Tag Archives: Jean Urquhart MSP

Crofting Commission dodge answering questions

Dodging Bullets at the Crofting Commission

The Crofting Commission can stop your questions by simply not answering them!

The Cross-Party Group on Crofting has been waiting patiently on answers to 18 questions that they posed to the Crofting Commission. These were originally sent to the Crofting Commission in July 2016 then modified and sent in October 2016.

Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission cannot revisit its own decisions?
Why did the Crofting Commission chose to remove three grazings committees instead of work with them to improve things, if things needed improvement?
Why were grazings shareholders not given the chance to elect a new committee when the Crofting Commission removed their committee, instead of moving straight to the appointment of a grazings constable?
Does a removed committee have a right of appeal to the Crofting Commission?
Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission has the power to appoint a Grazings Constable when they remove members of a grazing committee from office?
Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission can extend the appointment of a Grazings Constable?
Why is the Crofting Commission ignoring its own guidelines on the investigation of financial irregularities?
Does the Crofting Commission maintain that all funds in a grazings bank account have to be disbursed immediately (including SRDP grants, as Mr MacLennan stated is the bulk of funds in the CPGoC)?
If there are 3 levels of accounting as outlined by Mr MacLennan (examination by external qualified person such as local retired bank manager, prepared by qualified accountant on information supplied, full forensic audit), what are the thresholds at which each is required? Do they apply to balance or income? Who decides what is appropriate (given this was the reason Mr MacLennan gave for the Upper Coll grazings committee being removed by the Crofting Commission?)
Why did the convener of the Crofting Commission involve himself in every one of these three cases and committee removals? Is this the job of a convener?
Did the convener of the Crofting Commission declare his interest in the cases when the commissioners made their decision to move to removal?
Does the Crofting Commission consider value for public money when pursuing cases?
Mr MacLennan emphasised that the Crofting Commission were obliged to act as a shareholder had made a complaint. This does not square with the Commission’s dealings relating to other regulatory matters. We are aware of complaints made by shareholders with regard to absenteeism and neglect of crofts that go many years without commission action so it would be good to know why you are so diligent in pursuing grazings committees with such rigour. Has there been a policy change to target this type of regulatory issue (as there was previously with absentees)?
Following the letter written to the Convener by Fergus Ewing concerning disbursement of common grazings funds to shareholders and SRDP funding there were mixed messages issued to the press by Commissioners. It appeared that the contents of the letter was supported but the Commission (or perhaps certain Commissioners) still thought they had done nothing wrong. Those two statements do not sit well next to one another. Can the Commission clarify their actual stance on the letter in clear terms for the benefit of this Group.
Can the Commission explain why they have been questioning SRDP funding for and VAT Registration by Common Grazings?
The Commission appear to be supporting their ‘constable’ Colin Souter and his behaviour at Upper Coll. Do they actually support a ‘constable’ who is having meetings with 4 shareholders and making decisions affecting 42 shareholders when 26 out of those 42 have signed a petition calling for his removal?
Will the Commission advise the Group what remit was given to Constable Souter and why he appeared to be acting in an investigatory role rather than as an actual clerk.
The latest revelation appears to be matters being decided by Commissioners via ‘brown envelopes’ rather than at board meetings. Can the Commission enlighten us further on this?

There were, in addition, two questions specifically posed to the Crofting Commission via the Cross-Party Group on Crofting by Iain MacKinnon on 1 November 2016:-

I would like to draw your attention to a letter by Colin Kennedy published this month in the Scottish Farmer. In the letter he draws the Scottish Crofting Federation’s attention to ‘the commission mole’ at the time of the ‘Susan Walker debacle’. Presumably he is referring here to the anonymous commissioner quoted by the West Highland Free Press when information was leaked to the paper and other media outlets about a letter signed by five commissioners – including Mr Kennedy – calling a meeting to discuss a potential vote of no confidence in Ms Walker. Mr Kennedy told the Scottish Farmer this month:

‘I can assure the SCF that prior to my becoming convener, the mole was identified and the information was provided to the appropriate persons to take the matter forward.’

At the Cross Party Group on Crofting’s meeting on 15th September last year, Jean Urquhart asked Mr Kennedy about the leak to the press.

He was unable to give her an answer and did not identify any ‘mole’ on that occasion. However, the then chief executive of the organisation was able to respond and this is noted in the minutes as follows:

‘What is being done about the fact that there was a leak to the press from a commissioner, which is a breach of the code of conduct?

While a newspaper claimed their was leak by a Commissioner, as Accountable Officer the CEO has carried out an internal investigation which found no evidence that any Commissioner had breached the code of conduct by leaking information on the matter to the press.’

I would like to hear from the Commission’s representative at the meeting how they reconcile these two statements and to ask again, in light of Mr Kennedy’s claim: what is being done about the leak to the press; and who was the ‘mole’ as described by Mr Kennedy in his letter to The Scottish Farmer.

Six months after the first questions were put to the Crofting Commission their Interim Chief Executive, Bill Barron, addressed them at the Cross-Party Group meeting at Holyrood on 25 January 2017 by stating that he didn’t intend to answer them but would like, instead, “to focus on the future“. He wanted to “draw a line under the rows of last year“. He acknowledged that “things had been done wrong” but there was “no merit in unpicking all of that“.

Mr Barron may have missed the fact that some of the rows of last year continue into this one.

He stated:-

Some of the specific issues raised in your questions have already been clarified by the Commission. For example, we have confirmed that we agree with the Scottish Government’s position that there is nothing in the CAP rules that prevents the Scottish Government approving an SRDP application made by a grazings committee, and that we agree with the Scottish Government’s position regarding immediate disbursement of funds.

These, however, are two points that the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, still appears to be taking issue with and possibly still taking a contrary position on compared to his fellow commissioners and the official line of the Crofting Commission. This is all contrary to the doctrine of collective corporate responsibility. Indeed it is interesting to note that following the departure from the Crofting Commission of their former Convener, Susan Walker, Colin Kennedy, then Vice Convener, stated [PDF: Board Minutes – 13 May 2015]:-

I am sure that I speak on behalf of everyone when I say that today we are all equal with collective responsibility. In fact we are all Conveners, working together for the betterment of the Crofting Commission.

However, his publicly opposing views to that of the board clearly conflict with that statement.

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.

Colin Kennedy was not in attendance at the Cross-Party Group meeting on Wednesday night. He has only attended one meeting out of the five that have taken place since the start of the current Parliamentary term.

At the meeting in Holyrood on Wednesday night the Chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation, Russell Smith, asked Bill Barron if Colin Kennedy was still Convener and was still chairing Board meetings. Bill Barron answered both questions in the affirmative. Russell Smith then asked if the Board was working as it should to which Bill Barron replied “it is not easy but it is getting its work done“. How well, under the circumstances, it is getting its work done is, however, very debatable.

On the points raised by Ian MacKinnon the response from Bill Barron was:-

The same [i.e. not answering the questions] holds for Iain MacKinnon’s questions about a leak to the press, which was investigated by the previous CEO in 2015. Colin Kennedy’s more recent public comments about this appear to have been made in a personal capacity, but I can confirm that the Commission has no plans to re-examine this matter. Instead, my priority is to look forward to the upcoming elections and to prepare to give the best possible support to the new Board.

So it is all about looking forward and not looking back. However, you sometimes have to look back to learn from your mistakes before you can move forward and avoid making the same mistakes again.

Perhaps the Scottish Government’s review into the governance of the Crofting Commission will reflect more on the mistakes of the past and what needs to be done to prevent a recurrence of them. The Cross-Party Group on Crofting was advised on Wednesday by Gordon Jackson, Head of Rural Business Development and Land Tenure at the Scottish Government, that this review will be published “shortly“.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: The Matrix Reloaded © Village Roadshow Pictures, Silver Pictures and NPV Entertainment

Crofting Law and the new Scottish Government

Political Consensus on the need for Crofting Law Reform

Crofting Law Hustings

1 Reply

The calm before the crofting law storm at the Signet Library!

Part of this year’s Crofting Law Conference (organised by the Crofting Law Group in association with the WS Society) will take the form of a hustings on crofting law. With the Scottish Parliamentary Elections looming there is great interest in crofting circles as to what the next Scottish Government might do to resolve the many problems in existing crofting legislation identified by The Crofting Law Sump Report.

The conference will take place at the Signet Library in Edinburgh on 17th March 2016 and is Chaired by Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt., QC, Chairman of the Crofting Law Group.

Brian Inkster, Hon Secretary of the Crofting Law Group, will provide an introduction as to where we are at with ‘The Crofting Law Sump’. Then Dr Aileen McLeod MSP, Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will keynote on the current Scottish Government’s position on crofting law. She will be followed by the ‘Views on Crofting Law from the Opposition’ from MSPs and representatives from other political parties. The crofting law hustings will culminate with an opportunity for delegates to put their own questions to the panel in a ‘Crofting Question Time’ session. Participants are:-

Jean Urquhart MSP, Independent (moderating ‘Crofting Question Time’)
Rob Gibson MSP, Scottish National Party
Rhoda Grant MSP, Scottish Labour
Tavish Scott MSP, Scottish Liberal Democrats
Donald Cameron, election candidate for Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Andy Wightman, election candidate for Scottish Green Party

Following on from the crofting law hustings several recognised specialist speakers will present on Crofting Succession and Crofting Mortgages and representatives from both the Crofting Commission and Registers of Scotland will be there to discuss current issues. There will also be a case law update. Speakers and panellists include:

David Findlay, Solicitor, Crofting Commission
Rod Maclean, Solicitor, Murchison Law
Jill Clark, Head of Civil Law Reform Unit, Justice Directorate, Scottish Government
Eilidh Ross MacLellan, Solicitor, Inksters
Catriona Maclean, Chief Executive, Crofting Commission
Martin Corbett, Head of Policy Development, Registers of Scotland
Rhona Elrick, Registers of Scotland
Donald Cameron, Westwater Advocates

WS/CLG member: £180 + VAT
Non-member: £205 + VAT
Trainee/student/retired: £115 + VAT

All rates include lunch at the Signet Library.

To book, please contact Nicole Hatch at the WS Society:-

0131 220 3249

E-mail: nhatch@wssociety.co.uk

Download: crofting law conference booking form

The event is supported by First Title and Wesleyan

Future of Crofting Conference in Tweets

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

Top Secret Crofting Law

15 Replies

I requested the Crofting Commission to provide me with copies of the legal advice sought and obtained by them on the question of owner-occupied croft decrofting. They replied:-

“As you will be aware legal advice is exempt from disclosure under Section 36(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 as legal professional privilege. We do not recognise that this is a qualified exemption and there can, in certain circumstances, be public interest arguments as to why legal advice should be released. In this case however we do not consider that the public interest outweighs legal confidentiality at this time, as both Ministers and officials are currently considering legislative remedies to resolve the situation.”

My request was to enable me to assist a crofter whose application to decroft has been put on hold by the Crofting Commission. The Crofting Commission has stated that such affected crofters should seek their own “independent legal advice as to possible remedies”. Yet the Crofting Commission are not explaining to crofting lawyers exactly how and why they have come to the conclusion that they have done on owner-occupied croft decrofting.

The Crofting Commission are expecting those affected by their decision and their advisers to operate in a vacuum where the rationale involved is an unknown quantity.

The legal advice obtained by the Crofting Commission relates to the interpretation of a very specific part of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. It does not concern an actual situation or individual. It is not the subject matter of a dispute before the courts. Why then should it be privileged?

It does, however, affect (as Tavish Scott MSP pointed out in the recent debate at the Scottish Parliament arising from the motion by Jean Urquhart MSP to debate the role of Crofting in the Highlands & Islands) 3,000 owner-occupier crofters who may wish, at any time, to apply for a decrofting direction of the whole or part of their owner-occupied crofts.

Paul Wheelhouse MSP, has down played this statistic and considers instead the relevant one to be those only immediately affected, namely the 59 who have lodged decrofting applications that have now been put on hold. However, the potential is there for it to affect many more especially the longer the saga is drawn out.

The recipients of the 179 decrofting directions granted since the new provisions contained in the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 came into force should not be forgotten either. Surely if you accept the Crofting Commission’s argument that it does not have the power to grant those decrofting directions then they must be null and void. The knock on effect of this I have already looked at elsewhere, including the fact that title deeds could, in certain circumstances, also be null and void.

Anyway, the fact is that this does have widespread repercussions. There must also be a general public interest in the time and money being spent by public funded bodies (the Crofting Commission and the Scottish Government) on ruminating over, causing and resolving (if there was ever anything to resolve in the first place) the mess that has been created.

By publishing the legal advice crofting lawyers such as myself can assist the process by either putting forward legitimate arguments for why it may be wrong or endorsing it as correct. I have been contacted by several crofting lawyers in private practice who support my interpretation of the law. None have, so far, attempted to put forward a contrary view. I have asked the Crofting Commission to explain where I may have gone wrong in my interpretation. They have, so far, ignored the invitation to correct me.

I may well be wrong. If I and other crofting lawyers were given sight of the legal advice obtained by the Crofting Commission we may well see a point that I have been missing and concur with it. By keeping it top secret that opportunity will be lost.

Ultimately are we going to see much time and effort spent on emergency legislation that no one will ever know whether or not was necessary as the real reason for it will never be made public? Surely that cannot be in the public interest.

There is, in my opinion, no good reason for top secret crofting law unless, perhaps, you have something to hide.

Brian Inkster