Group 6 is on consideration payable in respect of the acquisition of croft land. Amendment 34, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is the only amendment in the group.

Agreement to amendment 34 would result in an extremely important amendment to the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, so I urge all members to support it, again in the interests of fair play and equity. The 1993 act replicates provisions in the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 that introduced a clawback measure in relation to the exercise of a crofter's right to buy croft land. The intention was that if a crofter who had exercised the right to buy then sold the croft within five years, the uplift in value would be shared with the landlord. That was equitable, given that the intention was that the crofter or his family would be able to buy croft land to continue working it as a croft and that, in recognition of that, a nominal sum was payable to the landlord.

The legislation also entitled the crofter, when exercising his right to buy, to have a nominee take title rather than himself. The parliamentary intention, which is clear from the Hansard reports from when the proposals were considered, was that the nominee was expected usually to be a family member and that no money would pass between the crofter and his nominee. Rather, the provision was a way of enabling the next generation to take over a croft without having to pay the clawback. It is therefore regrettable that, since that time, the legislation has been abused by some who have seen fit to use the nominee provision to effect a sub-sale, generally to a developer and for an extremely generous profit, while avoiding the clawback provisions. Such practice is totally contrary to the preservation of traditional crofting in the crofting counties and has helped to fuel the speculation in croft land, which is a great concern today.

The practice has also created a hugely inequitable situation for landowners, as their property can be removed involuntarily at hugely discounted prices only for them to see it lost to developers without proper compensation. Amendment 34 would go some way finally to resolving that unfair anomaly by closing the loophole by which a nominee other than a family member can avoid the clawback procedures.

I have pleasure in moving amendment 34.

Parliament should know that Ted Brocklebank's proposed amendment to the clawback procedure would change the way in which the 1976 act was altered by a judgment in a court case that is known as the Kinlochewe judgment. The altruism of the people who made that case and won it allowed an old couple to get a house on a croft without having to pay the landlord the share that was required under the 1976 act. The wording of the act was challenged in court and was found to be defective. Fortunately, the landlord, who had evicted the old couple from a tied house, was not compensated for the house that was built for them on the croft of my friends, as they had nowhere to go. They would have spent the rest of their lives looking for somewhere to live in their area unless someone had come up with a home.

The procedure has worked in altruistic ways. Crofters told the Environment and Rural Development Committee in evidence that they do not want the legislation on that matter to be altered and that they do not think that it is at the root of the commercialisation of crofts. Ted Brocklebank's amendment 34 is an attempt to turn the clock back to the bad old days before the Kinlochewe judgment, so I urge Parliament to reject it.

The matter is simple: no matter how Ted Brocklebank dresses up amendment 34, it actually tries to fetter the rights of individual crofters to determine and decide their personal affairs and instead have someone else dictate to them how they should arrange those affairs. As Rob Gibson said, amendment 34 would turn the clock back a long way, so I invite Parliament to resist it.

I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the minister or to Rob Gibson and the SNP that I reject their arguments totally. I believe that we are seeing a process that will result in inequality in the relationship between landholders and crofters. I will press amendment 34.

The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 4

For: Aitken, Bill, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brownlee, Derek, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Johnstone, Alex, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Petrie, Dave, Scott, John, Tosh, Murray
Against: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baird, Shiona, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Curran, Frances, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Leckie, Carolyn, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Wallace, Mr Jim, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 16, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 34 disagreed to.