

Duncan Mulholland, small landholder, Arran;

Matthew Hickman, small landholder, Dumfries and Galloway;

Hamish Jack, Spey Valley Crofters Association;

Panel 3

Cameron Maxwell, Rural Development Advisor, Forestry Commission Scotland;

Councillor Drew Ratter, Shetland Islands Council;

Agnes Leask, Joint President, Shetland Area, Scottish Crofting Foundation;

Panel 4

Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw, Bt, QC; and

Duncan Burd, Rural Affairs Sub-committee, Law Society of Scotland.

Item in private: The Committee agreed to consider a draft Stage 1 report on the Crofting Reform etc. Bill in private at all future meetings until it is agreed.

The meeting closed at 1.03 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

15th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Monday 8 May 2006

Present:

Also present: Mr Jamie McGrigor and Dave Petrie

The meeting opened at  2.04 pm.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill: The Committee took evidence at Stage 1 from—

Panel 1

Duncan Baird, Chartered Surveyor specialising in crofting, agricultural and community development;

Donald Linton, Argyll Mainland Representative and John MacKintosh, Member of Crofting Reform Working Group, Scottish Crofting Foundation;

Donald Macarthur, crofter, Isle of Tiree;

Panel 2

Lorne MacLeod, Director, Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust;

Ian Gillies, Tiree Factor, Argyll Estates;

Panel 3

Iain Turnbull, Property Manager for Balmacara Estate, National Trust for Scotland;

Ross Lilley, Area Officer, Mull, Coll and Tiree, Scottish Natural Heritage;

Nigel Hawkins, Director, John Muir Trust;

Panel 4

Audrey Martin, Senior Planning/Development Officer, Argyll and Bute Council;

Ken Abernethy, Chief Executive, Argyll and the Islands Enterprise; and

Maf Smith, Chief Executive, Scottish Renewables Forum.

The meeting closed at 5.59 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

16th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Monday 15 May 2006

Present:

Apologies were received from Elaine Smith.

Also present: Fergus Ewing, John Farquhar Munro and Eleanor Scott.

The meeting opened at  2.01 pm.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill: The Committee took evidence at Stage 1 from—

Panel 1

Cllr Richard Durham, Chair, Land and Environment Select Committee, Highland Council;

George Campbell, Board Member, Highlands and Islands Enterprise;

Allan MacRae, Chairman, Assynt Crofters’ Trust;

Alistair Maciver, Area Representative, Scottish Crofting Foundation;

Panel 2

Shane Rankin, Chief Executive, David Green, Chairman and Drew Ratter, Board Member, Crofters Commission;

Panel 3

Keith Aitchison, and Jackie Forsyth, Branch Committee Scotland North, Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and Archie Macnab, Office Representative, Prospect Union, Crofters Commission staff; and

Panel 4

Rhona Brankin MSP, Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development; Shane Rankin, Crofting Reform etc. Bill Team Leader and Ethel Burt, Senior Principal Legal Officer, Scottish Executive Legal and Parliamentary Team.

The meeting closed at 5.29 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

17th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 17 May 2006

Present:

Apologies were received from Richard Lochhead and Elaine Smith.

Also present: Mr John Swinney.

The meeting opened at 10.05 am.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill (in private): The Committee considered its approach to its Stage 1 report, and agreed to take further evidence on the Executive’s proposed amendment on the ‘proper occupier’ concept.

The meeting closed at 12.27 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

18th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 24 May 2006

Present:

The meeting opened at 10.06 am.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill (in private): The Committee considered a draft Stage 1 report and agreed to continue its consideration at its next meeting. The Committee also agreed to seek an extension to the timetable for completion of Stage 1.

The meeting closed at 11.38 am.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

19th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 31 May 2006

Present:

Apologies were received from Mr Alasdair Morrison.

The meeting opened at 10.06 am.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill (in private): The Committee considered a draft Stage 1 report and agreed to continue its consideration at its next meeting.

The meeting closed at 12.22 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

20th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 7 June 2006

Present:

Apologies were received from Nora Radcliffe.

The meeting opened at 11.51 am.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill (in private): The Committee considered a draft Stage 1 report and agreed to continue its consideration at a later meeting.

The meeting closed at 12.29 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

21st Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 14 June 2006

Present:

The meeting opened at 9.34 am.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill: The Committee took evidence at Stage 1 on the Scottish Executive’s proposed ‘proper occupier’ amendment from—

Professor Jim Hunter;

Derek Flyn, crofting lawyer, Consultant with Macleod & MacCallum, Solicitors, Inverness;

Simon Fraser, solicitor, Anderson MacArthur & Co., Stornoway;

Norman Leask, Chairman, Donald Murdie, Land Use Projects Manager, and John MacKintosh, Member of Crofting Reform Working Group, Scottish Crofting Foundation;

Johnnie Mackenzie, Chairman of Crofting Group, Scottish Rural Property and Business Association;

Iain Turnbull, Property Manager for Balmacara Estate, National Trust for Scotland; and

David Green, Chairman, Crofters Commission.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill: The Committee took evidence at Stage 1 on the Scottish Executive’s proposed ‘proper occupier’ amendment from—

Rhona Brankin MSP, Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development;

Shane Rankin, Bill Team Leader; and

Ethel Burt, Senior Principal Legal Officer, Legal and Parliamentary Team, Scottish Executive.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill (in private): The Committee considered a draft Stage 1 report and agreed to continue its consideration at its next meeting.

The meeting closed at 1.00 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

22nd Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 21 June 2006

Present:

The meeting opened at 10.06 am.

Crofting Reform etc. Bill (in private): The Committee considered a draft Stage 1 report and agreed to continue its consideration at its next meeting.

The meeting closed at 1.14 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

23rd Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Wednesday 28 June 2006

Present:

The meeting opened at 10.03 am

Crofting Reform etc. Bill (in private): The Committee considered a draft Stage 1 report and agreed to continue its consideration at its next meeting.

The meeting closed at 12.28 pm.

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee

ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

24th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)

Thursday 29 June 2006

Present:

Apologies were received from Mr Ted Brocklebank and Richard Lochhead

The meeting opened at 12.39 pm

Crofting Reform etc. Bill (in private): The Committee considered a further draft Stage 1 report, agreed the report subject to specified changes being made and agreed arrangements for its publication.

The meeting closed at 12.56 pm

Mark Brough
Clerk to the Committee