Tag Archives: BBC Alba

SEE YOU IN COURT?

Donald Morrison introduces the headline news item on BBC Alba An Là

The BBC reported on Wednesday that it had been revealed at a board meeting of the Crofting Commission that day in Inverness that the Convener of the Commission, Colin Kennedy, was threatening the organisation with legal action.

This is how Andrew Thomson of BBC Radio Highlands & Islands reported matters on the 5.30pm bulletin:-

It has emerged that the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, is threatening to take legal action against the organisation over the way he has been treated over the last few months.

His lawyers claim he has been defamed by the Commission.

The Crofting Commissioners get ready for the meeting and that before the heat was turned up

The details of the case came to light at a heated meeting of the Commission in Inverness this morning.

The legal threats also specifically mention the actions of two commissioners, Murdo Maclennan and David Campbell, at a meeting in Brora in September last year.

The Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission, Bill Barron, says these two men have the full backing of the organisation.

Bill Barron will “back them totally and defend” commissioners threatened by Colin Kennedy

Bill Barron:-

Mr Kennedy has made it clear that there are things that the two of them have done that he particularly takes exception to and so they are named in this vague threat.

But having said that I don’t believe there is any reason why they need to worry unduly. They can continue to work with the board as they are doing and if there were difficult legal actions taken against them we would obviously back them totally and defend them.

As I say there is no sign of that actually getting up and running so at the moment although I appreciate their nervousness they are absolutely right to continue to work within the board.

It was also headline news on BBC Alba An Là at 8pm with Donald Morrison at the news desk and Donald Lamont reporting from Inverness:-

Donald Lamont reports from Great Glen House

The Convener of the Crofting Commission is threatening the Commission and some of the commissioners with legal action. Colin Kennedy maintains that the meeting in Brora last year was held against the law and Mr Kennedy’s solicitor is of the opinion that the commission has damaged his reputation.

At the last meeting, Mr Kennedy said that he was not threatening anyone with legal proceedings. However on Wednesday it came to light that a letter had actually been delivered to the Commission from his solicitor the day before that meeting took place.

Colin Kennedy enters for the meeting on Wednesday

Colin Kennedy arrives for the meeting on Wednesday

The letter wanted the Commission to change the decisions made at the previous meeting in Brora and to admit that what the Commission did was illegal, and especially that the actions of two individual commissioners were against the law.

The head of the Commission Bill Barron understands the concerns of the commissioners especially any concerns surrounding the letter.

Bill Barron:-

Mr Kennedy has made it clear that there are things that the two of them have done that he particularly takes exception to and so they are named in this vague threat.

But having said that I don’t believe there is any reason why they need to worry unduly. They can continue to work with the board as they are doing and if there were difficult legal actions taken against them we would obviously back them totally and defend them.

The newest Crofting Commissioners, Malcolm Mathieson and James Scott, share a joke before their first Board meeting

The newest Crofting Commissioners, Malcolm Mathieson and James Scott, share a joke before the tension began

There were two new commissioners present at today’s meeting. Donald Lamont asked Bill Barron was it unfortunate that their first meeting was full of tension?

Bill Barron:-

It’s part of where we are. There are those tensions within the board and until they are fully resolved that’s part of our context. I think it was not too bad for the new commissioners to join into that, Obviously I hope we will move on and resolve those things and move to more normal ways of operating.

There isn’t but three weeks until voting papers are distributed to pick a new board for the Commission.

View from the Crofting Law Blog

Since Colin Kennedy walked out of the board meeting in Brora in September there hasn’t been one board meeting of the Crofting Commission without controversy surrounding it:-

Commissioners and officials get ready for Wednesday’s board meeting

It has been very clear to many for some time that the board of the Crofting Commission has not been functioning as it should. Further rationale for that became apparent on Wednesday. How can a board function when one of its members (in this case the convener no less) is threatening legal action against the organisation itself and against fellow commissioners? How can such a situation even arise? The newly appointed commissioners, Malcolm Mathieson and James Scott, must have been wondering what on earth they had let themselves in for.

Colin Kennedy

The Convener is taking a polar opposite view from his fellow commissioners. He thinks they are wrong in what they did in Brora and they think they are correct in the actions taken by them. This is similar to the ‘diametrically opposed‘ views held by him and the Scottish Government on distribution of common grazings funds and receipt of SRDP funding.

Confidential discussions?

The legal basis of Colin Kennedy’s purported claims of defamation and damage to reputation arising from the Brora meeting are not clear. Why he considers that meeting to be invalid in law is also unclear.

What is clear is that the Crofting Commission took legal advice and at their last meeting it was “accepted that it [the Brora meeting] was one continuous meeting in two valid parts“. It was further clarified to the Cross-Party Group on Crofting at Holyrood, by Bill Barron, that six commissioners had asked the Convener to stand down at the Brora meeting and have not recanted on that. The Convener has chosen not to.

When six commissioners out of seven take a decision that decision should be respected and stand in accordance with the doctrine of collective responsibility.

As pointed out previously on this blog 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.

Should Colin Kennedy have packed his bags and left by now?

Thus by sharing in collective responsibility, as he is obliged to do, Colin Kennedy should accept and support the decision of the board taken in Brora in September. By accepting and supporting that decision he should resign.

If, however, he does not accept and support the collective decision of the Board (which appears to be the case) he must, following the guidelines for Board Members of Public Bodies in Scotland, resign.

Either way he should not therefore currently be the Convener of the Crofting Commission.

Brian Inkster

Image Credits: © BBC Alba

Gaelic credit: Thanks to Vicki Folan of Inksters for translating the BBC Alba coverage from Gaelic to English

Crofting chaos escalates

1 Reply

Despite 101 blog posts highlighting the crisis within the Crofting Commission, a review being commissioned by the Scottish Government into their governance and countless calls from all quarters for the current Convener, Colin Kennedy, to step down the chaos within the Crofting Commission just seems to get worse by the day.

Before Christmas it truly escalated with the Convener calling a secret meeting of commissioners in an attempt to purportedly overturn the decisions taken at Brora, including the call for him to resign. He failed. Things did not go well for him either, a few days later, at the scheduled meeting of the board on 14 December. That board meeting was covered by BBC Alba and we reproduce here their full report:-

Iain Maclean (presenter) highlighted the matter at the outset of the evening news headlines:-

This evening, more chaos and controversy surrounding the Crofting Commission as two officials refuse to attend a board meeting, they say that they cannot work with the current board. Three co conveners, have asked the Scottish Parliament for an intervention in relation to Colin Kennedy.

Tavish Scott MSP was interviewed stating that:-

The Crofting Commission has failed now to work for crofters, it’s now a mess, it’s now working in an extraordinary manner, involving people leaving the room and not working with the current Chairman.

Then when it came to the full report the presenter, Iain Maclean, stated:-

We start tonight with more absolute crofter chaos, after two officials have refused to attend meetings. They maintain that they cannot possibly work with the current board. This follows from the events that unfolded at the last meeting in Brora. Let us look at today’s meeting in Inverness with Donald Lamont.

BBC Alba - Commission Chaos - 141216 - Colin Kennedy, Convener

Colin Kennedy, Convener of the Crofting Commission, was reportedly looking “very uncomfortable” at the board meeting in Inverness on 14 December 2016

Donald Lamont, reporting from Inverness, told us:-

Everything seemed very wrong at today’s meeting in Inverness, first of all it was obvious that not everyone was present. Two officials refused to attend and were not present. This suggests that things are coming to a head for Colin Kennedy, who looked very uncomfortable today.

Bill Barron. Interim Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission, was then interviewed. He said:-

It’s very regrettable to me that two of my staff didn’t feel comfortable coming to the meeting. That’s because, one commissioner has made various allegations, criticisms, about what they have done in recent months. They find that unacceptable and I’m supporting their position on that.

Donald Lamont continued:-

One can understand with this news, some of the commissioners are very angry, David Campbell being one of them.

Footage was then shown of the meeting itself with David Campbell saying to the board:-

This is extremely disturbing, extremely disturbing, the most disturbing thing I’ve come across in my time on this board… that two members of staff, by the sounds of what you said there, feel unable to be present here and by your description are unable to work with this board directly in a public forum… that gives me grave, grave concerns.

Donald Lamont went on to say:-

Few of the commissioners still support Kennedy, but things are far from right amongst the board. With the Commission’s own situation, it is obvious that the crofters themselves are no longer the priority.

Then back to Bill Barron who elaborated:-

On Friday we accepted that it was one continuous meeting in two valid parts. What happened today was that we approved the vast majority of the minutes of that meeting. There are two issues still to be ironed out on that. We also noted that there are some doubts about the way the piece of business that led to the motion against the convener, the way that was called, but the commission decided to take no particular further action on that.

Iain Maclean (presenter) then came back on air to say:-

We now go to Holyrood to our political correspondent Niall O’Gallagher.

Niall O’Gallagher, reporting from Holyrood, advised:-

They have now moved their business from the Highlands to Edinburgh in relation to the Kennedy situation. We had three political figures from Labour, SNP and the Lib Dems come together to say that, the minister concerned, Fergus Ewing, needs to remove Colin Kennedy from the Commission to move forward. Talking to us is Lib Dem, Tavish Scott.

Tavish Scott MSP said:-

The Crofters Commission cannot carry on with the chairman it’s currently got, and the dysfunctional nature of the organisation where the senior staff meant to work together for the crofters are instead fighting like ferrets in a sack. This has got to change. The minister would have my full support if he now steps in, makes the changes that need to happen, including getting rid of the current chairman, and getting the organisation back to doing what it’s meant to do and that is serving the crofters.

Niall O’Gallagher then continued:-

Other than questions and concerns about the people involved in the Commission at the moment, there is also questions about the work that they actually do. The opinion many have of the Commission is not a good one, they are not seen to be working to help the crofters who should be their prime concern. Talking to us from the SNP is Kate Forbes.

Kate Forbes MSP said:-

We need to do something. Next year will be a very important year, they will have elections. We need to change the situation now!

Presenter, Iain Maclean, returned:-

Thank you Kate, now back to Niall at Holyrood. What is happening at parliament this evening?

Niall O’Gallagher then rounded matters off from Holyrood:-

We didn’t get a chance to speak to Fergus Ewing tonight. The parliament’s view is that they don’t want anyone with bad intentions within the Commission. We managed to have a few words with Alasdair Allan. Talking on behalf of the government he said that there would be an opportunity to pick new commissioners but that it was not for Holyrood to make any quick impulse decisions.

It was also reported online on BBC Naidheachdan that Professor Donald Meek from Tiree, who attended the meeting at Holyrood, had said that all the uncertainty was doing great harm. He is quoted as saying:-

What I realised this evening, was that I was very familiar with the old Commission.

Whatever was happening with the old Commission, there was never any uncertainty about the Commission’s own situation.

The Commission was somewhat subtle, stable, and although you were now and again not in agreement with the Commission, the Commission was still a guiding stone for crofting affairs.

That is not true now at all, ever since the uncertainty arose in relation to those leading, those who shouldn’t even be there, so on and so forth.

View from the Crofting Law Blog

It is clear (if it was not already) that all is not well at Great Glen House. Now senior employees of the Crofting Commission are refusing to attend board meetings purportedly due to issues involving the Convener.

Despite attempts by the Convener to reverse or nullify the decisions taken by the board at Brora he has failed to do so.

Indeed Bill Barron, Interim Chief Executive to the Crofting Commission, clarified to the Cross Party Group on Crofting at Holyrood, that six commissioners had asked the Convener to stand down at the Brora meeting and have not recanted on that. The Convener has chosen not to.

Thus the call from all six commissioners, who met after the Convener walked out of the board meeting at Brora, for the Convener to resign still stands.

We now also have it reiterated by MSPs from the SNP, Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democrats that they believe that the Convener should go.

Yet the Convener remains defiantly in place, apparently pending hell freezing over.

Investigations concerning a complaint made by the Convener against Fergus Ewing MSP, Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for crofting, appear to still be ongoing. The Scottish Ministers have, it would seem, been paralysed from taking any action concerning the position of convener pending the outcome of those investigations, despite the fact that it remains within their power to do so.

Perhaps the New Year will see this mess unravel and be properly sorted in the way I suggested it should have been back in April 2016. Eight months is hardy a period that would allow Scottish Ministers to be accused of making “quick impulse decisions” as Alasdair Allan MSP suggested might be the case to BBC Alba!

Meantime crofters suffer from a Crofting Commission that cannot, it would appear, be properly regulated itself let alone effectively regulate crofting.

Brian Inkster

Image Credits: © BBC Alba

Gaelic credit: Thanks to Vicki Folan of Inksters for translating the BBC Alba coverage from Gaelic to English

Secret meeting declares Brora meeting valid

2 Replies

Crofting Commission 'secret' Special Meeting

Crofting Commissioners meet to debate legality of their previous meeting

In my last post I considered the background to the ‘secret’ special meeting of the Crofting Commission that was to be held in Inverness this morning. It had been requested by the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, purportedly to seek to overturn the decisions taken after he walked out of the Brora meeting.

Mr Kennedy has maintained in statements to the media that the Brora meeting was ultra vires (illegal). It is assumed that he was to argue this at the special meeting called by him this morning even although I pointed out yesterday that it would be a clear conflict of interest for him to participate in any decision making process in this regard.

It was reported by the BBC that at the start of the meeting commissioner David Campbell (West Highlands) made a motion for the meeting to be held in public for the purposes of natural justice, accountability and transparency to the ordinary crofter.

However, none of the other commissioners in the room (who are all crofters) were willing to second this motion. Thus the meeting proceeded in secret and out of honourable principle Mr Campbell departed the meeting at the same time as the press and public were excluded.

David Campbell departs the meeting as it was being held in private rather than public

Commissioner Murdo Maclennan (Western Isles) did not attend the meeting. It was reported by the BBC that this was due to a threat of legal action against the Commission/Commissioners by the Convener.

Thus the secret ‘cabal’ consisted of:-

Colin Kennedy (Convener) – South West Highlands
Ian George Macdonald (Vice-convener) – West Highlands
Kathleen Sinclair – Shetland
Arnold Pirie – Caithness and Orkney
Marina Dennis – East Highlands

However, at the end of the day (after a 6 hour meeting) the Convener didn’t appear to get his way.

Bill Barron confirms that the Brora Meeting was valid

The official statement issued by Interim Chief Executive Bill Barron to the BBC after the meeting stated:-

At the request of the Convener, the interim CEO called a special meeting of the Crofting Commission on Friday 9 December 2016.

The Commissioners present reaffirmed the importance of working together effectively in the final months of their terms.

The Board also discussed the status of the meeting held in Brora in September and how to move forward.

The Board decided that there was one meeting in Brora which took place in two valid parts, the meeting previously referred to as a special meeting being a continuation of the scheduled Board meeting.

Any consequences from this will be considered at their Board meeting on Wednesday 14 December 2016.

So six hours to decide that the two meetings in Brora (one with the Convener present and one without him after he walked out) were in fact one meeting held in two parts. It is assumed that legal advice had been sought on this (the Commission’s lawyer was evident in the film of the meeting shown on BBC Alba tonight) and that such advice conflicted with the Convener’s own interpretation which may well have been ingenious but flawed.

So there we have it: The Convener’s publicly stated position on the Brora meeting has been wrong from the outset. But will he now accept that?

The official statement says that any consequences from this will be considered at the Board meeting on Wednesday. Surely there are no consequences as such if the meeting was a legally held one. Is it not just a case of approving the minutes and moving on? Or are the consequences linked to the Convener’s stance on the meeting being ultra vires? After all in terms of the Standing Orders [PDF]:-

Once a decision has been reached, all members have a corporate responsibility to recognise and accept the decision as that of the Crofting Commission. Corporate responsibility entails that members must adhere to and accept such a decision until it is otherwise altered.

We will no doubt find out on Wednesday!

Brian Inkster

Image Credits: © BBC Alba

A Crofting Cabal?

4 Replies

Is there a cabal within the Crofting Commission?

It was revealed by the BBC yesterday morning that Colin Kennedy, Convener of the Crofting Commission, has requested a special meeting of the Crofting Commission to take place this coming Friday, 9 December 2016 (i.e. tomorrow).

The meeting is apparently to be held in private and concerns consideration of the decisions taken by the Commission at Brora after the Convener walked out of the scheduled Board meeting and a special meeting had to be called to enable Commission business to be transacted.

It is not clear but has been suggested that Colin Kennedy may be seeking to cancel or reverse the decisions taken by the Crofting Commission at Brora. He has previously stated his personal view that this meeting was ultra vires (illegal) .

I was asked by BBC Alba to comment on this development and did so in an interview that was broadcast on An Lá yesterday evening. This blog post will cover and expand upon the points I made to BBC Alba.

Ability to call a Special Meeting

In terms of the Standing Orders that govern the conduct of Crofting Commission meetings [PDF] the Convener has the right to call a special meeting.

Public Notice

Again in terms of the Standing Orders public notice of a meeting of the Commission will normally be given by posting a Notice on the Crofting Commission website at least 4 days before the meeting.

However, public notice is not required where a special meeting is convened to deal with a matter of a particular sensitive nature.

When the BBC revealed yesterday that this meeting was to be held on Friday no public notice had been given and there was less than 4 days to go before the meeting was to take place.

Did this mean that a matter of a particular sensitive nature was to be dealt with on Friday?

If so it must have been decided by the Board that the matter was of a particular sensitive nature as the Convener alone cannot decide that in terms of the Standing Orders.

However, at some point yesterday (after the BBC revealed what the Convener was up to) a public notice appeared on the Commission’s website intimating that a special meeting was taking place at 10am on Friday 9 December 2016 at the Glenmoriston Hotel, Inverness.

Presumably that meant that the matter to be discussed on Friday was not actually of a particular sensitive nature or that Board approval to it so being had either not been sought or had not been given. Having said that item number 3 of the Agenda [PDF] is the “exclusion of press and public”. So the meeting may still be held in private if the commissioners decide that is appropriate on Friday. Interestingly that Agenda does not tell us what the business to be discussed is other than simply stating “Business that requires special urgency“.

Should the meeting be held in private?

In terms of the Standing Orders:-

Members of the press and public are entitled to attend meetings of the Commission. However, the Commission may determine that matters of a confidential or sensitive nature should be considered without the press or the public in attendance.

If the special meeting is indeed being convened to discuss the legality of the Brora meeting then as that meeting was held in public surely this one should be too?

It is already a matter that is in the public domain and one that Colin Kennedy has been outspoken about publicly in the media. It is surely therefore in the public interest that any debate covering it should be held in public and not in secret.

There appears, on the face of it, to be nothing confidential being discussed and the only sensitivities involved are those that may affect the Convener himself. Therefore there appears no good reason for the Commission to exclude the press or the public from tomorrow’s meeting.

Declaration of Interest

The Standing Orders state:-

A member of the Commission, or any officer working on behalf of the Commission, who has a direct or indirect interest in a matter being considered at a meeting of the Commission or a committee of the Commission, must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting.

Any attempt to reverse the decision of the Brora special meeting is a matter that the Convener clearly has a direct interest in. Thus he would have to declare that interest and not take part in the meeting. Indeed, on that basis, it is questionable whether a special meeting could be called by the Convener where he is conflicted in the subject matter at hand.

Any failure by the Convener to declare an interest tomorrow will surely be questionable in the extreme.

Can the decisions made at the Brora meeting be reversed?

During the Common Grazings crisis the line peddled continually by the Commission, and supported by the Convener, was that decisions taken by the Commission cannot be altered once made and the only recourse that anyone has to do so is through the courts. Thus if this is the case should he not, if he considers he has a legitimate right to do so, personally be pursuing matters through the courts rather than via secretly convened meetings?

It has not, however, stopped the Commission from rewriting its history before now.

I trust that the interim Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission, Bill Barron, will have chapter and verse on this area from the Commission’s legal advisers to present to commissioners before the meeting commences tomorrow.

Does the Convener have support from fellow commissioners?

It has been mooted for some time that there was a divided board with some members under the spell of the Convener and others less enchanted by him. The weight possibly swung in the Convener’s favour following the resignations of Susan Walker and William Swann. However, in his absence at the special meeting in Brora there was a unified front from all the commissioners that his behaviour warranted a call for him to resign.

Perhaps the former cabal (as some have called it) has been reformed and is prepared to do the Convener’s bidding on Friday regardless of the legalities, morals and ethics that may be involved.

The identity of the members of that cabal may also become clearer depending on how things pan out tomorrow.

The public purse

It has also been questioned whether it is in the public interest for a special meeting to be called just three working days before a scheduled board meeting. Surely any matter arising could be dealt with as an additional agenda item next Wednesday? Think of the cost of commissioners travelling to Inverness from as far afield as Shetland, Orkney, Lewis, Skye and Coll twice in one week for two meetings that could have easily been dealt with as one. Presumably officials based in Edinburgh will be doing the same.

Special meetings but not Board meetings

It should also be noted that when several commissioners could not apparently attend the last scheduled Board meeting it was postponed and a new date was “being arranged” and was to “be notified as soon as possible“. No such new date was ever arranged. But it seems that whilst the Commission could not arrange a new date for a major Board meeting they have no problem doing so for a questionable special meeting. Odd that.

Minutes of the Brora meeting

As a result of the last Board meeting not taking place the minutes of the Brora meeting have yet to be approved. That is scheduled to happen at the next Board meeting next Wednesday. Can a special meeting take place tomorrow to consider a meeting the minutes of which have yet to be approved? Surely any such meeting, if even competent, should happen only after and not before approval of the minutes?

Irony

It is also somewhat ironic that the legality of a special meeting is being called into question by a special meeting being convened that, unlike the Brora one, is highly questionable in itself.

The hole gets bigger

The governance of the Crofting Commission is currently under review by the Scottish Government. Antics such as these can only add fuel to the fire.

Brian Inkster

Image credit: ‘There is no cabal on Wikipedia‘ by Rama, Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr

The Crofting Bat Phone

11 Replies

Commissioner Gordon and Batman didn’t have a look in to the lines of communication available between the Crofting Commissioner(s) and their Grazings Constable!

There have been quite a few comments of late about the difficulties of getting a statement from the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy. He is elusive to say the least and seldom represents the views of the Board to the general public despite this being one of his “particular responsibilities” .

Other Commissioners have been thin on the ground of late as well with no Commissioner replacing the Convener when he failed to attend the Scottish Government Crofting Stakeholder Forum in Inverness on Tuesday. This left the Chief Executive, Catriona Maclean, representing the views of the Commission in front of BBC Alba after the meeting.

Getting clear and unambiguous information out of Commissioners when you can pin them down is also often a challenge.

One person who seems to have direct access without difficulty to Commissioners (which might include, or indeed mean, the Convener) is the Grazings ‘Constable’ of Upper Coll, Colin Souter. He certainly appears to be in possession of information that only Commissioners would have and that well in advance of such information being made available to anyone else outside of Great Glen House.

One example of that became clear at the meeting of the Scottish Government Crofting Stakeholder Forum in Inverness on Tuesday.

I had been aware from the published Agenda that the Board of the Commission had considered a paper at their meeting on 17th August on ‘Grazings Committees – A Practical Approach to the Management of Common Grazings’. There was no mention of that at the Stakeholder Forum so I enquired about it.

I was advised that the Crofting Commission was setting up a Stakeholders’ Working Group to advise on the revision of common grazings regulations and guidance. This paper from 17th August would be considered by that group at a meeting on 20th September. Only after that meeting would the paper in question (possibly after refinement? – but that was not made clear) be circulated to the wider Stakeholder Forum.

So at the moment members of the Stakeholder Forum had no knowledge of or access to what the paper in question said. A stark contrast to the access to that paper apparently afforded to Grazings ‘Constable’ Colin Souter.

In the letter issued by Colin Souter to Shareholders of the Upper Coll Common Grazings on 29th August he states:-

The Board of Commissioners at a recent meeting, considered a submission along the lines I set out at the July meeting, whereby Committees can operate within a defined financial framework which allows retention of funds (from any legitimate source) in the bank, up to a maximum agreed by shareholders, taking account of any commitments under Schemes and projects ongoing and an Emergency Reserve (set at perhaps 3-4 times the 3-year average annual maintenance costs) and exceeding that amount automatically triggers payment to shareholders, three or four times a year. In doing so, the administrative burden is minimised for the Committee and they are seen to be operating within an agreed and better regulated financial framework. Whilst the Commission has a clear role, as regulator, in ensuring feu monies are distributed to shareholders, I understand it does not otherwise seek any direct involvement in other areas of finance affecting shareholders. The proposal tabled is seen as an initiative worthy of testing, for the benefit of Upper Coll and the wider crofting community but it is a choice for shareholders to make.

So even before the Commission has had the first meeting of its new Stakeholders’ Working Group, to advise on the revision of common grazings regulations and guidance, Colin Souter is seeking to impose the guidance so far produced (that no one other than Commissioners, Commission Officials and Colin Souter have seen) upon one particular Common Grazings, namely Upper Coll.

The same is true about his access to an Opinion from Queen’s Counsel which it is presumed was instructed by the Crofting Commission. In his said letter to shareholders at Upper Coll he said:-

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.

When I asked about this opinion at the Crofting Stakeholder Forum there was “no comment” from the Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission on behalf of the Board.

It is highly unusual for the Crofting Commission to publish legal advice received by them in any event.

On the topic of legal advice: Colin Souter seems very ready to challenge what he considers to be illegal activities at Upper Coll. It would be very unusual for a clerk in a common grazings (that is effectively what Colin Souter is had he been legally appointed) to appear so sure about crofting law without having sought legal advice. Not that I would give much weight to any advice that Colin Souter is getting given, in my view, a clear misunderstanding on his part as to what the law actually is.

We know that he thinks that legal advice cannot be paid for from grazings funds. So where is he getting his crofting law advice from? Is it likewise coming from Commission officials and/or from Commissioners and/or from a Commissioner? An organisation with a Board that has been shown to ignore the law and lawyers.

Why and how did one grazings clerk (i.e. Colin Souter) get privileged access to all of this information before any other grazings clerk in the land and before the members of the Crofting Stakeholder Forum? In the case of the opinion from Queen’s Counsel this may never be divulged to any other grazings clerks or to any members of the Crofting Stakeholder Forum.

The only explanation can be direct and special contact between him and a Commissioner and/or Commissioners and/or officials within the Crofting Commission.

So much for the assertion that he is acting at arms length and independent from the Commission.

It also again highlights the fact that he is under the control of and acting at the behest of the Crofting Commission. A reader of this blog having referred to him as a “maor” (or ground officer).

Serious questions must be asked by the Scottish Government about this arrangement and, in the circumstances, the validity of any pronouncements by the Crofting Commission and/or their ‘Constable’ over the situation at Upper Coll.

The Crofting Commission will no doubt say that the Scottish Government cannot investigate the situation when it is subject to on going court proceedings. Those court proceedings may touch upon the legality of the appointment of the Grazings ‘Constable’ in the first place.

But even if we take it that the appointment was legal (although that is denied) then the Scottish Government should be looking at the propriety of the relationship that exists between such a legally appointed grazings constable and the Crofting Commission.

Is it correct and proper that he has been given an investigative remit? Is it correct and proper that he is being supplied with the information that he has been? If it is not then who gave that remit and/or supplied that information?

If that was a Commissioner are they therefore, in all the circumstances, “unable or unfit to exercise the functions of a member” or “unsuitable to continue as a member”? As such should the Scottish Ministers remove them from office under and in terms of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993?

Even worse if it were to transpire that it was the Convener who was embroiled in all of this. After all he has, for some time, been the subject of complaints about his handling of the affair at Upper Coll and so should not be involving himself in matters concerning Upper Coll until the relevant complaints process has been completed. To do so would be a clear conflict of interest. But there again that has not stopped him before.

Brian Inkster

Who are we supposed to believe?

1 Reply

Whose riddles are the right riddles?

A guest post by the Crabbit Crofter.

Over the last five months “the public” has become more and more confused by the Crofting Commission’s changing statements, retractions, and now silence on the subject of ‘The Common Clearances‘. So whose fault is it the message is so confused?

The Crofting Commission seems to have the right intention. It has a button you can click on its website called Openness. It boldly claims “We aim to provide high quality services and information to all members of the public.” So how is it getting on with its aim?

First. Who should be making sure we were given clear messages about such an important topic? And lo and behold Crofting Commission has a handy Framework Document [PDF]. It became operational just about when everything started to go wrong with the common grazings furore so a shame everyone seems to have forgotten what it says. It covers the period April 2016 to March 2018. The introduction says:-

This framework document has been drawn up by the Scottish Government (SG) in consultation with the Crofting Commission. It sets out the broad framework within which the Crofting Commission will operate and defines key roles and responsibilities which underpin the relationship between the Crofting Commission and the SG.

How handy. It tells us lots of useful stuff. It sets out who is responsible for communicating with the public. Guess who it is? The Convener of the Crofting Commission. The Framework Document states one of the Convener’s “particular responsibilities” is:-

Representing the views of the Board to the general public

So how has Convener Kennedy been getting on with this “particular responsibility”? Since the 2016-2018 Framework Document came into force, there have been:-

various interviews on Radio nan Gaidheal and An La, BBC Alba (TV) with Commissioner MacLennan, including one where he was challenged by the interviewer Donald Lamont on why he hasn’t done more to help Lewis grazing committees. Mr MacLennan explained he couldn’t talk about Mangersta or Upper Coll because he had conflicts of interest. In the Upper Coll case because he had some sort of link with the solicitor representing Upper Coll in the Land Court case.

It could be argued Mr MacLennan as a Gaelic speaker was used for these interviews rather than Convener Kennedy. But, guess what? There have also been:-

An interview in English with Commissioner Swan after the meeting in Mangersta on 17th May on Aithris an Fheasgair, Radio nan Gaidheal.
An interview in English with Chief Executive Catriona MacLean on Radio nan Gaidheal, and An La, BBC Alba, after the meeting attended also by Convener Kennedy (and Commissioner MacLennan) in Stornoway with the CNES Joint Consultative Committee, on 13th June.
Statements at the Scottish Parliament Cross Party Group on Crofting in June by Commissioner MacLennan and Chief Executive Catriona MacLean (in English). Convener Kennedy was notably absent when the big topic of the Commission’s self-inflicted common grazings crisis was on the agenda and obviously politicians and the general public would be demanding a clear statement from the Commission. Strangely Commissioner MacLennan seemed to have forgotten about his reluctance to talk about the issue because of a conflict of interest in the two Lewis cases.
Interviews with Commissioner MacLennan following the board meeting on 17th August, carried on Aithris an Fheasgair and An La in Gaelic and in a BBC Highland report in English. These interviews were almost unintelligible. They left the “general public” in a worse state of confusion than if there had been no interviews at all by anyone.

There have also been numbers of statements –

The famous Convener Kennedy statement on how to manage common grazings finances, now removed from the Commission’s website but available on the Crofting Law Blog.
A statement from Vice Convener MacDonald on 8th June contradicting the previous statement from the Convener but with no explanation if it was his own views or those of the whole board who had agreed to disagree with their Convener on the issue.
The famous Open Letter from Chief Executive Catriona MacLean still available on the Commission website. It contradicts the Convener’s previous statement, but claims no such statement was ever made. So which of the Convener’s or the Chief Executive’s statements was the views of the board? We have to assume the Convener’s since it is his “particular responsibility” to convey the views of the board to the general public.
A report from Jackie O’Brien on Good Morning Scotland (Radio Scotland) who hadn’t managed to get an interview but had got a statement from Convener Kennedy prior to the board meeting on 17th August. The Convener’s statement was extraordinary because it disagreed with his Minister. And it stated the Convener’s position on the matter before he allowed the board to have a democratic discussion. But then the Convener didn’t make any attempt to convey the views of the board to the general public after the board meeting. Why not? Instead we got something almost completely unintelligible from Commissioner MacLennan no-one has been able to decipher yet. So what were the views of the board? Since it is his “particular responsibility” to convey the views of the board to the general public we must assume it was the Convener’s statement before the board meeting.

All of this leaves the general public totally confused. Which of these contradictory interviews and statements from five different people (Vice Convener, two Commissioners, Chief Executive, Convener) over the past 5 months is the opinion of the board? The Framework Document tells us we should only listen to the Convener because he has “particular responsibility” to convey the views of the board to the general public. But he has consistently refused to give interviews. And his two public statements baldly state grazing committees have to pay out all money immediately to shareholders and can keep none. So there you have it. It looks like he is in conflict with his Minister. And with his board. And his Chief Executive. Not to mention crofters. No wonder we are all so confused and angry.

Crabbit Crofter

Guest Blogger Bio: A crabbit crofter who wishes the weather was better & Scotland produced more of its own food. He believes in a just & honest world, full of integrity & decency.