With all the fuss over the apparent failings of successive grazings committees over the years at Upper Coll attention has been drawn away from what Colin Souter should actually have been doing himself assuming that his role as grazings constable was a legal as opposed to an illegal one.
As disclosed in my last post the letter of ‘appointment’ from the Crofting Commission addressed to Mr Souter stated:-
The appointment is for 6 months from the date of the Order. However the intention is that this should be a short term measure and once any outstanding actions are discharged, that you arrange a meeting of shareholders at which you will resign and a new committee will be elected by the shareholders to manage the grazings in accordance with the Regulations and the Act.
This letter also stated that:-
Your principal responsibility as Constable will be to discharge any outstanding actions required to ensure the duties imposed under the Crofting Acts and the grazings regulations are fulfilled.
This in effect was referencing the fact that following their removal from office the former committee highlighted to the Crofting Commission a list of matters that needed attending to.
Whilst the Crofting Commission erred in law (surprisingly knowingly) in appointing a grazings constable to attend to these matters it may be that their intentions in so doing were in good faith and to ensure that the list of matters highlighted to them were in fact attended to. Anyway, that appears to be the remit given to Colin Souter.
However, his report issued to shareholders on 29th August does not mention any such activities. In light of this shareholders at Upper Coll have, not surprisingly, stated:-
This constable has interfered in things he should not have and left undone the things he should have.
They have asked:-
But what has he not done?
And they have provided a list of what that might be:-
- Has he processed the IACS for the village?
- Has he submitted an application for the Agri-Environment Scheme that could have taken in some funding to the village?
- Has he worked out a Summer and Winter Grazings Timetable?
- Has he progressed the Croft Registration for 30 shareholders that had been well advanced before the committee were dismissed?
- Has he progressed the feu requests from couples desiring to build and live in Upper Coll?
- Why has he not been actively pursuing the Crofting Commission for the reimbursement by them of the money paid out by Upper Coll in feu dispositions. An instruction by the Crofting Commission to Upper Coll Grazings Committee that has since been proved illegal!
- What efforts has he made to heal the tensions and differences experienced within the village? Surely that should have been one of his first tasks!
If these matters have not been actioned then it would appear that Mr Souter has failed in the remit given to him by the Crofting Commission.
If that is the case then clearly the time has come for him to step aside and let those that know what need to be done do the necessary on behalf of and for the benefit of the shareholders.
If he has in fact dealt with these matters then he should be reporting that fact to the shareholders and resigning as constable as the Crofting Commission indicated should happen in their letter of ‘appointment’.
As indicated in my last blog post such a ‘resignation’ is what the similarly illegally appointed grazings constable at Mangersta Common Grazings saw fit to sensibly do.
Although arguably Colin Souter cannot resign from an illegal position that gives him no status or authority in the first place.
But the ‘resignation’ (as was the case in Mangersta) may have symbolic significance.
As suggested in my last blog post it may at least draw a line under his interference in the workings of a common grazings where the vast majority of the shareholders simply wish to get on by themselves with controlling their own destiny and their own finances.
Let’s hope that common sense prevails. Although, unfortunately, common sense does not often feature in this Common Grazings debacle.