Tag Archives: decrofting debacle

100 Crofting Law blog posts

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

Pressure mounts for a full investigation of the Crofting Commission

Leave a Reply

The truth is out there

On this blog on 25 April 2016 I called for the Scottish Government to review the Crofting Commission’s actions in connection with ‘The Common Clearances‘ due to an alleged abuse of power within Great Glen House.

The Scottish Crofting Federation and others have backed that call. Yesterday the Scottish Crofting Federation reiterated that call on the back of apparent historical revisionism on the part of the Crofting Commission. Statements by the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, previously published on their website have been deleted and a different version of events presented by their Chief Executive, Catriona Maclean.

The uncovering of this underhand behaviour on the part of the Crofting Commission has resulted in mounting pressure for the Scottish Government to now actually do something about it.

Uisdean Robertson, Councillor and Chair of the Joint Crofting Committee of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles Council), has been quoted as saying on Radio nan Gàidheal that the Council have no confidence in the members of the Crofting Commission and their Chief Executive. He has said that Crofting Commissioners and the Chief Executive all need to think about their positions in light of what has gone on.

Brian Wilson, writing in The Scotsman, has said:-

The immediate question is whether the Scottish Government is prepared to back their quango’s interpretation of the law and its heavy-handed approach to enforcement.

In the short term, a rapid inquiry into why the Crofting Commission has got itself into this mess and how it can be helped out of it may seem a relatively attractive option.

It has been asked on Twitter who would carry out such an inquiry. It must be someone with investigative experience (with a team at their disposal to assist them) and who is truly independent with no association whatsoever with Commissioners, the Convener or the Chief Executive.

Also, in my view, the Scottish Government should directly involve the Scottish Land Court by submitting a reference to them under section 53 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 to answer the questions in law that the Crofting Commission have been evading. Catriona Maclean, the Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission, has stated:-

The Commission is confident they are applying the law correctly but the only place this can be clarified is in the Scottish Land Court.

However, the Crofting Commission have yet to set out any legal argument with reference to statute or case law to show that they are applying the law correctly. I am strongly of the view that they are not. My detailed legal reasoning to them on this has gone unchallenged other than for them to say that once they make a decision that is final and cannot be changed by them!

If the Crofting Commission are so confident that they are applying the law correctly they should have nothing to fear by making a reference to the Scottish Land Court to confirm that. As they clearly do not wish to actually be found out to be in the wrong (the same is true of the decrofting debacle that resulted in unnecessary ‘remedial’ legislation at huge expense to the taxpayer when a Section 53 reference could easily have resolved the issue) the Scottish Government should advance that reference or insist that the Crofting Commission do so.

The truth is out there and it is in the Scottish Government’s hands to find it.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: The X-Files © Ten Thirteen Productions, 20th Television, 20th Century Fox Television

No let up on the Common Clearances crisis whilst on holiday!

Leave a Reply

No let up in the Common Clearances whilst in Morocco

Could I really escape the presence of the Crofting Commission in Morocco?

I have been in Morocco on holiday for the past couple of weeks. The run up to getting away and being away has meant a lull in reporting by me on The Common Clearances.

The last time I was in Morocco coincided exactly with the Scottish Government’s one week consultation period on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. A bill that arose from the Decrofting Debacle unnecessarily and unjustifiably created by the Crofting Commission. Notice a theme?

I spent that week writing detailed submissions and drafting a better (in my view) bill for the Scottish Government and submitting it to them from Marrakech. A civil servant was to later tell me that my intervention was unhelpful. No doubt the same view is taken in the corridors of Saughton House and Great Glen House over my comments on The Common Clearances.

But it has been said that we provide a clear and understandable source of information at the Crofting Law Blog, something that you cannot get from the Crofting Commission (see ‘A Happy Crofter‘).

I decided, this holiday in Morocco, to actually have a holiday. Now I am back a quick look at the internet tells me there has been no let up in the Common Clearances crisis. As far as I can glean, so far, since I last blogged:-

The Crofting Commission held a meeting in Lewis with shareholders of the Mangersta Common Grazings which was chaired by Commissioner William Swann but “marred by a menacing presence” in that the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, turned up unexpectedly to observe proceedings despite having declared a conflict of interest.
Members of the ousted Upper Coll Grazings Committee applied for an interim interdict against the appointment of the Grazings Constable at Inverness Sheriff Court and that was refused.
John Finnie MSP has asked questions about the situation in the Scottish Parliament which have been answered in a fairly neutral manner by Cabinet Minister Fergus Ewing MSP.
Further parliamentary questions have been asked by John Finnie MSP and Rhoda Grant MSP about the issue with answers anticipated to be given by Fergus Ewing MSP on 23 June 2016.
Patrick Krause, Chief Executive of the Scottish Crofting federation, has written about ‘The Spirit of the Law – The inexplicable case of a public body confusing legal dogma with good sense’.
It was reported on Radio nan Gàidheal that another grazings committee has been put out of office by the Crofting Commission, this time on the Scottish mainland.
It was also reported by Radio nan Gàidheal that a grazings committee in South Uist has put themselves out of office to avoid any difficulties that may be encountered with being regulated by the Crofting Commission.
Commissioner William Swann has resigned from the Crofting Commission.
Propaganda about ‘the role of grazings committees in representing shareholders’ has been published by the Crofting Commission.
The former and ousted Convener of the Crofting Commission, Susan Walker, has written in the West Highland Free Press about the situation.
The Upper Coll Grazing Constable (illegally appointed in my view) has issued a letter to the press.

I will try to catch up on all of these developments on this blog in some detail, and share my thoughts on each, over the coming weeks. Do let me know if I have missed anything.

I also have to tell you on this blog about Inksters’ new and enhanced crofting law team (you may have read about that elsewhere before now).

So keep an eye on the Crofting Law Blog over the next few weeks for, as the ‘Happy Crofter‘ put it, an “invaluable source of information that [is] virtually impossible to find anywhere else”.

Brian Inkster

Update – 13 June 2016: The Crofting Law A-Team

Update – 14 June 2016: ‘A Menacing Presence’

Update – 15 June 2016: Common Grazings and the Spirit of the Law

Update – 16 June 2016: Crofting Commissioner Resigns over situation the Scottish Government and Crofting Commission need to sort out

The Year of The Crofting Law Sump

Leave a Reply

As 2015 draws to a close I am reproducing here an article I wrote for the Scottish Legal News Annual Review 2015. It looks at Crofting Law in 2014. Now a whole year ago I know. I have been asked to write another such review of 2015 which I will be doing shortly. That will appear in the Scottish Legal News Annual Review 2016.

The Crofting Law Sump was set up by the Crofting Law Group in 2013. The purpose of ‘the Sump’ was to gather together details of the significant problem areas within existing crofting legislation.

During passage through the Scottish Parliament of the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013, MSPs were informed by practitioners who had been called to give evidence about the many problems in the existing legislation that were causing difficulties for crofters, landlords and others.

Paul Wheelhouse MSP, who was then Minister for Environment and Climate Change with responsibility for crofting, gave an undertaking that his officials would investigate, in consultation with stakeholders, what the best method might be for dealing with these outstanding issues.

The Sump was set up to assist the Government in this process. Administration was carried out by Derek Flyn, retired crofting lawyer, and Keith Graham, formerly Principal Clerk of the Scottish Land Court. 2014 saw much activity by them both collating the issues and problems that are causing difficulties, prioritising them and indicating how the problems can be resolved.

In May 2014 the Crofting Law Group held workshops in Inverness to look at the problem areas identified in the Collected Sump Report and provide feedback thereon. Following those workshops and a written consultation process the Commented Sump Report was produced. There was then feedback sought on the priority levels attributable to problem areas within that report. Further debate on the Sump took place at the Crofting Law Group Conference in Lochmaddy, North Uist in October. The Final Report of the Crofting Law Sump, highlighting 126 problem issues, was then presented to the Scottish Government on 10 December 2014.

2015 will be the year that we hopefully see what the Scottish Government plan to do to resolve all of the problem areas that have been identified.

Whilst the Sump was being contemplated the Scottish Land Court were making decisions that shaped or clarified the law. During the year Lord McGhie retired as Chairman of the Land Court and was succeeded by Sheriff Roderick John MacLeod QC who became Lord Minginish. Sheriff MacLeod had been the Deputy Chair of the Land Court since 2006.

Whilst there were a few interesting and important decisions of the Land Court in 2014 the crofting law year ended with a bang following their decision in MacGillivray v Crofting Commission (Application RN SLC/99/13 — decision of 18 December 2014).

That case concerned the Crofting Commission’s policy on decrofting where a croft unit is held in multiple ownership.

On 14 December 2012 Crofting Commissioners agreed 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 those cases where the application related to a part of the croft held in title by only one of their number. This decision was based on legal advice obtained by the Commission but never published by them.

For the past two years many people have been affected by this policy decision and have been unable to decroft and thus develop land they own if a neighbour who happens to own part of the original croft unit is not willing to consent to the proposed development taking place. Mr & Mrs MacGillivray were in that very position. Their application to decroft land at North Ballachulish for house building had been rejected by the Crofting Commission because it did not have the consent of the landlord of that part of the original croft unit that remained in tenancy. Mr & Mrs MacGillivray referred the matter to the Scottish Land Court who decided that the Crofting Commission were wrong and it was competent for an owner of part of a croft to seek to decroft without requiring the consent of any other owners of the original croft unit. The Land Court took the view that the reference to a croft in the Crofting Acts applied equally to part of a croft.

The Land Court’s decision will have come as a relief to many who have been affected by the Crofting Commission’s policy. However, any hopes of an early resolution to their own predicaments have been dashed by the Crofting Commission lodging a request that a special case be stated on a question of law for the opinion of the Court of Session. It is now likely to be many months before a ruling is issued that will settle the matter once and for all.

Many crofting lawyers, including myself, have long held the view that the Crofting Commission’s policy was not a correct interpretation of the law. At the outset I called on this matter to be resolved before the Land Court by the Commission or action to be taken by the Scottish Government to do so. It is a pity that one affected party (there are many) has had to take the Crofting Commission to task over this whilst others have been left in limbo for over two years.

The Land Court’s decision was a clear, sensible and fair one. Even if the Court of Session ultimately were to take a different view, affected parties will continue to lobby the Scottish Government to amend crofting legislation to allow those who own croft land to be able to apply to decroft at their own instance. It is a problem that was highlighted in the final Sump Report as a priority one for the Scottish Government to tackle. They may, of course, not have to tackle it if the Court of Session agrees with the Land Court’s interpretation of the law.

N.B. Since this article was first published the Crofting Commission withdrew their request for a special case to be stated on a question of law for the opinion of the Court of Session. Therefore, the Land Court’s decision in MacGillivray v Crofting Commission (Application RN SLC/99/13 — decision of 18 December 2014) stands. See: Crofting Commission make a U-turn on Decrofting Appeal to the benefit of many owner-occupiers.

Download the Scottish Legal News Annual Review 2015 [via Calameo].

Brian Inkster

A New Solicitor for the Crofting Commission

Leave a Reply

David Findlay – Crofting Commission Solicitor

David Findlay has been appointed as the Solicitor to the Crofting Commission.

David is from Perthshire (with roots in Lewis), and began his career in Stornoway as a trainee. He then moved to a Perthshire firm, before moving North again to join Macleod & MacCallum’s Rural Land Department. During his time at Macleod & MacCallum he specialised in crofting law, becoming accredited as a specialist by the Law Society of Scotland in 2013.

David will be part of the Commission’s Senior Management Team, comprising:-

Catriona Maclean, Chief Executive and Accountable Officer
John Toal – Head of Policy and Crofting Duties
Donna Smith – Head of Information Systems
Joseph Kerr – Head of Regulation
Jane Thomas – Head of Corporate and Customer Services

All Change

The regulatory body for crofting has been through a period of intense change.

The old Crofters Commission was abolished by the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. The new Crofting Commission was formed in 2012, and comprised 3 appointed and 6 elected Commissioners.

The Commission’s former Chief Executive Nick Reiter retired in 2012, and Catriona Maclean is now in that post. Mr Reiter’s retirement was followed the next year by the resignation of Donnie Ross, Commissioner for Caithness, Orkney and East Highlands. Mr Ross was replaced by Marina Dennis, who had previously served as a Commissioner with the Crofters Commission.

Sandy Cross, an appointed Commissioner who was to specifically represent the interests of landlords, also resigned, in 2014. He has recently been replaced by David Campbell.

In addition, there have been several changes in the Commission’s legal agency since the early retirement of Donald Smith in 2010.

Is all Publicity Good Publicity?

The Commission have also been in the news (and in this blog) several times over the last few years, as a result of the stance they took on owner-occupiers decrofting – namely that the 2010 Act did not allow them to do so. This was tagged the #decroftingdebacle, and resulted in the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013, which my colleague Brian Inkster considered to be wholly unnecessary.

The #decroftingdebacle was followed by the Commission’s policy to shackle together legally those who owned parts of a croft. The signature of each owner was required on an application to decroft or let, and that policy caused serious problems for many crofters.

The Commission will now change that policy, in light of the decision of the Scottish Land Court in MacGillivary v Crofting Commission (blogged by Brian: Crofting Commission make a U-turn on Decrofting Appeal to the benefit of many owner-occupiers).

The Commission and its staff must surely be looking forward to sailing in calmer waters ahead, and we wish them well in that.

Eilidh Ross MacLellan

Crofting Commission make a U-turn on Decrofting Appeal to the benefit of many owner-occupiers

2 Replies

The Crofting Commission today confirmed that it has withdrawn its appeal to the Court of Session in connection with the Scottish Land Court’s decision of 18 December 2014 in the case of MacGillivray v Crofting Commission. That case concerned the Crofting Commission’s policy on decrofting where a croft unit is held in multiple ownership.

This is a sensible decision by the Crofting Commission and puts the position back to what it was before they decided on 14 December 2012 to interpret crofting law in a way that I do not believe was ever intended by the Scottish Government. The Land Court decision was a clear, sensible and fair one and it makes much sense for the Crofting Commission to abide by it.

There will be a huge sense of relief amongst owner-occupiers of croft land who are not classified in law as owner-occupier crofters. They can now apply to decroft land that they own without requiring the consent of neighbours who happen to be owners of part of the original croft unit. The lack of such consent in certain instances was causing huge problems for many who have been in a state of limbo for over two years now.

The Crofting Commission in their official press release have stated:-

Due to the fixed deadline for submitting an appeal, the Crofting Commission submitted a skeleton appeal to provide it with sufficient time to convene the full Commission and allow it to discuss the implications of the decision.

The Commission met last week to review the case and it was decided to withdraw the appeal and accept the ruling of the Land Court which establishes that a single owner, as the landlord of their part of the croft, are entitled to submit a regulatory decrofting application to the Commission.

The Crofting Commission had originally found Mr & Mrs MacGillivray’s application to decroft land at 37 North Ballachulish for house building to have been incompetent, therefore, the Commission could not take a decision on it. The recent Scottish Land Court ruling found the application to be competent. No decision has been made yet on the merits of the application which the Commission will now have to reconsider.

The case challenged the Commission’s policy which was adopted at its Board meeting on 14 December 2012. The policy found that all decrofting and letting applications in respect of crofts with multiple owners, must be submitted by all of the owners, in their capacity collectively as the ‘landlord’ of the croft.

The Land Court has ruled that in a multiple ownership situation one of the owners can apply independently from the other owners where the application solely relates to the land that they own.

Crofting Commission Convener, Susan Walker said “The ruling has implications on part croft owners in relation to the requirement to register the croft prior to submitting certain regulatory applications. The Commission is working to align our policy to the ruling and will begin to process applications relating to part crofts from single owners.”

Brian Inkster

Decrofting effective after Royal Assent

3 Replies

Queen gives royal assent to Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013

We shall decroft

The Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013 become law on 31 July 2013 when it received Royal Assent. This will have come as a great relief to many owner-occupier crofters who were in decrofting limbo. What will also have been welcoming to those crofters was the speed at which the Crofting Commission, having halted the decrofting process, actually processed applications post 31 July with some decrofting directions being issued during the first week of August. With a 42 day appeal period that means that this coming week (assuming no appeals) many owner-occupier crofters will have effective decrofting directions for the first time since the Crofting Commission stopped accepting and processing applications on 25 February 2013 (i.e. 7 months later).

So relief for owner-occupier crofters but not yet for many owner-occupiers (who are not owner-occupier crofters) if they cannot get consent to decroft from neighbours who happen to be owners of part of what was the original croft unit. They will unfortunately remain in decrofting limbo. I have blogged previously on this blog about the inequity of this situation and will continue to do so in future blog posts.

Brian Inkster

[Photo Credit: The Queen at her Balmoral Estate in Scotland taken by Julian Calder]

Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill Published

3 Replies

Scottish Parliament

The Crofting (Amendment) Scotland Bill was introduced yesterday and published this morning:-

This Bill is to resolve the perceived ‘flaw’ in the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 which the Crofting Commission say prevents them from processing or approving decrofting applications from owner-occupier crofters. See Top Secret Crofting Law and Decrofting Bill.

Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse said:

It came to light recently that there was an issue with the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Scottish government, along with the Crofting Commission, has been working extremely hard to resolve these issues as quickly as possible.

There are, clearly, different legal opinions on this issue, and this bill will provide legal certainty for all involved in the process on the competency of owner-occupier crofter applications to the commission to decroft their land.

The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee (RACCE) is seeking views from organisations and individuals on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

How to submit written evidence

Evidence should be concise and typewritten in Word format.

The deadline for receipt of written submissions is Friday 17 May 2013. Owing to the timescale normally required for the processing and analysis of evidence, late submissions will only be accepted with the advance agreement of the clerk. The Committee prefers to receive written submissions electronically. These should be sent to: racce.committee@scottish.parliament.uk

You may also send a hard copy of written submissions to:

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee
Scottish Parliament
Holyrood
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP

They welcome written evidence in any language.

My thoughts

I will post my thoughts on the Crofting (Amendment) Scotland Bill when I have had the chance to digest it.

Brian Inkster

Decrofting Bill

2 Replies

It was announced today by Paul Wheelhouse MSP, Minister for Environment and Climate Change with responsibility for crofting, that the Scottish Government intends to bring forward a Bill, as soon as possible after the Easter Recess, to address the “flaw” in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 that “inadvertently limits the circumstances in which owner-occupier crofters can apply to decroft land”. Not so much limits than completely prevents as far as the information issued to date by the Crofting Commission would suggest.

I have, of course, suggested that the existing legislation can be interpreted in such a way to allow decrofting of owner-occupied crofts. However, with differing opinions (although the Crofting Commission’s legal advice remains unseen) it is sensible for the position to be resolved beyond any doubt. Properly drafted legislation will hopefully do just that. A reference to the Land Court under section 53(1) of the 1993 Act could have done the same thing. However, the Crofting Commission would have faced the possibility of being found to have got it wrong using that route so perhaps it was not the favoured one.

In response to a question from Claire Baker MSP it was clarified by Paul Wheelhouse MSP that:-

… we are not proposing emergency legislation; rather, we are talking about a short crofting Bill that will – with the will of Parliament – be subject to expedited procedures.

Tavish Scott MSP stated (following the debate):-

Crofters across Shetland are directly affected by this shambles, so I welcome the Scottish government’s commitment to bring forward a proposed law change after the Easter break, but I want this done quickly. I will certainly support legislation that solves the problem, but this uncertainty affecting crofters needs to be ended quickly and I am urging the minister to work with MSPs across Parliament to achieve cross party agreement on both the new law and the timescale. Speed is of the essence.

Whilst I would agree with these sentiments it is also important that the Scottish Government get it right. Thus the new Bill needs to be handled with care.

Dr Alasdair Allan MSP asked what would be done “to seek crofters’ views on the Bill’s content as it makes its way through Parliament”. Paul Wheelhouse MSP indicated that the Scottish Government would “provide due opportunity for scrutiny” and he would be happy to consider any particular suggestions on how to consult crofters in Dr Allan’s constituency.

Rhoda Grant MSP asked whether the Government would “publish its legal advice, so that solicitors can properly advise clients”. Paul Wheelhouse MSP responded:-

As far as legal advice is concerned, I am sure that Rhoda Grant knows the contstraints that exist in that regard. In progressing the Bill, we will try to make it as clear as possible why we think that the legislation is flawed and what we need to do to rectify that. We will try to give as much clarity as possible on the rationale for the action that we propose to take.

I am not so sure that constraints actually exist on publishing the legal advice given the circumstances that we have here. However, the reassurance of clarity being given is welcome in view of the fact that such clarity has been absent to date.

Jamie McGrigor MSP asked:-

Will the legislation clarify the legal position on decrofting a croft that has been divided? The Crofting Commission say that people who own part of a croft cannot decroft in that part without the concurrence of the neighbours who own the remainder of what was the original croft.

Paul Wheelhouse MSP did not have an immediate answer to this question but the Minister promised to write a letter to Mr McGrigor to provide clarity on this point and undertook “to address the matter”. This is an area where the Crofting Commission may well be misinterpreting the legislation and, if not, another area where the 1993 Act is unlikely to be following the intent of Parliament. It would therefore be a folly not to tidy this up at the same time. The consequences of the Commission’s recent policy announcement will perhaps not be immediately clear but I believe will, through time, come back to haunt the Scottish Government if it is not dealt with effectively and decisively now.

When questioned by Claudia Beamish MSP on the question of people who have already been granted decrofting directions not having title to their property, Paul Wheelhouse MSP stated that “title is not affected for people in that position”. I would beg to differ on that point (I believe titles could arguably, in certain circumstances, be null and void) and do not believe the potential title consequences were thought through by the Commission when it decided that what it was doing was unlawful. However, in his earlier statement Paul Wheelhouse MSP said:-

There are also over 170 cases, in which the Commission had already granted approval to decroft, in good faith, before this problem came to light.

In the Government’s view, it is essential that their situation is addressed as part of the solution, and I hope Parliament will support that.

If the legislation retrospectively legitimises these particular decrofting directions then any potential title issues should also be resolved.

I have previously suggested that decrofting applications by owner-occupier crofters should be processed to the point of issue (but not issued) pending a solution to the situation being found. It was good to see Paul Wheelhouse MSP endorsing this view but it appears to be dependent upon the Crofting Commission agreeing to such a course of action rather than being directed to do so. Let’s hope that they at least see sense on that front. However, in response to a question from Jean Urquhart MSP it was suggested by Paul Wheelhouse MSP that owner-occupier crofters should “wait until there is clarity, following the amendment to the law”, before lodging applications to decroft. If a decision is taken to process applications already lodged to the point of issuing a Decrofting Direction, but not actually issuing it until the remedial legislation is in place, then I can see no good reason for treating new applications any differently.

Tavish Scott MSP said (following the debate):-

I am very concerned that many crofters have little or no faith in the Commission.

They have an important regulatory role over crofting but their handling of this matter has brought real financial difficulties to many people.

So the Commission has a big task in re-establishing its credibility in the crofting counties.

Time will tell. In the meantime I will be following the passage of the new Bill with great interest and will, of course, provide my thoughts on it on the Crofting Law Blog.

Brian Inkster

The time is ripe for a crofting law blog

5 Replies

Over the past three weeks eleven crofting law related news items have been posted at inksters.com:-

Crofting Commission halts decrofting process for owner-occupier crofters

Alternative opinion on owner-occupier crofters’ right to apply for a decrofting direction

When (if ever) is an owner-occupied croft vacant?

Call on Crofting Commission to reverse decrofting decision

Inaction over decrofting debacle – what now for crofters?

Minister re-affirms position on decrofting

Decrofting debated on BBC Radio Shetland

Raasay highlights problems with external ownership in crofting communities

Pairc legal challenge rejected

Inksters and Scottish Crofting Federation launch crofting law helpline

Crofting Law in North and South Uist and Benbecula

Most of these (the first seven listed) relate to the decrofting debacle created by the Crofting Commission when they suddenly announced that they were no longer processing applications to decroft made by owner-occupier crofters. The Crofting Commission believes that it is illegal for them to do so based on an interpretation of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 sought and obtained by them from their legal advisers. I have an alternative interpretation on that. I may not be correct. Crofting law is complex and often open to different interpretations. However, given that it is so complex, I do not believe that the Crofting Regulator should cease the work it has been doing, without question, to date and decree that the interpretation that it has obtained is the correct one. Surely that is the job of the Scottish Land Court and should follow on from an actual challenge of the procedures adopted by the Crofting Commission.

A week before the announcement on owner-occupied croft decrofting a more low key announcement was made on a change of policy by the Commission for decrofting and letting applications. This new policy is 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 those cases where the application related to a part of the croft held in title by only one of their number.This policy announcement has been overshadowed by the owner-occupier crofter decrofting debacle. It is, however, also a significant matter that needs careful consideration as to the consequenses that the Crofting Commission have now unleashed on that front, again as a result of their particular interpretation of the law. We will no doubt look at this in detail in a specific blog post on the Crofting Law Blog.

The Crofting Commission is new, in that it was established on 1 April 2012 to take over the regulation of crofting from the Crofters Commission. For the first time it consists of six Commissioners elected by crofters with the other three Commissioners having been appointed by Scottish Ministers. Only one of the nine Commissioners served on the former Crofters Commission. They have been in power for less than a year and are already making their mark on the world of crofting law even although they have yet to publish their Plan (it has to date been seen in draft form only). Perhaps that should have come first before pulling apart the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993.

Just before the decrofting debacle began we had the surprise decision by the Scottish Government not to renew the lease of sporting rights to the crofters of Raasay and grant it instead to a company from Ayrshire. This caused uproar and there was a sudden U-Turn by the Scottish Government.

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.

Brian Inkster