Tag Archives: crofting policy

Two Phase approach to Crofting Law Reform announced by Scottish Government

3 Replies
Fergus Ewing MSP - Cabinet Secretary responsible for Crofting - announces proposals for legislative reform

Fergus Ewing MSP

The Scottish Government’s plans for legislative reform of crofting were first outlined to the Cross-Party Group on Crofting on 28 March 2018 by Fergus Ewing MSP, Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity with responsibility for crofting.

Following on from that meeting Mr Ewing has stated:-

This government is determined not to allow crofting to be simply a relic of our past: crofting must have a purpose and a role in our present and our future.

That purpose is to support people to remain on the land and to bring people back to the land, with crofting also playing a role in creating a sustainable and productive environment in which people can live and work. To achieve this, crofting needs an effective regulatory and statutory framework.

Yet, most agree that current crofting legislation is complex and lacking in transparency, having been developed on a ‘piecemeal’ basis over nearly 150 years. We have recently completed a public consultation on what might usefully be changed through legislative reform.

The consultation was launched last August, seeking views from stakeholders on (amongst other things) the Scottish Government’s Crofting Policy, the potential form that new crofting legislation could take, and priorities for legislative change.  During the three month consultation period, my officials held a series of 21 meetings with the public and interested stakeholder groups, hearing directly from over 300 individuals across the crofting counties.

The consultation closed in late November last year with 122 responses from individuals and organisations. The responses were independently analysed and a report on that analysis was published in mid-March. The results made for interesting reading  and the diversity of responses only highlighted the scale of the challenge ahead.

After careful consideration, there does not appear to be a consensus that would allow me to decide on specific pieces of legislative reform. I was also presented with a dilemma over deciding the best legislative approach to take, as the analysis highlighted almost equal proportions of support for new crofting legislation, versus making changes to existing legislation and restating or consolidating the law.

Following the publication of the analysis report I met with the Cross-Party Group on Crofting to outline how I wish to take matters forward and to hear members and MSPs’ views. I am proposing a two-phase approach to legislative reform, with a first phase in the shorter term, leading to a Bill in this parliamentary session.  This first phase will focus on delivering changes which carry  widespread support, including across the Scottish Parliament, and result in  practical everyday improvements to the lives of crofters and/or streamline procedures that crofters are required to follow.  I am keen to fully involve and engage MSPs with crofting interests to ensure that their ideas and proposals can be considered and taken forward in legislation.

The second phase is longer term work, where I have asked my officials to continue with fundamentally reviewing crofting legislation to provide a solution to some of the more complex and challenging issues facing crofting, and what that might mean for how legislation is developed in future. This work will begin now but will be for a future Parliament to deliver.

I’m also keen to use non-legislative means to make changes that help to improve the sustainability of crofting, and encourage new entrants. These will include a National Development Plan for crofting, and a new entrant’s scheme that will directly benefit crofters without the need to wait for legislative change. It is also not just within crofting that I see opportunities to enhance provision – I am keen to encourage more woodland crofts through the National Forest Estate and to ensure that crofting communities benefit from our ambitions for a low carbon economy, and commitment to provide all homes and businesses with access to superfast broadband.

The approach I am taking forward is pragmatic and focused on delivering a future for crofting in 21st Century Scotland   My approach seeks to support people to make lives on the land, to diversify to create sustainable livelihoods, and to collaborate with neighbours and communities to find common solutions. That approach is as important to supporting crofting more generally as it is to reforming its statutory frameworks.

The Crofting Commission stated:-

The Crofting Commission look forward to working with Scottish Government and other Stakeholders to take forward crofting legislation reform. The practical approach outlined by the Cabinet Secretary will enable the necessary improvements of phase one to be made in this Parliamentary Session, with more complex issues being held over to a second phase.

In particular the Commission welcome the opportunity to work with the Scottish Government in developing a New Entrants Scheme for crofting and to discuss a future promotional role for the Commission itself.

Rod Mackenzie, Convener of the Crofting Commission, said: “We support the Scottish Government’s decision to take a collaborative approach to rectifying and improving crofting legislation during this Parliament.  The Commission will play a full part in this, and will be particularly keen to consider with others what improvements can be made to the law on registration and on common grazings, among other key issues.”

The Scottish Crofting Federation (SCF) also supported the Scottish Government’s proposals. Their chair, Russell Smith, said:-

We are pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has announced a positive way forward for crofting law and restated his commitment to non-legislative changes also. He promised that we will have a bill in this parliamentary session which corrects the major anomalies in the current law and so enables it to work appropriately for crofters. This is the essential course of action needed and will pave the way to a consolidation bill in the next session. It is exactly what SCF hoped for.

There will also be a fundamental review running in parallel which may enable more far-reaching changes to crofting law, whilst maintaining crofters’ rights, in the future. This is very good news for crofting. The Cabinet Secretary asked for input to the bill and the SCF are delighted to contribute.

My view

This seems an eminently sensible way for the Scottish Government to take legislative reform forward. They have recognised the complexities involved and that all that needs to be sorted probably can’t be easily sorted in just one parliamentary term.

Thus splitting reform over two parliamentary terms should allow a comprehensive and considered approach to crofting reform unlike the rushed approach that led to the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. That rushed approach created many of the problems requiring to be resolved today.

Brian Inkster

My response to the Consultation on the Future of Crofting Legislation

Leave a Reply

Response to the Consultation on the Future of Crofting LegislationThe Consultation on the Future of Crofting Legislation received responses up until 20 November 2017. An analysis of the responses was published on 21 March 2018 and Fergus Ewing MSP, Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity with responsibility for crofting, outlined the Scottish Government’s plans for legislative reform to the Cross-Party Group on Crofting on 28 March 2018.

I will come back on this blog to look in more detail at the analysis and Government plans. In the meantime I thought I should publish here my own personal response to the Consultation.

Current Scottish Government crofting policy may be stated as:

The Scottish Government values crofting as a form of land tenure and recognises
the added contribution that crofting continues to make to the rural economy and the
sustainability of rural and remote rural communities.

The Scottish Government is committed to reforming crofting to secure its future,
bring new blood into crofting communities, and ensure it can continue to contribute to
the development of a thriving rural Scotland.

This policy is reflected in the current legislative framework which places a number of
duties on crofters, including the duty to reside within 32 km of the croft; cultivate the
croft, or put the croft to another purposeful use; and not misuse or neglect the croft.
These duties serve to maintain the integrity of rural communities in the Highlands
and Islands.

Question 1: Do you agree with the stated Scottish Government policy on crofting?

Answer 1: No strong views on the question of policy but will refer to it when commenting on the ‘Clean Sheet’ approach to legislative reform below.

Question 2: Please select your preferred option to indicate which you believe to be the most suitable way to proceed with any crofting law reform. Should you wish to suggest another approach that has not been discussed above, then please select ‘other’ and provide details.

The options given were:-

Option 1 – Consolidation Bill
Option 2 – Bill amending existing legislation / Pre-Consolidation Bill
Option 3 – Bill amending existing legislation and restating crofting law
Option 4 – Bill setting out ‘new’ crofting law

Answer 2: Option 2.

The Scottish Government has already given a commitment to legislative change. Option 1 will not achieve that and arguably should not have been an option at all.

The Scottish Government’s Crofting Policy “is reflected in the current legislative framework” and thus there would appear no merit in pursuing a ‘Clean Sheet’ approach when current legislation and policy coincide. There is also a danger that pursuing a ‘Clean Sheet’ approach will result in much debate and little ability to actually fix the problems identified in ‘The Sump’ Report within this Parliamentary term. Thus Option 4 should be discounted.

It would appear that Option 3 may result in less problem areas being tackled than Option 2. Consolidation does not need to happen at the same time as amendments to the law and should not be pursued at the same time if that is going to reduce the number of amendments involved to existing law.

Thus Option 2 is really the only sensible one for the Scottish Government to pursue.

Questions 3 – 9 asked various questions on (1) Absenteeism, Misuse and Neglect; (2) Assignation and Succession; (3) Common Grazings; (4) Crofting Commission Regulatory Functions and Processes; (5) Crofting Registration; (6) Owner-occupier Crofts; and (7) Standard Securities.

Question 10 asked for those seven issues to be listed in order of priority: ‘higher priority’ first to ‘lower priority’ last.

Rather than answering those questions individually, or providing a priority list, I decided to deal with that as part and parcel of my answer to question 11 and simply referred the Scottish Government to that particular answer.

Question 11: Please tell us any other thoughts you have about the proposed Crofting Legislation reform not covered in your earlier answers.

I have not answered questions 3 to 10 as I consider my views on these matters to be covered by ‘The Sump’ Report (November 2014) [PDF] and the Proposals put forward by the Scottish Government’s Crofting Legislation Stakeholder Consultation Group (10 February 2015) [PDF]. These documents prioritise matters but ultimately are of the view that all (not some) of the problem areas identified should be tackled and fixed by the Scottish Government. A new Bill under Option 2 should set out to do just that.

My views on Standard Securities are contained in an article entitled “Is it Time for a Crofting Mortgage Bill?” originally published by The Firm Online on 31 May 2010 and subsequently reproduced in The Crofting Law Group Newsletter. Those views have not changed with the passage of time.

Those were my responses. You can view 97 of the 122 submitted responses (N.B. 97 of those 122 respondents gave consent to publish their responses) via this Scottish Government link: https://consult.gov.scot/agriculture-and-rural-communities/crofting-consultation-2017/consultation/published_select_respondent.

In future blog posts I will look at the analysis of those responses and the Scottish Government’s plans in light of that analysis. I will also publish on this blog my views on Standard Securities from 2010 as ‘The Firm Online’, where those views were originally published, is no longer online.

A “big step” or a just step?

2 Replies

Lucy Carmichael from the Scottish Government Crofting Policy Team at the Lewis and Harris Crofters meeting in Stornoway on 3 August 2016My last post considered the overwhelming view of Harris and Lewis crofters that the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, must go given his role in the alleged abuse of power within the Crofting Commission dubbed ‘The Common Clearances‘.

But despite many calls over several weeks for him to consider his position there is no sign of him stepping down anytime soon. In the absence of him doing the right thing is it time for the Scottish Ministers to force his hand?

This issue was raised at the meeting in Stornoway on 3rd August. This is how the West Highland Free Press reported the view thereon by Scottish Government crofting policy officer Lucy Carmichael and my response thereto:-

Ms Carmichael explained that the way crofting legislation is framed the only recourse available to crofters is to mount a challenge in the land court.

However, that was fiercely disputed by Mr Inkster who said that as the commission is a statutory body under the control of the Scottish Government it was perfectly legitimate for ministers to intervene if they felt it appropriate.

But Ms Carmichael felt that would be a “big step” – a statement which drew a sharp intake of breath from the audience, particularly those in Upper Coll who felt their removal from office was equally a big step and, indeed, unconstitutional.

Mr Inkster said that the commission had knowingly gone against their own legal advice, changed the guidance to common grazings committees and misinterpreted crofting legislation. “It is hard to see under such circumstances that anyone can have any confidence in any new guidance given out by the commission,” he said.

I would point out, if I recall correctly, that Lucy Carmichael also made reference to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland as other possible routes of recourse that crofters could take in addition to or instead of action via the Scottish Land Court.

Brian Inkster at the Lewis and Harris Crofters Meeting in Stornoway on 3 August 2016

In my very first blog post on the alleged abuse of power within the Crofting Commission I said, in connection with the removal from office of the Upper Coll Grazings Committee,:-

I would strongly suggest therefore that the Crofting Commission should, in all the circumstances, review this extraordinary decision. If they fail to do so the Scottish Government should maybe question the behaviour involved and perhaps even consider removing the commissioners responsible as “unsuitable to continue” as members. A power that the Scottish Ministers have at their disposal under the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. That may be seen by many as a more reasonable and justified use of power than that employed by the Crofting Commission.

46 blog posts on the common grazings debacle later and I am firmly of the view that it would indeed be a more reasonable and justified use of power than that employed by the Crofting Commission.

The evidence is now clear. The Crofting Commission have been exposed to knowingly acting illegally, clearly acting illogically, operating like a kangaroo court, creating conflicts of interest, brazenly deleting its own history and attempting to deny that history. They have been party to intimidation and bullying, obfuscation and manipulation, controlling grazings constables, flouting the will of Parliament and ignoring the law/lawyers. But ultimately they have made a massive U-turn which is nothing more than a clear admission that they got it wrong. They have cost the public purse a huge amount of money.

It is, in light of all of this, not a “big step” to remove a commissioner. It is an obvious step and a just one.

Brian Inkster

Images Credit © BBC Alba

Update on ‘alien’ owner-occupiers

Leave a Reply
Crofting Commission prepare to deal with the owner-occupier aliens

Crofting Commission prepare to deal with the owner-occupier ‘aliens’ on 6 August 2013

In my last post I promised an update on my earlier post about owners of croft land who are aliens to the Crofting Commission.

Well the ‘alien’ I made reference to in that post back on 22 May 2013 is not much further forward. The Crofting Commission have advised the ‘alien’ as follows:-

… the Crofting Commission agreed in December 2012 to adopt a policy that all decrofting and letting applications in respect of crofts with multiple owners must be submitted by all the owners in their capacity collectively as the “landlord” of the croft, even in these cases where the application related to a part of the croft held in title by only one of their number. The implementation of this policy gave rise to a number of queries, including whether a person in situation similar to your own may apply to the Commission for a decrofting Direction. The Crofting Commission has now received legal advice on this matter which, I understand, is to be considered at the Crofting Commission Board meeting to be held on 6 August 2013.  Once the Board has reached a view on this issue, we will then be in a position to update you on how your application may proceed.

Interesting that this policy was apparently adopted by the Crofting Commission in December 2012 as it was only made public by them on 18 February 2013. Before implementing this policy did it not occur to the crofting Commission that you could have a croft unit where part was held in tenancy and part was owner-occupied? Clearly not. Such issues have, it seems, only come to their attention since implementing the policy. Seven months later and they still don’t have a resolution to it. Eight months later and they just might depending upon what Commissioners decide on 6 August 2013.

I am also aware that the ‘alien’ in question is not alone. The crofting commission have ‘aliens’ to contend with. There is likely to be a good number of owner-occupiers who fall into this category. Indeed I highlighted in my last post that Donald and Elizabeth MacGillivray may well turn out to be ‘aliens’ too but their status is currently unknown.

I await the decision of the Crofting Commission on 6 August 2013 with interest but also with some trepidation.

Brian Inkster

[Picture Credit: Aliens – 20th Century Fox]