Tag Archives: crofting

Crofting Commission dodge answering questions

Dodging Bullets at the Crofting Commission

The Crofting Commission can stop your questions by simply not answering them!

The Cross-Party Group on Crofting has been waiting patiently on answers to 18 questions that they posed to the Crofting Commission. These were originally sent to the Crofting Commission in July 2016 then modified and sent in October 2016.

  1. Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission cannot revisit its own decisions?
  2. Why did the Crofting Commission chose to remove three grazings committees instead of work with them to improve things, if things needed improvement?
  3. Why were grazings shareholders not given the chance to elect a new committee when the Crofting Commission removed their committee, instead of moving straight to the appointment of a grazings constable?
  4. Does a removed committee have a right of appeal to the Crofting Commission?
  5. Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission has the power to appoint a Grazings Constable when they remove members of a grazing committee from office?
  6. Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission can extend the appointment of a Grazings Constable?
  7. Why is the Crofting Commission ignoring its own guidelines on the investigation of financial irregularities?
  8. Does the Crofting Commission maintain that all funds in a grazings bank account have to be disbursed immediately (including SRDP grants, as Mr MacLennan stated is the bulk of funds in the CPGoC)?
  9. If there are 3 levels of accounting as outlined by Mr MacLennan (examination by external qualified person such as local retired bank manager, prepared by qualified accountant on information supplied, full forensic audit), what are the thresholds at which each is required? Do they apply to balance or income? Who decides what is appropriate (given this was the reason Mr MacLennan gave for the Upper Coll grazings committee being removed by the Crofting Commission?)
  10. Why did the convener of the Crofting Commission involve himself in every one of these three cases and committee removals? Is this the job of a convener?
  11. Did the convener of the Crofting Commission declare his interest in the cases when the commissioners made their decision to move to removal?
  12. Does the Crofting Commission consider value for public money when pursuing cases?
  13. Mr MacLennan emphasised that the Crofting Commission were obliged to act as a shareholder had made a complaint. This does not square with the Commission’s dealings relating to other regulatory matters. We are aware of complaints made by shareholders with regard to absenteeism and neglect of crofts that go many years without commission action so it would be good to know why you are so diligent in pursuing grazings committees with such rigour. Has there been a policy change to target this type of regulatory issue (as there was previously with absentees)?
  14. Following the letter written to the Convener by Fergus Ewing concerning disbursement of common grazings funds to shareholders and SRDP funding there were mixed messages issued to the press by Commissioners. It appeared that the contents of the letter was supported but the Commission (or perhaps certain Commissioners) still thought they had done nothing wrong. Those two statements do not sit well next to one another. Can the Commission clarify their actual stance on the letter in clear terms for the benefit of this Group.
  15. Can the Commission explain why they have been questioning SRDP funding for and VAT Registration by Common Grazings?
  16. The Commission appear to be supporting their ‘constable’ Colin Souter and his behaviour at Upper Coll. Do they actually support a ‘constable’ who is having meetings with 4 shareholders and making decisions affecting 42 shareholders when 26 out of those 42 have signed a petition calling for his removal?
  17. Will the Commission advise the Group what remit was given to Constable Souter and why he appeared to be acting in an investigatory role rather than as an actual clerk.
  18. The latest revelation appears to be matters being decided by Commissioners via ‘brown envelopes’ rather than at board meetings. Can the Commission enlighten us further on this?

There were, in addition, two questions specifically posed to the Crofting Commission via the Cross-Party Group on Crofting by Iain MacKinnon on 1 November 2016:-

I would like to draw your attention to a letter by Colin Kennedy published this month in the Scottish Farmer. In the letter he draws the Scottish Crofting Federation’s attention to ‘the commission mole’ at the time of the ‘Susan Walker debacle’. Presumably he is referring here to the anonymous commissioner quoted by the West Highland Free Press when information was leaked to the paper and other media outlets about a letter signed by five commissioners – including Mr Kennedy – calling a meeting to discuss a potential vote of no confidence in Ms Walker. Mr Kennedy told the Scottish Farmer this month:

‘I can assure the SCF that prior to my becoming convener, the mole was identified and the information was provided to the appropriate persons to take the matter forward.’

At the Cross Party Group on Crofting’s meeting on 15th September last year, Jean Urquhart asked Mr Kennedy about the leak to the press.

He was unable to give her an answer and did not identify any ‘mole’ on that occasion. However, the then chief executive of the organisation was able to respond and this is noted in the minutes as follows:

‘What is being done about the fact that there was a leak to the press from a commissioner, which is a breach of the code of conduct?

While a newspaper claimed their was leak by a Commissioner, as Accountable Officer the CEO has carried out an internal investigation which found no evidence that any Commissioner had breached the code of conduct by leaking information on the matter to the press.’

I would like to hear from the Commission’s representative at the meeting how they reconcile these two statements and to ask again, in light of Mr Kennedy’s claim: what is being done about the leak to the press; and who was the ‘mole’ as described by Mr Kennedy in his letter to The Scottish Farmer.

Six months after the first questions were put to the Crofting Commission their Interim Chief Executive, Bill Barron, addressed them at the Cross-Party Group meeting at Holyrood on 25 January 2017 by stating that he didn’t intend to answer them but would like, instead, “to focus on the future“. He wanted to “draw a line under the rows of last year“. He acknowledged that “things had been done wrong” but there was “no merit in unpicking all of that“.

Mr Barron may have missed the fact that some of the rows of last year continue into this one.

He stated:-

Some of the specific issues raised in your questions have already been clarified by the Commission.  For example, we have confirmed that we agree with the Scottish Government’s position that there is nothing in the CAP rules that prevents the Scottish Government approving an SRDP application made by a grazings committee, and that we agree with the Scottish Government’s position regarding immediate disbursement of funds.

These, however, are two points that the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, still appears to be taking issue with and possibly still taking a contrary position on compared to his fellow commissioners and the official line of the Crofting Commission. This is all contrary to the doctrine of collective corporate responsibility. Indeed it is interesting to note that following the departure from the Crofting Commission of their former Convener, Susan Walker, Colin Kennedy, then Vice Convener, stated [PDF: Board Minutes – 13 May 2015]:-

I am sure that I speak on behalf of everyone when I say that today we are all equal with collective responsibility. In fact we are all Conveners, working together for the betterment of the Crofting Commission.

However, his publicly opposing views to that of the board clearly conflict with that statement.

The Guide for Board Members of Public Bodies in Scotland [PDF] states:-

While Board members must be ready to offer constructive challenge, they must also share collective responsibility for decisions taken by the Board as a whole. If they fundamentally disagree with the decision taken by the Board, they have the option of recording their disagreement in the minutes. However, ultimately, they must either accept and support the collective decision of the Board – or resign.

Colin Kennedy was not in attendance at the Cross-Party Group meeting on Wednesday night. He has only attended one meeting out of the five that have taken place since the start of the current Parliamentary term.

At the meeting in Holyrood on Wednesday night the Chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation, Russell Smith, asked Bill Barron if Colin Kennedy was still Convener and was still chairing Board meetings. Bill Barron answered both questions in the affirmative. Russell Smith then asked if the Board was working as it should to which Bill Barron replied “it is not easy but it is getting its work done“. How well, under the circumstances, it is getting its work done is, however, very debatable.

On the points raised by Ian MacKinnon the response from Bill Barron was:-

The same [i.e. not answering the questions] holds for Iain MacKinnon’s questions about a leak to the press, which was investigated by the previous CEO in 2015. Colin Kennedy’s more recent public comments about this appear to have been made in a personal capacity, but I can confirm that the Commission has no plans to re-examine this matter. Instead, my priority is to look forward to the upcoming elections and to prepare to give the best possible support to the new Board.

So it is all about looking forward and not looking back. However, you sometimes have to look back to learn from your mistakes before you can move forward and avoid making the same mistakes again.

Perhaps the Scottish Government’s review into the governance of the Crofting Commission will reflect more on the mistakes of the past and what needs to be done to prevent a recurrence of them. The Cross-Party Group on Crofting was advised on Wednesday by Gordon Jackson, Head of Rural Business Development and Land Tenure at the Scottish Government, that this review will be published “shortly“.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: The Matrix Reloaded © Village Roadshow Pictures, Silver Pictures and NPV Entertainment

Nominations open for Crofting Commission elections

tand as a Candidate for the Crofting Commission

Fishermen may apply

An election is being held to elect Crofting Commissioners from the six crofting constituencies:

  • Shetland
  • Orkney and Caithness
  • East Highlands (East Sutherland, Easter Ross, East Inverness and Moray)
  • Western Isles
  • West Highlands (West Sutherland, Wester Ross. Skye and Lochalsh)
  • South West Highlands (Lochaber, Argyll and Bute, Arran and Cumbrae, Small Isles)

One Commissioner will be elected from each constituency and will, along with the three Commissioners appointed by the Scottish Government, make up the Board of the Crofting Commission.

Nomination forms and other documents relating to the election can be downloaded from www.cne-siar.gov.uk/electionoffice/croftingelection; obtained on request, by e- mail to elections@cne-siar.gov.uk; or from the Election Offices detailed in the Notice of Election. Completed nomination forms must be submitted by Thursday 26 January 2017.

An election will be held in each contested constituency by postal ballot, with votes having to be returned by 4.00pm on Thursday 16 March 2017.  The count will take place in the Town Hall, Point Street, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis HS1 2XF on Friday 17 March 2017 at 10.00am.

View from the Crofting Law Blog

The election nominations have been called at a time when the current Crofting Commission remains in chaos. The board is divided, the Convener is ostracised but remains in position possibly pending the outcome of a complaint made by him against Fergus Ewing MSP, Cabinet Minister with responsibility for crofting. Vacancies for two appointed Commissioners remain unfilled.

With elections now in sight there is perhaps a glimmer of hope that they will herald in a new batch of commissioners and, as a result a new and improved Crofting Commission. However, the current Convener, Colin Kennedy, has already expressed his intention to stand again for election. He has been accused by many as the root cause of the problems that have plagued the Crofting Commission throughout its first five years of existence. So will it be a change for the better on 17 March 2017 or another 5 years of chaos, trouble and strife? That is now in the hands of the crofters who are the electorate.

The image used to encourage people to stand for election as a crofting commissioner is curiously of a fisherman. I had the following exchange about that on Twitter:-

To stand for election as a crofting commissioner you do not actually have to be a crofter as long as you have been nominated by a crofter entitled to vote at the election. So a pure fisherman, without a croft, could be a crofting commissioner.

My father was a Shetland fisherman and not a crofter. He was not even a fisherman with a croft. However, he would, I am sure, have made a better crofting commissioner than many of the crofters who hold that position today. Perhaps non-crofters being nominated for and being elected as crofting commissioners would avoid the conflicts of interest and power struggles that have plagued the current Crofting Commission over the past five years? Perhaps it would be a good thing for crofting? What do you think?

Brian Inkster

Pantomime, Farce or Tragedy?

Crofting Pantomime, farce or tragedy?

He’s right in front of you!

As news of the goings on at the Crofting Commission’s Board meeting on 14 December 2016 filtered out views thereon played out on Twitter:-

Image Credit: Dick Whittington © Hackney Empire

Shackles lifted on Murdo Maclennan

Murdo Maclennan - Crofting Commissioner (Western Isles)

Murdo Maclennan – Crofting Commissioner (Western Isles)

The Stornoway Gazette, has revealed that Murdo Maclennan, Crofting Commissioner for the Western Isles, is pleased to now be free to publicly declare his position on the common grazings crisis in the Western Isles after the shackles applied, when he confirmed a declaration of interest, were finally lifted.

In the online article Murdo Maclennan admits that the past few months have been difficult as both Mangersta and Upper Coll have endured very public struggles. He is quoted as saying:-

It has been very difficult for me being unable to give my opinions on the ongoing matters in Mangersta and Upper Coll but now my declaration of interests have been lifted.

It is important to say I was being held back by these declarations, but I can speak now.

The Constable (Mr Colin Souter) installed in Upper Coll should complete his work as quickly as possible and the move to have a new committee in Upper Coll should happen as quickly as possible.

I would hope despite all that has happened that there can be a drawing of a line under it to move forward together, and like all committees, we will need to work with the commission for the benefit of crofting in the future in these areas.

There are lessons learned on the commission side absolutely. In terms of Mangersta I have asked why it has taken six years to resolve? That will be open and transparent to everyone. The way matters were handled and whether a grazings officer could intervene at an earlier stage to bring communities together.

The Stornoway Gazette article points out that last week at the Board meeting at Brora Golf Club Mr Maclennan led a motion, which was seconded and agreed by officials, calling for the resignation of the Crofting Commission’s Convener, Colin Kennedy.

This followed Mr Kennedy walking out of a meeting after he refused to accept Mr Maclennan’s withdrawal of his declaration of interest.

It goes on to quote Mr Maclennan as saying:-

I had sought to represent publicly the Western Isles crofters involved by asking for the papers and being able to take part in the discussions later on in the meeting,

But I was denied that by the convener and after taking advice from the officials present, my position was sustained, that I could have access to the papers which led to him closing the meeting.

The board did continue to meet and we had a full day of business. I did move that the board state, through a motion, in my opinion it was the convener’s position to retire due to the situation. This was seconded and also received the unanimous vote of the board.

It is a question of accountability and responsibility for all that has gone on in the past six months.

View from the Crofting Law Blog

It is good that Mr Maclennan no longer has a conflict of interest and is able at last to take an active role in important issues concerning his own island community.

It is also heartening to see that he was instrumental in leading the motion calling for the convener’s resignation.

Mr Maclennan says that the grazings ‘constable’ Colin Souter should complete his work as quickly as possible and the move to have a new committee in Upper Coll should happen as quickly as possible.

However, what work does Mr Souter have to complete? I don’t think the majority of shareholders at Upper Coll want him to complete anything for them anymore.

In the case of Mangersta the ‘constable’ there was removed very swiftly indeed. Should the same not happen at Upper Coll?

What move needs to be made to have a new committee in Upper Coll? Is that not in effect all done and dusted by the actions taken by the shareholders themselves some weeks ago?

It looks like the Commission is unnecessarily prolonging the agony for the crofters of Upper Coll.

Colin Souter should step down immediately, without any further delay, and let the crofters get on with it themselves.

That happened in Mangersta. There is no good reason why it cannot and should not happen in Upper Coll.

The six crofting commissioners (including Mr Maclennan) who now oppose Mr Kennedy should ensure that this happens without further delay and preferably by close of play tomorrow at the latest. This would demonstrate that the shackles have well and truly been lifted.

Brian Inkster

Crofting Farce

Crofting FarceIt is exactly one week since the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, walked out on a Board meeting at Brora Golf Club. The remaining Commissioners who convened a Special Meeting in his absence called on his resignation.

The Scottish Crofting Federation have expressed bewilderment that Mr Kennedy is still in place despite it being clear that he now stands alone. They have referred to his position as a farce that is getting in the way of important business.

Russell Smith, Vice-chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation said:-

The Crofting Commission board meeting last week was certainly an eye-opener. It quickly became apparent that the Convener had lost the support of his board and it came as no surprise that he left the meeting with his tail between his legs. What is astounding though is that he still has not resigned. What does it take for him to get the message?

At the Board meeting of the Crofting Commission, held in Brora last week, observers were treated to a bizarre display involving the Convener, Colin Kennedy, attempting to force his will on the rest of the board and officials. Failing in this he closed the meeting without any business being conducted and left. The meeting was re-convened with vice-convener Iain George MacDonald in the chair and normal business was resumed. Mr MacDonald issued a full and open apology for the recent debacle involving the Commission’s handling of common grazing committees.

The apology is very welcome and shows the other Commissioners do have integrity. However, the apology should have come from Mr Kennedy, along with his resignation speech, both because he is the spokesman for the Commissioners and because he has been the chief antagonist in the whole affair. Mr Kennedy has been very destructive for crofting and for the Commission, and it is time to put an end to this sorry episode.

There is much to be done in crofting development and in rural issues, especially with the uncertainty over the effect of the European referendum. Mr Kennedy is standing alone now, his position is a farce and he is getting in the way of important business. It is time for the Commission, as a body, to have him removed.

Image Credit: Farce of Nature © Aleks Ortynski

Crofting Commission must “swiftly resolve” Common Grazings Crisis

Fergus Ewing MSP wants Crofting Commission to "swiftly resolve" Common Grazings crisis

Fergus Ewing MSP

The Press & Journal has published a statement by Fergus Ewing MSP, Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, following his meeting last week with Crofting Commissioners. He said:-

During the meeting, I stressed the Scottish Government’s commitment to working with the commission to ensure it delivers an effective service for crofting, especially ahead of the crofting elections next year.

I also emphasised the need to swiftly resolve the current situation regarding common grazings committees, and made clear my view on what the commission’s board needs to do to restore equilibrium. The forthcoming elections for new commissioners add impetus to the need to draw a line under the current episode. I look forward to hearing how the commissioners intend to proceed.

The Commissioners are meeting in Brora on Wednesday, 28 September, to decide how to proceed.

Grazings ‘Constable’ must stand aside or be removed

Upper Coll Grazings Constable, Colin Souter, must stand aside or be removedThe Scottish Crofting Federation has written to the cabinet secretary for crofting, Fergus Ewing MSP, expressing deep concern that crofters’ democratic rights are being flouted by a constable appointed, perhaps illegally, by the Crofting Commission.

Chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation, Fiona Mandeville, said:-

The majority of shareholders of the Upper Coll grazings have voted, yet this constable, whose legality of appointment is refuted by lawyers, is completely ignoring them. The shareholders have demanded that the constable, Colin Souter, who was appointed by the Crofting Commission, stands down so that they can reinstate a democratically elected grazings committee. Why is he still there?

Democracy is the very foundation of grazings committees. A lack of democratic procedure by the removed Upper Coll committee is something that the constable has been trying, unsuccessfully, to find evidence of. The shareholders have the legal right to elect their own committee and Souter is standing in their way. He must stand aside or be removed.

Judging by the press releases Souter issues, he clearly has misunderstood the role of a grazings clerk, or that of an appointed constable fulfilling the duties of clerk – were his appointment legal. He seems to be either completely out of control, or under the control of the Crofting Commission, an organisation that has lost all credibility. In addition Souter and his masters are attempting to undermine the viability of crofters’ collaborative enterprises by questioning their entitlement to SRDP and registration for VAT. Are they trying to bring to an end 130 years of crofting? The only recourse is for the Scottish Government to take control of the situation and to remove him.

This incredible situation is extremely harmful, not only to the crofting community of Upper Coll, but to crofting itself. We can understand that the Scottish Government is reluctant to interfere with a democratically elected Commission, but this constable is not democratically elected, claims to be independent of the Crofting Commission who appointed him, and is flouting democracy. There is nothing to stop the Scottish Government from doing the right thing, and it must do it now.

Crofting is about People

Crofting is about PeopleThis is a guest post contributed by a concerned Upper Coll Villager:-

I keep on asking how they could have sacked a committee, three of whose members had only been on it for 9 months. They had not been on any of the previous committees. How could they have had time to be responsible for anything?

I have been puzzled at the lack of public support from other villages, apart from the night in Stornoway Town Hall, but I have had it said to me several times that they have all done the kind of things for the good of the community, and for which we had previously been praised, and now they fear themselves being targeted. They have done precisely the same kind of things we are now being chastised for. VAT, small donations, foregoing share of feus in favour of our hospice. Ridiculous.

Crofting is not about a few sheep or a few cattle, it is about people and keeping people in our crofting areas. No one can make any kind of a living off crofting in our area. Nevertheless it is an important mechanism for maintaining “community” and all that means. Over half the townships don’t have a committee as a result of loss of “community”. The Commission instead of encouraging the ones which do exist are hounding them.

I have been told of one committee that has been disbanded until they see what the outcome of our situation is. They don’t want to be made personally responsible or be targeted the way our committee has been. They are all waiting to see what happens to us. This is no longer about Upper Coll but about the whole essence of what constitutes a “live” crofting community.

It is very difficult at times to remember the precise details of events of years ago. As the ”constable” has our minute book we don’t have our memory jogger.

The Gearraidh Ghuirm road construction, our esteemed constable seems to have placed such emphasis on, was to help the new householders get good access to their houses, as the village, whilst encouraging and accepting applications in an area of moorland, which was so useless it hadn’t even been fenced, made it quite clear to the purchasers, while they were getting the fues cheaply, the responsibility for the road was theirs and theirs only.

In a spirit of helpfulness, as was the case with the football and recreational facilities, we had enabled to happen, and for which again we are now many years later criticised, the village facilitated it by making application to the Council for money from it’s Unadopted Roads budget. The cash was provided by the Council and the feu holders. The village’s contribution was mainly “in kind”, material from the gravel pit we have developed ourselves over the years. Our ‘constable’ seems determined to find fault and tries to say by looking at our cashbook accounts of EIGHT years ago that we caused shareholders financial loss. Rubbish and now we have a street of houses, on what was useless ground, and up to 20 children … and we are now being hammered for being resourceful in enabling that to happen.

Now that our great ‘constable’ has highlighted what was a beneficial local practice which we all benefitted from, is there going to be pressure on the landlord to put a stop to it? I hope not, but him poking his nose in could very well have that effect.

I have seen the immense strain this has so unfairly placed on the former committee. Their families, who are not used to being under this kind of legal and media focus are completely perplexed by it all. I feel personally insulted on behalf of myself and the others of us whose forefathers created this village, that these people have demeaned all we have done for so many years, which led us to being widely recognised as a forward looking and well run grazings village.

Ivor Matheson and his ally Kenneth Macleod, who has not one facility for his cattle on his wife’s croft and is dependent on common grazings, have much to answer for. Those in authority who didn’t throw out their nonsensical complaints but used them to enable them to peddle some weird agenda have much more to answer for.

A Concerned Upper Coll Villager

Image Credit:-

Registers of Scotland ‘click your croft’ photography competition 2014.

Heather Gray of Shetland won with her photo ‘Hentin Totties’, which shows a family of all ages working the land.

The competition, run in association with the Scottish Crofting Federation and the Crofting Commission, set out to explore what this traditional way of life means to crofters in 2014.

Miss Gray said: “I suppose my main inspiration for the photo is family. Seeing the extended family from grannies to toddlers coming together and helping out with the yearly crop – it just makes you smile.”

Crofting VATgate

Hector the Inspector - HMRC Taxman - Crofting VATgate

Who is the VAT Inspector?

In his letter to shareholders at Upper Coll the grazings ‘constable’, Colin Souter (who was illegally appointed in my view, and in the view of others including, ironically, the Crofting Commission themselves) stated:-

Following receipt of legal opinion from Queen’s Counsel, the position of Grazings Committees being able to register for VAT as trading entities in order to reclaim VAT has come under scrutiny. The dialogue with HMRC regarding VAT status remains ongoing and once concluded, I will be able to advise on the outcome.

Why and how on earth was Colin Souter in receipt of legal opinion from Queen’s Counsel on the question of whether common grazings committees could be VAT registered?

A suggestion on this blog that Colin Souter may have instructed the Opinion was met with this response from Mr Souter:-

I should also point out that I have never sought legal advice from Queen’s Counsel in any context, since being appointed as Grazings Constable.

I then asked:-

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you came to be in “receipt of legal opinion from Queen’s Counsel” as stated in your letter to the Upper Coll shareholders?

Mr Souter has yet to answer my question.

So who instructed this legal opinion, who paid for it and why?

How did Colin Souter come to be in possession of it and why?

In his dialogue with HMRC is Colin Souter trying to stop VAT registration at Upper Coll Common Grazings and if so why?

It can only be assumed that the attempt to stop VAT registration of common grazings probably lies at the door of the Crofting Commission. Would this not be how a grazings ‘constable’ appointed by them would be in possession of such information?

We are already aware that the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, was of the view that common grazings should not receive SRDP funding. This very alarming notion (an issue that did not concern the crofting regulator and/or its convener in any way) was firmly quashed by Fergus Ewing MSP.

It is therefore not a giant leap to think that the Crofting Commission and/or their Convener might be behind this attempt to stop common grazings being VAT registered.

If that should prove to be the case it is scandalous.

Questions regarding whether crofters should be VAT registered or not have absolutely nothing to do with the Crofting Commission. It is a matter between crofters and HMRC.

Public money should not have been spent on the opinion of Queen’s Counsel on such matters. If that has happened Audit Scotland should be investigating the issue. Another one for them to add to the growing list for their next visit to Great Glen House.

But more significantly why is the Crofting Commission and/or their Convener intent on depriving crofters of income? First it was SRDP funding. Now it appears to be VAT.

Under and in terms of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 the Crofting Commission has as one of its functions:-

promoting the interests of crofting

On their website the Crofting Commission state that it:-

regulates and promotes the interests of crofting in Scotland to secure the future of crofting.

This statement links through to a general leaflet on crofting that states:-

The Crofting Commission is working to secure the future of crofting by creating and promoting a well regulated crofting system that positively contributes to the sustainability of rural communities.

By seeking to deprive crofters of SRDP funding and now, possibly, VAT the Crofting Commission cannot be said to be promoting the interests of crofting, securing the future of crofting or positively contributing to the sustainability of rural communities. Quite the contrary.

If Commissioners are acting in such a way, completely contrary to the functions that the Crofting Commission was established to carry out, then those commissioners responsible have no place in that organisation. They should be ashamed of themselves.

They are clearly “unable or unfit to exercise the functions of a member” or “unsuitable to continue as a member”. As such the Scottish Ministers may remove them from office under and in terms of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. There have been repeated calls over recent months for such action to be taken but if ‘Crofting VATgate’ does fall at the door of the Convener and/or any other Commissioners then this surely is the final straw that broke the camel’s back.

Fergus Ewing MSP, as Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity with responsibility for Crofting, should immediately launch an investigation to get to the root of ‘Crofting VATgate’, publicise his findings for the benefit of crofters and take appropriate and decisive action against those responsible.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: Hector the Tax Inspector © HMRC