Monthly Archives: July 2016

‘Allo ‘allo ‘allo… what’s all this then?

Just when you thought events at Great Glen House couldn’t get more farcical than highlighted in my last blog post, I am afraid to say they can.

It turns out that following the Crofting Commission’s decision to appoint a Grazings Constable with the sole function of paying monies considered to be due to a shareholder they appointed into that illegal position one of the committee members that they had just removed from office!

The decision to do so was made by the Convener, Vice-Convener and Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission.

Section 47(8) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 reads:-

If the Commission are satisfied, after making such inquiry, if any, as they may deem necessary, that any or all of the members of a grazings committee (however appointed under this section) are not properly carrying out the duties imposed on them (or that the grazings clerk is not properly carrying out the duties imposed on him) under this Act, the Commission may remove from office any or all such members or such clerk and may appoint or provide for the appointment of other persons (whether crofters or not) in their or his place.

Having removed from office the entire committee the Crofting Commission could then “appoint or provide for the appointment of other persons (whether crofters or not) in their or his place“.

“Other persons” does not mean one of the same persons!

You couldn’t make it up.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: Monty Python’s Flying Circus © BBC

Keystone Crofting Cops

2 Replies

Croftstone Cops (aka Grazings Constables)

Yes Commissioners… we’ll do whatever you say.

This post will give an insight into the workings of the Crofting Commission when, contrary to their own policies and procedures, they proceeded to appoint grazings constables illegally. It will also highlight how incompetent such appointments are.

All three cases involving the appointment of illegal grazings constables centred around monies that certain shareholders believed should have been paid to them and the Commission’s insistence that such monies should indeed have been paid out.

Minutes of a meeting of the Crofting Commission regarding the proposed removal from office of a grazings committee and clerk and appointment, in their place, of a grazings constable state:-

After discussion, the Commission agreed that the [name of Grazings Committee] would be written to and given 28 days to pay the money due to the shareholder. If after the 28 days have passed, they have failed to pay the money, the Committee and Clerk will be removed and a Constable appointed with the sole function of paying the monies due.

The appointing of the Constable will be decided by the Convener, Vice-Convener and Chief Executive.

Discussion took place about how the Constable would be able to sign cheques on behalf of the Grazing Committee and the Commission agreed that the Order issued to the Grazing Committee advising them that they have been removed from office should be worded clearly enough to maximise the ability of the Constable to access funds. However, the Commission cannot guarantee that the bank will accept the Order.

The Crofting Commission has no power to order payment of monies by grazings committees to shareholders. Indeed their own guidance on such matters states:-

The Commission will not get involved in any matter relating to alleged financial impropriety. This is potentially a civil and/or criminal matter and should be dealt with by the relevant authorities.

Thus they breached their own policies and procedures and acted without any power to do so in ordering the grazings committee to make payments. That is the case whether or not such payments were legitimately due and payable to the shareholder in question. That would have been a matter for that shareholder to pursue, as they considered appropriate, through the civil or criminal justice system.

It is interesting (and perhaps somewhat alarming) that the Crofting Commission decided that this particular grazings constable would be appointed “with the sole function of paying the monies due“.

Whilst the Crofting Commission have no power under and in terms of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 to appoint a grazings constable to do a specific task ordered by them it is alarming that they would think, under any circumstances, that this would be a sensible approach to take.

A grazings committee and grazings clerk will potentially have many tasks to fulfill. By putting a committee out of office and not making appropriate and legal arrangements to allow those tasks to be continued the Crofting Commission is clearly evading its responsibilities as a regulator and acting in a highly irresponsible fashion.

The Convener of the Crofting Commission was at the ready to put in place a grazings constable who would pay out the monies if the first constable appointed to do so “has any difficulty and backs out“.

The appointment of a grazings constable where a grazings commitee has been removed from office is, however, in itself illegal. In such circumstances the Crofting Commission has no power to appoint a grazings constable and instead under section 47(8) of the 1993 Act:-

may appoint or provide for the appointment of other persons (whether crofters or not) in their or his place

The only ability for the Crofting Commission to appoint a grazings constable falls under section 47(3) of the 1993 Act. This is where the crofters who share in a common grazing fail at any time to appoint a grazing committee.

An illegally appointed grazings constable whose actions would be null and void should, of course, be let no where near a cheque book! The Crofting Commission however, knowing that they couldn’t guarantee that a bank would accept the position, decided that they would frame an Order as best they could to persuade a bank to do so!

Hopefully, no bank has been daft enough to allow an illegally appointed grazings constable such access. If they have done so the shareholders should have recourse against the bank as well as, of course, against the Crofting Commission. Also as Donald Rennie has stated:-

if a purported constable takes as much a penny piece from the crofters sharing in the common grazing, with intent permanently to deprive them of that money, he is at serious risk.

This farcical state of affairs would, unfortunately, not be out of place in a Mack Sennett comedy. No wonder that there have been calls for the Scottish Government to investigate and for the Convener to consider his position.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: By Mack Sennett Studios – Publicity still from 1914 film “In the Clutches of the Gang”, via Wikimedia Commons

Grazings Puppets

Leave a Reply

Strings are attached when appointed a Grazings Constable by the Crofting Commission

Grazings Constables appointed by the Crofting Commission have asserted their independence from the Crofting Commission. It must be remembered though that these grazings constables have been illegally appointed, and in the full knowledge that this was the case, by the Crofting Commission. However, legal or illegal how independent were the appointments and how independent were the grazings constables?

A freedom of information disclosure has shown that they were perhaps not very independent at all. Certainly, it would appear, not in the eyes of the Chief Grazings Constable and Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy. He stated, prior to one of the grazings constables being appointed, in an e-mail to the Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission, Catriona Maclean:-

I have had a man on from [name of grazings in question] delighted with the moves and if the Constable has any difficulty and backs out, he will willingly take the Constable position on and pay the monies.

Thus the Crofting Commission, or at least their Convener, was intent on putting henchmen in place to do their bidding. Something, once more, that the Crofting Commission had no power in law to do.

The first post on this blog about ‘The Common Clearances‘ made reference to alleged abuse of power within the Crofting Commission. 36 blog posts on the same subject matter later and the evidence is fairly clear that there was some substance to those allegations.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: Police Officers © Puppetville

Time for Kennedy to go

3 Replies

www.CartoonStock.com

The Scottish Crofting Federation has called for the resignation of the convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, following the exposure of the Commission having taken action on grazing committees against legal advice.

“It is clearly time for Kennedy to go”, said the Chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation, Fiona Mandeville. She continued:-

We’ve asked many times for an explanation but to no avail. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information are unequivocal; the board of the Crofting Commission, headed by Colin Kennedy, chose to ignore policy and legal advice and proceeded to impose, what lawyers are saying are illegal, constables upon grazing shareholders whose committees the Commission had removed from office. So much anguish has been caused by this whole debacle and now, as suspected, we can clearly see that Kennedy led the Commission down this destructive route.

The commissioners have behaved as a board would be expected to in closing ranks and taking joint responsibility. But it would do no good for crofting were all commissioners to resign. Kennedy was closely implicated in the sackings of the committees and, as convener, is accountable. He must do the honourable thing: leave.

Fiona Mandeville concluded:-

It is time to review not only what went wrong and how to put procedures in place to prevent this sort of thing happening again, but to also look at the wider purpose of the Crofting Commission. There have been a few calls for the disbanding of the Commission, a natural reaction to the grief it has caused. But our members are still supportive of having an independent body that oversees crofting. This convener got too inflated over legislation, spouting ‘the express will of Parliament’. But with him gone we can work with the Commission again, picking up on the excellent progress made with the five priorities for crofting. It is time to consider reinstating the responsibility for crofting development with the Commission; it was supposed to have been moved to HIE, though this transition never happened. If the Crofting Commission takes crofting development back with crofting regulation we would see a more rounded, holistic body representing Scottish Government working for crofting.

Grazings Constables were added to the Sump by the Crofting Commission

Leave a Reply

Embed from Getty Images

Do I really need to climb in there with the rest of the mess?

In my last post I looked at how the Crofting Commission’s own policies and procedures made it clear that grazings constables could not be appointed in law when a grazings committee were removed from office.

It should also be noted that in or around April 2016 the Crofting Commission added to ‘The Sump‘ that they would like:-

Clarification in section 47 of the 1993 Act that if the Commission removes a grazings committee from office, the Commission can appoint a constable in its place and a right to suspend (as well as remove) grazings committees for a period of time to be determined by the Commission.

Thus they were looking, as part of ‘The Sump’, for legislative change by the Scottish Government to enable them to do these things.

Despite knowing that they didn’t have the power to do so they had, by this stage, already appointed one illegal grazings constable (Mangersta Common Grazings) and were to go on to appoint two more (at Upper Coll and on the Scottish mainland).

Brian Inkster

Crofting Commission knew they were acting illegally in appointing Grazings Constables

4 Replies

Time for the Crofting Commission to feel the full force of the law

The Crofting Commission knew that if they removed grazings committees from office they couldn’t legally appoint grazings constables. Their own policies and procedures dating from 5 August 2015 said so yet they have contravened those on at least three occasions since 9 December 2015.

A Report by the Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission [PDF], Catriona Maclean, was put before a meeting of the Crofting Commission on 5 August 2015. This report considered the rationale for the Commission appointing grazings constables and what requirements need to be considered when so doing.

In considering the situation where the Crofting Commission can remove from office grazings committees under section 47(8) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 the Report by the Chief Executive states:-

There is a presumption that the most obvious occasion for the Commission to appoint a
constable is in the context of Section 47(8). This is where the Commission has had occasion
to remove all members of a grazing committee from office and can appoint other persons in
their place. The implication of this subsection appears to be that the Commission may
remove individual or all members of a committee and replace an individual or all of the
committee. There does not appear to be a direct cross over with Section 47(3) which allows
the Commission to directly appoint a constable as a substitute for the grazing committee.
The appointment of a constable appears to be where the shareholders fail to appoint a
committee and not where the Commission removes a committee from office. Accordingly
there would have to be an opportunity for the shareholders to elect another committee and
only where they fail to do so, should the Commission consider appointing a grazing
constable.

This paper was approved by the Crofting Commission at their meeting on 5 August 2015 [PDF].

A further paper [PDF] was considered by the Crofting Commission at a February 2016 Policy in Development meeting. In that paper it was, somewhat alarmingly, stated:-

There is a degree of irony in that the Commission may be requiring grazing committees to adhere to regulations while not being clear about the procedure it is itself employing in directing this.

This further paper also reaffirmed the position set out in the earlier one in connection with the position where a grazings committee is removed from office:-

The Commission has previously accepted that a grazing constable is not appointed at this stage.

A complaint workflow was also introduced in this latest paper with no mention of the appointment of a grazings constable in such circumstances but instead, as per the law, the appointment of a new clerk and members of the committee.

This complaint workflow was adopted by the Crofting Commission [PDF] at their meeting on 4 May 2016 [PDF].

Thus the Crofting Commission were fully aware and accepted that if they removed a grazings committee from office they could not legally replace them with a grazings constable. That position accords with my own view on the matter and also the view held by Donald Rennie.

However, despite this they proceeded to remove two grazings committees in Lewis and one on the Scottish mainland and appoint grazings constables in their place on 9 December 2015, 3 May 2016 and 10 May 2016 respectively.

In so doing they acted contrary to their own policies and procedures and, it is assumed, contrary to the legal advice that they had received. Thus they, as I and Donald Rennie have maintained, acted illegally. What is now clear is that they acted illegally in the full knowledge that they were so doing.

In light of this astonishing behaviour on the part of the Crofting Commission serious questions must now be asked by the Scottish Government as to how and why this happened. Furthermore, the continuing position in office of whoever took the decisions to appoint grazings constables contrary to accepted policy, procedure and the law must now be in question.

Brian Inkster

Is the Crofting Commission a Tribunal?

Leave a Reply

Order, order. Let the trial commence.

The Scottish Government have been looking for views on draft regulations prepared by them to remove the Crofting Commission from the list of tribunals in the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014.

I have urged the Scottish Government to exercise caution in removing the Crofting Commission from the list of tribunals in the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014. I consider that such a move may be premature pending the outcome of an investigation into the Crofting Commission’s decisions to remove grazings committees from office.

The Scottish Government’s call for views as part of their consultation reads:-

The Crofting Commission is currently listed as a tribunal under schedule 1 of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 (the 2014 Act). The tribunals listed in Schedule 1 of the 2014 Act were taken from a report by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council (AJTC), which listed tribunals they considered to be devolved Scottish tribunals. The AJTC was a UK body (with a Scottish Committee) established by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

The AJTC’s remit was defined in statute as having to keep the administrative justice system under review and report on the constitution and working of listed tribunals. At that time Ministers were minded not to remove the Crofting Commission’s status as a tribunal so as to keep it within the supervisory remit of the AJTC.

The AJTC was abolished in 2013 and the successor body in Scotland did not undertake the supervisory role carried out by them. As there is no longer a supervisory body and the Scottish Minister’s view that the Crofting Commission is not a tribunal in the true sense of the word we are proposing to remove them from the list of tribunals in the 2014 Act.

If there is no longer a supervisory body for tribunals and the Scottish Government previously thought that the Crofting Commission should be supervised it is perhaps no wonder that we are where we are at due to lack of supervision!

The Faculty of Advocates have stated that they agree with the reasoning behind the Scottish Government’s plan to do so. However, I am of the view that the Faculty of Advocates are perhaps at a disadvantage in not seeing at the coalface how the Crofting Commission are actually handling their decision making process and aspects thereof that make them very much a tribunal, but one that appears to be out of control. This is certainly the case with regard to the recent removal by the Crofting Commission from office of three grazings committees.

Last week I submitted my own response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the matter. It reads:-

Whilst it is stated that it is the “Scottish Minister’s view that the Crofting Commission is not a tribunal in the true sense of the word” recent events would suggest that the Crofting Commission is in many respects acting as a tribunal but without the procedures, checks and balances that one would normally associate with a tribunal.

The Crofting Commission has been using the power vested in it under and in terms of section 47(8) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 to remove grazings committees from office. There have been three such removals since December 2015.

This has created a lot of controversy with allegations of abuse of power and calls for an investigation of the Commission.

It is submitted that in taking action to remove grazings committees from office the Crofting Commission has been acting as a tribunal.

However, it would appear that no proper procedures, as would be expected from a tribunal, have been followed by them in so doing.

Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.”

Where the Crofting Commission is determining a civil right or obligation it must ensure that its processes are Article 6(1) compliant. There are three key aspects to this (1) Security of tenure of the members; (2) Absence of bias amongst the members of the tribunal; (3) Absence of procedural unfairness.

It is considered that the manner in which the Crofting Commission has carried out its decision making under the said section 47(8) was non-compliant and, indeed, that the said section 47(8) is not ECHR compliant.

More worrying still is that the Crofting Commission are currently arguing that an appeal of a decision made by it under the said section 47(8) cannot be brought before the Scottish Land Court. If this is correct (and a decision on this procedural technicality is currently awaited from the Scottish Land Court) then the only right of redress may be judicial review via the Court of Session.

Given all of this it would, in my view, be very unwise to remove at this stage reference to the Crofting Commission from the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014. It may well be that Scottish Ministers in considering the alleged abuse of power within the Crofting Commission might want to consider the possible benefits of utilising the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 to remedy some of the issues and problems actually highlighted above. Of course there may be other ways of achieving the same result.

In all the circumstances it is considered premature, at the moment, for the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 to be amended in any way that would exclude the Crofting Commission therefrom.

Brian Inkster

Research Credit: I am indebted to Alistair Sloan for researching, at my request, the detail of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 and the ECHR aspects involved.

100 Crofting Law blog posts

3 Replies

My last post, ‘The Chief Grazings Constable‘, was the 100th post on the Crofting Law Blog.

Quite a milestone.

I started the blog on 18th March 2013 because I was finding so much to write about the decrofting debacle. I said then:-

Crofting law appears to be in turmoil in a way that has possibly not been seen since it was introduced in 1886. The time is surely ripe for a crofting law blog to air the issues arising in an open, clear and transparent way.

Three years later and that turmoil has, somewhat unbelievably, got worse with the current common grazings debacle (aka ‘The Common Clearances‘).

There have been 32 blog posts on the common grazings debacle alone and that in the space of less than 3 months since the first one was published on the alleged abuse of power within the Crofting Commission. Coincidentally there is the same number of blog posts on here about the decrofting debacle. Although I had also written seven articles about that issue on inksters.com before starting the Crofting Law Blog. I reckon there will be more (probably a good bit more) than seven further blog posts to write about the common grazings debacle.

So we have the Crofting Commission and Scottish Government to thank (although we probably shouldn’t really be thanking them!) for creating the hot topics that have kept this blog so active.

The other 36 blog posts have covered a good mixture of crofting law matters including the Crofting Register, Scottish Land Court Technology, Crofting Law Sump, Sporting Rights on Raasay, Croft House Grants, Crofting Convenergate, flaws in the Crofting Election Consultation, new appointments at the Crofting Commission, Scottish Government, Scottish Land Court and the Crofting Law A-Team.

Our blogs posts have, on the whole, been well received. They have, we would like to think, kept the Crofting Commission on their toes and perhaps even assisted some changes of heart on their part. We keep on blogging to explain the law, highlight injustices, to press for those changes and also as a result of nice comments of support like this one:-

I can’t thank you enough for the help and advice you have given over the last few months and I think the Crofting Law Blog has been an invaluable source of information that was virtually impossible to find anywhere else.

We have found obtaining relevant information from the Crofting Commission about the many complex aspects of crofting law extremely difficult so finding the Crofting Law Blog was a huge help to us.

You all deserve an award.

It seems a shame that such a clear and understandable source of information could not have been provided by the Crofting Commission itself.

A big thanks to all readers of and contributors to the Crofting Law blog over our first 100 blog posts. We will keep on blogging open, clear and transparent information about crofting law. If there is anything in particular you would like us to blog about or if you would like to contribute a post to the blog yourself then do let us know.

Brian Inkster

The Chief Grazings Constable

1 Reply

he Chief Grazings Constable - Top Cat at the Crofting Commission

The ‘Top Cat’ misunderstands the role of a Grazings Constable

The Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, was apparently at one time a Grazings Constable.

In 2007 he responded to comments online on the BBC Island Blogging site:-

I was the grazing constable on Arinagour Common Grazing, a post with specific duties, one of which was to advise of any potential problems on the grazings. This I did on two occasions. First one was relative to your property, Second was relative to the First Port Of Coll. Both properties were on the market and for sale. My function was to alert those involved including the Crofters Commission of potential problems regarding the status of the land. I have never stated that any property was on the Common Grazing, however it is my view that various areas of the grazing are now occupied by various people.

That is not a specific duty or function of a Grazings Constable under and in terms of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993.

Perhaps this misunderstanding of the role of a Grazings Constable, from the top of the tree at Great Glen House, is why we have purported ‘Grazings Constables’ thinking their role is an investigative one. It isn’t. Other than, perhaps, the five yearly duty to report to the Crofting Commission on the condition of the Common Grazings and crofts with a share in the Common Grazings.

Brian Inkster

Reports from a ‘Grazing Constable’

3 Replies

The ‘Grazings Constable’ was under the false impression that he was a Police Constable come Court Reporter!

One of the more surprising episodes of ‘The Common Clearances‘ has been the issuing of press releases by the ‘Grazing Constable’ (illegally appointed, in my opinion and the opinion of others) of the Upper Coll Common Grazings.

To my knowledge that ‘Grazings Constable’, Colin Souter, has issued three such press releases to date. I now reproduce those here, with my comments on each added.

‘Grazing Constable’ Report #1 – 12 June 2016

I write briefly in connection with the Common Grazings at Upper Coll, having been appointed as Constable in recent weeks, by the Crofting Commission.

I should firstly stress such appointees are independent of the Commission. One of the main functions is to assume the role and responsibilities of the former Committee, representing the interests of the Crofters, whilst moving as swiftly as possible back to a situation of normality, with crofters being collectively in control of managing their own interests.

I am confident readers will appreciate the resolution to current difficulties will not be achieved overnight. I note there has been much interest, speculation and comment made on behalf of individuals who, I acknowledge, feel genuinely aggrieved with decisions the Commission has made.

On the other hand, it is only right and proper that the Commission, as a public body, should not comment on the specifics of any individual case.

Preliminary legal proceedings are currently underway at the Scottish Land Court, where it remains to be decided if the Appeal against Commission decisions will progress to the next stage. An Interim Interdict application at Inverness Sheriff Court to prevent the appointment of a Constable and further action by the Commission, was heard and refused.

It is likely that the process of the Land Court Appeal, if progressed, will take some considerable time to conclude. I will not be formally commenting in the media on the specifics of matters at Upper Coll, nor in relation to any single individual.

I do however wish to publicly acknowledge and thank those individuals at Upper Coll and elsewhere who have already contacted me since my appointment, to firstly share a collective view that there are matters at Upper Coll which need to be addressed and secondly to voice their support for a co-operative resolution over the coming weeks and months. All impartial observers must surely agree it is in the best interests of all parties to co-operate, to ensure the interests of all the crofters at Upper Coll are and continue to be properly protected.

Comment on ‘Grazing Constable’ Report #1by the Crofting Law Blog

Why, I wonder, did Colin Souter feel it necessary to issue such a statement? Was it because the Crofting Commission were staying silent on the matter? Did they sanction/encourage this statement?

How independent can Colin Souter really be? Did the Crofting Commission not provide him with a list of their ‘concerns’ for his investigation?

He has apparently stated to the shareholders at Upper Coll that his role is an investigative one. Nothing in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 gives him such power other than, perhaps, the duty to report to the Crofting Commission on the condition of the Common Grazings and crofts with a share in the Common Grazings.

If investigations were required concerning any alleged financial impropriety on the part of the former grazings committee that would have been a role for the actual boys in blue and not for a retired police Chief Inspector who appears to think he, once more, has powers he once did. He does not.

If legally appointed, which is disputed, Colin Souter simply has to take on the role of committee and clerk. He is responsible to the shareholders. His role is purely administrative.

‘Grazing Constable’ Report #2 – 23 June 2016

On the evening of 22 June the Constable of the Upper Coll Common Grazings chaired a meeting of shareholders at Tong Village Hall. The meeting, which was well attended, discussed a number of issues and during the closed part of the meeting, the Constable, Mr Colin Souter shared a level of detail around issues and concerns which was clearly unknown to many of those present, prior to the meeting.

Mr Souter, a retired police Chief Inspector explained to the meeting that his appointment followed a communication to the Commission by the former Clerk to the Grazing, highlighting that 12 points of business needed to be addressed as soon as possible.

Mr Souter also explained that the Crofting Commission, as a public body, is unable to comment in the media on issues relating to specific individuals and their conduct but that being independent of the Commission, it was appropriate for him to share more information with the shareholders affected. At the meeting, he received further joint intimation in writing from Upper Coll shareholders, of their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the former Committee and will determine in due course whether that should be considered separately from other matters currently under investigation.

The meeting acknowledged the current position as laid out and discussed a constructive way forward, with a revised set of draft local Grazing Regulations being circulated by the Constable to all shareholders at Upper Coll to replace the current Regulations which date back to 1987. Mr Souter is also inviting contributions and comment more widely, from the Scottish Crofting Federation and National Farmers Union Scotland, as representative bodies, in an effort to secure a wide consensus of agreement. He intimated to the meeting that he was, very reluctantly, being forced to consider Court action as a last resort, in order to recover the Committee records from the former Grazings Clerk. A large number of those shareholders present expressed the view that withholding the records was not helping, declaring that it was acting against the interests of the shareholders and instead invited former Committee members to bear the cost of the Court action, should it go ahead.

The meeting closed on a positive note with an expression of thanks to Mr Souter, from the floor, for an open, informative and well-run meeting.

Mr Souter later said, “I appreciate there is a wide body of interest in events here at Upper Coll. I would like to publicly express my own thanks and appreciation to Upper Coll shareholders able to attend the meeting tonight, for their positive contributions and their willingness to begin moving forward to the point where a new Grazing Committee can be elected. Whilst that outcome is still in the distance, it has moved significantly closer, with a clearer path now defined, and shareholders having a better understanding of the concerns and the issues which brought us to where we are now.”

Note to Editor – the Upper Coll Grazings Committee was removed from office by the Crofting Commission on 15 April after failing to adequately address concerns raised by the Crofting Commission about the manner in which aspects of its business were being conducted, including the content and presentation of financial information reported to shareholders. On 16 May, some former committee members made an unsuccessful attempt to interdict the Crofting Commission from further action at Upper Coll. This was followed by submission of papers to the Scottish Land Court, seeking to Appeal against the Commission’s decision to remove them from office. The Land Court is currently awaiting submissions on jurisdiction from both sides, to help determine whether it can hear the Appeal. If the jurisdiction argument is won, the case will become sub judice until eventually concluded.

Comment on ‘Grazing Constable’ Report #2 by the Crofting Law Blog

I wonder if Mr Souter thinks that all grazings clerks should be issuing press releases about shareholders meetings held throughout the crofting counties? Local newspapers could have sections devoted to ‘Common Grazings Reports’ instead of, or in addition to, their usual ‘Court Reports’!

Where did the “issues and concerns” that Mr Souter had to share come from? I trust not from the Crofting Commission that he is apparently independent of?

Interesting that the Crofting Commission cannot comment on matters arising to the media but Mr Souter can. Has he therefore become their spokesman and if so how does that enable him to retain the supposed independence that he claims to have?

Mr Souter refers to “matters currently under investigation”. As commented on by me in connection with his first Report, his role is not an investigative one but merely an administrative one and then only if his appointment was legal which I, and others, maintain it is not.

Why was Mr Souter circulating new Grazings Regulations and who had drafted them and on what basis?

It would seem unusual for a Grazings Clerk to seek views from the Scottish Crofting Federation or the National Farmers Union Scotland on Grazings Regulations specific to a particular grazings.

Court action by a potentially illegally appointed ‘Grazings Constable’ to recover documentation he might have no right to hold would have made for interesting debate in the Sheriff Court! A suggestion that those against whom such an action was to be raised should fund the raising of the action is absurd to say the least.

Why is the election of a new Grazings Committee in the distance? What is preventing that happening sooner rather than later?

Is it perhaps in Mr Souter’s personal interest to delay the election of a new Grazings Committee. The longer he remains in ‘office‘ the longer he receives an income from the arrangement – albeit potentially an illegal arrangement that he should not actually be receiving a penny for.

Mr Souter states that “the Upper Coll Grazings Committee was removed from office by the Crofting Commission on 15 April after failing to adequately address concerns raised by the Crofting Commission about the manner in which aspects of its business were being conducted, including the content and presentation of financial information reported to shareholders.”

However, the only reason actually given by the Crofting Commission for the ultimate removal from office of the grazings committee was the failure to produce to them five years ‘audited’ accounts. The grazings committee produced financial statements produced by accountants. The irrationality, inconsistency and departure from legal advice obtained by the Crofting Commission on this point is one I will return to in future posts on this blog.

‘Grazing Constable’ Report #3 – 12 July 2016

Upper Coll shareholders met again on 11 July at a meeting chaired by the Grazings Constable, Colin Souter, who was appointed by the Crofting Commission in May. At this second meeting, shareholders covered a busy Agenda on a range of topics, including the resolution of a long-standing issue on the access of a bull owned by two shareholders, on the common grazings. Shareholders accepted the pragmatic resolution suggested by the Constable, which preserves shareholders rights to graze livestock but at the same time, acknowledges the responsibilities that go with these rights.

Shareholders also voted in favour of a revised set of Grazing Regulations which would encompass key elements of the previous regulations which dated back to 1987. Mr Souter hoped the final draft of the document which had already been subject to wide-ranging consultation would be ready to send to the Crofting Commission for approval, in the next few weeks. During a candid and honest discussion, some of those present, including former Committee members advised they had been entirely unaware of the existence of the 1987 Regulations.

After the meeting, Mr Souter said, “The key to progress here is an acceptance from shareholders that good Regulations make it easier for shareholders and for Committees to interact and minimise the potential for friction or conflict. We are nearly there, in terms of a finished product and whilst there are still a number of other issues for me to resolve with shareholders, we are steadily moving in the right direction. I am grateful for the support shown by shareholders this evening, in voting to move ahead.”

A number of other issues, including finances and areas of activity permissible for a Grazings Committee or Constable on behalf of shareholders, under the 1993 Crofting Act were explored in a closed session. No date was set for the next meeting, with Mr Souter indicating he would distribute a final updated draft set of Regulations amongst all shareholders. And once approved by the Commission, every shareholder would receive a personal copy of the revised Regulations.

ends

Note – Mr Souter is a retired police Chief Inspector, appointed to the role of Constable at Upper Coll after the previous Committee were removed from office by the Crofting Commission. Following their removal, it was reported to the Commission that shareholder business remained outstanding and unresolved. Whilst he is appointed by the Commission, Mr Souter has successfully gained acceptance that he is independent of the Commission in all his decision-making.

Comment on ‘Grazing Constable’ Report #3 by the Crofting Law Blog

I asked shareholders of the Upper Coll Common Grazings for their views on this latest Report from Colin Souter. Here is a selection of comments received from them:-

The new regs would certainly have to come before shareholders again before being submitted. There will be nothing to stop us bringing in further changes at a full meeting of shareholders at a later date if that is needed.
The Grazings Regulations are at the “discussion” stage and still have much work to be done on them. There was no revised Regulations issued with no mention of changes some of us suggested. They are far from being at a stage for presenting to the Commission.
The constable has thus far refused to protect the interests of shareholders by bringing any scrutiny to bear on the Commission’s own dubious actions of the recent past. This goes to prove that he is not wholly independent of the Commission and shows that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The majority of shareholders are still of the view that the position of Constable has been illegally imposed on the Upper Coll Grazings. These shareholders do not have any personal prejudice against Mr Souter but it is his position they question.
Shareholders were of the view that the Constable should be working “for” the shareholders and should therefore be working to see that some of the injustices done to the previous Committee are redressed. As he seems to be investigating the work of the previous committee then this “investigative” role should also be targeted at the Crofting Commission’s actions.
The minute of meeting of the 11th should also clearly show that we considered that the Commission had erred greatly in dismissing a democratically elected voluntary committee when they had legal obligations instead to advice and support it in the first instance. We suggested that this is going to be costly to the Commission.
The meaning of “audit” given by the Constable is not one shared by the vast majority of shareholders.
It is felt by the majority of shareholders that the term “financial irregularities” used by the Commission in relation to the Upper Coll Grazings Committee should be withdrawn and an apology issued to the committee by the Commission.
Mr Kennedy’s continued presence as Convenor of the Crofting Commission is in the opinion of the majority of shareholders untenable.

So clearly a different slant on things from the propaganda issued by the ‘Grazings Constable’. This demonstrates the nonsense of the whole situation.

Why is Colin Souter seeking to introduce new regulations? What is wrong with the existing ones other than perhaps the use of the word “audit”, which has caused much of the problems encountered by the former committee in their dealings with the Crofting Commission?

The former grazings committee were actually in the process of amending their regulations prior to being removed from office by the Crofting Commission. Why did the Crofting Commission not allow them to amend the regulations as they wished to do so?

Are the Crofting Commission influencing the new regulations proposed by Colin Souter? Do these new regulations follow the latest template promoted by the Crofting Commission which do not actually reflect the law as set out in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993?

Mr Souter refers to his “decision making”. What ability does he actually have to take decisions that are contrary to the wishes of the shareholders?

Mr Souter states:-

No date was set for the next meeting, with Mr Souter indicating he would distribute a final updated draft set of Regulations amongst all shareholders. And once approved by the Commission, every shareholder would receive a personal copy of the revised Regulations.

This suggests that Mr Souter is going to finalise the draft Grazings Regulations without necessarily calling a meeting to approve them. He appears to simply be planning to get the approval of the Crofting Commission. If this is indeed the case it is outrageous.

However, it should always be borne in mind that Mr Souter’s appointment was, in my view and the view of others, illegal and any action taken by him is simply null and void.

Brian Inkster