Tag Archives: Guidelines

You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment

Leave a Reply
You might think that, I couldnt possibly comment - Common Grazings Crisis - Crofting Commission - Scottish Government

There comes a point where actions speak louder than words

To date the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity with responsibility for Crofting, Fergus Ewing MSP, has not said much on the question of  ‘The Common Clearances‘.

Rhoda Grant MSP asked the Scottish Government:-

whether it is satisfied with how the Crofting Commission has acted in all matters relating to the dismissal of the Mangersta grazing committee.

Fergus Ewing MSP answered:-

The Crofting Commission is a non-departmental public body that takes regulatory decisions within the bounds of its duties and powers. Such decisions are taken independently and at arm’s length from Scottish Government.

Rhoda Grant MSP also asked the Scottish Government:-

whether it will establish an inquiry into the workings of the Crofting Commission.

Fergus Ewing MSP answered:-

The Scottish Government has no current plans to do so.

In addition Rhoda Grant MSP asked the Scottish Government:-

whether it has confidence in the convener of the Crofting Commission.

Fergus Ewing MSP answered:-

The Scottish Government is confident that the Crofting Commission board is able to deliver the functions of the commission.

That may have been the Scottish Government’s position on 27 June 2016. The massive U-turn taken by the Crofting Commission on 29 June 2016 should change that stance.

That U-turn and the manner in which it was executed demonstrates that the Crofting Commission got it wrong. They handled the whole Mangersta affair very badly indeed from start to finish. In light of this there can be no confidence that the board or their Convener is able to deliver the functions of the Commission.

The watershed moment was reached on 29 June. The Scottish Government can no longer sit on the fence. There has been as good an admission as any that the Crofting Commission failed the shareholders of Mangersta. In so doing they failed in their regulatory duties and should be made to account for those failings.

A day before the U-turn representatives of the Scottish Crofting Federation met with Fergus Ewing MSP. Commenting on that meeting the Chair of the Federation, Fiona Mandeville, said:-

We also had constructive discussion on the Crofting Commission crisis. We are very supportive of a majority elected Commission and fear that the common grazings debacle can jeopardise this. We therefore asked Mr Ewing to consider a procedural review of the Commission. At his request, we will send him a note outlining details of our recommendations forthwith.

In the wake of the U-turn, Fergus Ewing MSP should take heed of that request for a procedural review and actually now instigate it.

The Scottish Government can no longer hide behind suggestions that the Crofting Commission are at “arm’s length” from the Scottish Government.

The fact is that the Crofting Commission and their Commissioners are answerable to the Scottish Government.

Under and in terms of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993:-

  • The Crofting Commission shall discharge their functions in accordance with such directions of a general or specific character as may from time to time be given to them in writing by the Scottish Ministers. [Section 1(3)]
  • The Scottish Ministers may (a) confer functions on; (b) remove functions from; (c) otherwise modify functions of, the Crofting Commission, where they consider it appropriate to do so to ensure that the Crofting Commission carry out their functions efficiently and effectively. [Section 2A(1) and (2)]
  • In so doing Scottish Ministers may modify any enactment (including the 1993 Act). [Section 2A(3)(b)]
  • The Scottish Ministers may remove a member of the Crofting Commission from office if satisfied that the member is unable or unfit to exercise the functions of a member or is unsuitable to continue as a member. [Paragraph 9(1)(e) of Schedule 1]
  • The Crofting Commission must provide the Scottish Ministers with such information in respect of the exercise, or proposed exercise, of the Crofting Commission’s functions as the Scottish Ministers may, from time to time, require. [Paragraph 20 of Schedule 1]

So, far from being a body that the Scottish Government should consider to be at arms length from it, the Crofting Commission is one that is directly accountable to and ultimately under the control of the Scottish Ministers.

That being the case the Scottish Government should not, like the Crofting Commission, ignore the law involved. They should apply the law, as set out above, as necessary to make the Crofting Commission accountable for their actions over the Mangersta debacle.

Following the U-turn by the Crofting Commission, former members of Mangersta Common Grazing Committee stated:-

We continue to believe that there should be an inquiry into the functioning of the Crofting Commission.

An inquiry is necessary to answer questions such as:-

  • Why did the Crofting Commission reopen a case investigated, resolved and closed by the Crofters Commission?
  • On whose insistence and on what evidence was the case reopened?
  • Was there undeclared conflicts of interest by Crofting Commissioners involved in the matter?
  • What legal advice was sought by the Crofting Commission on the matter? From whom, when, on whose insistence and on what basis? Was such legal advice followed?
  • Why were inconsistencies applied by the Crofting Commission to the handling of this case compared to others being dealt with contemporaneously?
  • Why was the removal from office of the Grazings Committee at the time deemed justifiable and necessary?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission ignore and not respond to the legal position put forward on behalf of members of the dismissed Grazings Committee?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission refuse to revisit their decision (saying that they could not in law do so) but ultimately did just that?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission ignore their own guidelines on the investigation of questions of financial impropriety which they had stated were a matter for the civil or criminal courts?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission purport to appoint a Grazings Constable when there is no basis in law to do so and then sought to extend that appointment, again when there is no basis in law to do so?
  • Why was the particular Grazings Constable in question appointed, on what basis and was a conflict of interest declared by any Commissioners relative to that appointment?
  • Was the Grazings Constable really independent and impartial or was he provided with instructions for the discharge of his appointment by the Crofting Commission?
  • Why did the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, attend a meeting of the shareholders of the Mangersta Common Grazings and refuse to leave when a conflict of interest had been declared by him?
  • Why and on what basis in law, when shareholders questioned the legality of the Commissioners proposals at that meeting, were they told that if all shareholders did not accept them, the Commission would not allow shareholders to reform a committee?
  • Did the Crofting Commission’s handling of the matter result in the resignation of William Swann as a Commissioner?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission issue guidelines on the management of grazings funds, then delete those guidelines and claim that they had never said what they had said in them?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission insist that funds had to be paid out by Grazings Clerks to shareholders “immediately” when Roseanna Cunningham MSP, on behalf of the Scottish Government, clarified on 21 June 2016 that “the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 does not require the immediate disbursement of funds by a grazings committee”?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission insist on common grazings funds being managed in a way that defied logic and was not set out anywhere in law?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission not take cognisance of the statement by Minister of State for Scotland, Lord Kirkhill, in the House of Lords on 6 April 1976 regarding the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill that “there would seem to be nothing [in the bill] to prevent a voluntary arrangement being made whereby any crofter’s share would be diverted to the grazings committee”?

These are questions that the Scottish Ministers can no longer ignore following the recent U-turn by the Crofting Commission. The Scottish Ministers must comment properly on them and, if necessary, take appropriate action under and in terms of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993.

The only way that they will be able to properly pass such comment and take such action is following a focused and detailed investigation into how and why the Crofting Commission handled the Mangersta situation in the manner that they did.

That case is no longer ongoing and is not subject to court proceedings. The Crofting Commission therefore cannot hide from, prevent or delay an investigation specifically focussed thereon. Fergus Ewing MSP must now instigate just such an investigation for the future stability, survival and sustainability of crofting in Scotland.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: House of Cards © BBC

Yes Crofting Minister

Leave a Reply
Yes Crofting Minister

James Hacker: You said yourself how important these select committees are. I cannot be seen to mislead them.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You will not be SEEN to mislead them.

How the Crofting Commission played out their sudden and surprise U-turn on the question of ‘The Common Clearances‘ would not have been out of place in an episode of Yes Minister. Sir Humphrey Appleby would have delighted in the obfuscation and manipulation displayed by the Crofting Commission in Holyrood on Wednesday night. However, like Sir Humphrey, the Crofting Commission is not immune to making miscalculations or outright blunders.

It was the first meeting, since the latest Scottish Government was formed, of the Cross Party Group on Crofting within the Scottish Parliament.

It was the first time, since allegations of abuse of power within the Crofting Commission over ‘The Common Clearances‘ were made, that the Crofting Commission would meet eye to eye with politicians and other crofting stakeholders in a public forum.

In the preceding week or two damning revelations had been made of historical revisionism and flouting the will of Parliament on the part of the Crofting Commission. This was on top of votes of no confidence against them, the Convener of the Crofting Commission attending meetings despite a clear conflict of interest,  a Crofting Commissioner resigning and calls for the Scottish Government to investigate the whole matter.

It looked like the Commission would be in for a very rough time at the Cross Party Group meeting.

They knew that and had to do something quick and decisive to limit the damage being caused to them and that could be wrought on them at that meeting.

Nothing like a massive U-turn, with an attempt to dress it up in other ways, to achieve that.

So Crofting Commissioner, Murdo Maclennan (the Convener, Colin Kennedy, was conspicuous by his absence), announced to the Cross Party Group that he “thought we have a conclusion” on Mangersta and there was “no grazing constable in place at the moment“.

On being pressed for clarification on certain elements of this the Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission, Catriona Maclean, elaborated that:-

there is no constable at present, the case is over and the people of Mangersta will be advised.

So case closed and no further discussion on that then. Please move along ladies and gentlemen.

When the removal of the Upper Coll common grazings committee from office was mentioned that, of course, could not be discussed as it was subject to on going proceedings in the Scottish Land Court.

The third committee that the Crofting Commission have evicted from office was not mentioned at all, other than briefly by me when Commissioner Murdo Maclennan insisted that I declare my interests. I think that perhaps backfired on him as the Commission would rather pretend that episode never happened as there has, to date, been no publicity surrounding it.

So one case conveniently closed, one sub judice and one we can simply forget about. Thus nothing really to talk about.

The extra gloss on this being that new guidelines were being produced by the Commission and all would be well when these were issued and followed. My criticism of this approach is already well known. You have to get the law right first before you write guidelines about how to follow that law. The Commission’s viewpoint is that their interpretation of the law will follow “in due course”. Perhaps this is because their latest massive U-turn means they actually now accept the law to be as I have been setting it out to be on this blog for some time!

The U-turn is great news for the shareholders in the Mangersta Common Grazings and the former members of their grazings committee. It is a vindication of the position correctly maintained by them throughout.

It leaves the Crofting Commission with egg on their face however they try to dress it up. The Emperor’s New Clothes remains a theme, in so far as the Commission is concerned, post the Cross Party Group meeting.

In my next blog post I will reveal how the Crofting Commission not only ignore the law but lawyers who write to them concerning it. In a subsequent blog post I will explore the significance of the latest U-turn by the Crofting Commission and the possible repercussions thereof.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: Yes Minister © BBC

Update – 2 July 2016: Ignore the law and the lawyers

The deleted Crofting Commission post

Leave a Reply
Rebel Crofters store the data from the Crofting Commission

The Crofting Commission did not bank on the Rebel Alliance of Crofters having the technology to store and retrieve data

In the last post on this blog reference was made to the Crofting Commission deleting its history. The possible purpose for this historical revisionism will become apparent in subsequent posts on this blog. For now we reproduce, for posterity, that deleted post from 25 April 2016 (the Crofting Commission clearly not being technologically savvy enough to completely cover their tracks):-

COMMON GRAZINGS THE RIGHTS OF CROFTERS AND THE DUTIES OF
GRAZINGS COMMITTEES AND THEIR GRAZINGS CLERKS

It seems to me like a very good time to remind shareholders in Common Grazings
what their rights are and what the duties of the Grazings committee and their
Grazings clerk are. The following is a brief overview of the key points that everyone
involved should understand. Many people reading this may think that this is not what
happens in their village and may feel that it is overly bureaucratic but this is what is
contained in the Crofting Acts. If this process is not what is now required then the
only way to address it would be to ensure that any new Act reflects current
requirements. Until then the Commission have a responsibility for regulating crofting
within current legislation.

Shareholders

  • Crofters who share in a common grazing have certain rights over the land. These
    rights, or pertinents, include the grazing of stock, access to a house or pier or
    foreshore, an area for laying up a boat, the right to collect seaware, the right to cut
    peat, the right to use heather and grass for thatching. These rights, shared with
    others, are over the whole area comprising the common grazing. There are also
    certain common Grazings used as arable machairs, particularly in the Western Isles,
    where the crofters may have a right of cropping. The crofting acts state that the only
    way this can be changed is:-
  • If the landlord resumes an area of the Grazings for a reasonable purpose and
    the shareholders are compensated for their loss and obtain a share of the
    development value of the resumed land.
  • An individual gets an apportionment when his souming may be adjusted.
  • If shareholders enter into a forestry project in terms of section 50 or 50A of the
    crofting Act.
  • If the land court has agreed to a scheme for development under section 19A
    which is binding on all parties.
  • If the majority of the shareholders voting and the Grazings committee or
    constable have obtained the Commission’s consent to use part of the
    Grazings for some other purposeful use under section 50B.
  • Through Compulsory purchase by an acquiring authority with powers of
    compulsory purchase under section 37 of the Act, subject to compensation
    and share in the development value as with resumption.
  • By a reorganisation scheme.
  • Any other local Grazings arrangement is not binding on shareholders who, if they
    choose to do so retain the right to graze stock equivalent to their souming over the
    whole Grazings and the committee and clerk should ensure that any shareholder
    wishing to use the Grazings is accommodated.

Grazings Committees

The most important thing that shareholders in a common Grazings need to
understand is that the Grazings committee act as trustees of the shareholders. The
Land Court has stated that:-

..they (that is the Grazings committee) have clear duty to act as trustees of
the WHOLE shareholders in the Grazings and therefore it is their duty to act
impartially and judicially, keep in view what is their paramount consideration
– how the common Grazings can best be administered to the greatest
advantage of ALL of the tenants sharing in the Grazings….

The general responsibilities of the Committee are to:-

  • Make regulations (which require the consent of the Commission and) which
    should in the spirit of their primary duty to accommodate the requirements of
    all shareholders. Regulations cannot themselves curtail the right of any
    shareholder to graze his souming across the whole Grazings other than in the
    circumstances detailed under the paragraph entitled ‘Shareholders’ or to meet
    any specific environmental designations.
  • Hold an annual general meeting and the clerk should give the meeting an
    account of the work of the committee and of the financial position. At this
    meeting the committee should answer the questions of the shareholders
    whom they represent.
  • MAINTAIN the Grazings and any fixed equipment. That is clearly any existing
    fixed equipment such as fences. They can do this without reference to the
    shareholders and they should claim back any costs INCURRED from each of
    the shareholders whether they are actively using the Common Grazing or
    not.
  • Should the committee wish to carry out any IMPROVEMENTS to the Grazings
    they cannot do so unless they have served notice on each shareholder and
    told them how much the shareholder’s proportion of the cost will be. This
    gives the shareholder the opportunity to make representations against any
    such proposal to the Commission.

Financial management

As trustees any money received by the committee belongs to the shareholders and
should be distributed to them as soon as is reasonably practicable. It is NOT the
township’s or the committee’s money and as such it is the duty of the Grazings Clerk
to distribute any money received from whatever source, but in particular
resumptions, according to each individual shareholder’s share entitlement whether or
not they are active crofters.

When the Grazings Committee require monies to maintain the common Grazings
and the fixed equipment or to carry out works for improvements, the committee must
levy and recover the required monies directly from the shareholders for onward
payment to any third parties.

The rights of crofters have been detailed above and there is no explicit provision
in the crofting acts for the Grazings committee or clerk to be involved in the
administration or coordination of schemes falling within the provisions of
IACS regulations. So any involvement or concern regarding this should be directed
to the scheme administrators. Notwithstanding that fact, as the committee are acting
on behalf of the shareholders, any monies received and lodged in the Grazing
Committee Bank Account belongs to shareholders and must be distributed to each
shareholder in accordance with their share entitlement. It is important that all monies
are distributed to all shareholders timeously in order to assist correct financial
accounting by each individual shareholder should they require to make an annual
return to the HMRC.

There is nowhere in the Crofting Acts that allows a Grazings Committee to retain and
spend shareholders’ money on projects, village improvement works, or make gifts or
donations no matter how altruistic the purpose for which that money is to be spent.
Should townships wish to do this they should set up a separate, appropriate,
mechanism to do so and gather in any necessary funds from those willing to
participate.

Finally, I would like to say that the Crofting Commission is keen to see, wherever
possible, that crofting communities regulate themselves. It may be that shareholders
in your Common Grazings were unaware of the law and your committee has not
been being run in line with the requirements of the Crofting Act. If this is the case it
is important that shareholders and the committee hold a meeting to discuss this and
work together to ensure your Grazings Committee functions within the requirements
of the Crofting Acts.

Colin N Kennedy
Convener
Crofting Commission

Image Credit: Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope © Lucasfilm Ltd

Update: Is this why the post was deleted?: Oh yes you did!