Tag Archives: owner-occupiers

Length is not everything

At the evidence gathering session on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 22 May, Paul Wheelhouse MSP stated:-

In drafting the bill, we have tried to reduce the scope for misinterpretation and disagreement. The provisions that relate to tenant crofters are reasonably stable and working fairly well, so there is no problem with them as they stand. The problem specifically relates to owner-occupier crofters. We have taken forward the measures as far as we can for owner-occupiers. There are some slight differences—we have taken steps to ensure that community right-to-buy provisions are not reflected for owner-occupiers, for example. However, in so far as we have been able to do so, the approach that we have taken is to keep things as similar as possible, to ensure that there is minimal scope for misinterpretation.

That means that the bill is longer than Sir Crispin Agnew and Derek Flyn, say, would have liked. However, length is not everything, and having a shorter bill is not necessarily the primary virtue; it is about trying to ensure clarity and minimising the risk that we could be challenged at some point in the future. I cannot give an absolute guarantee, but I hope that what we have done will minimise that risk.

But extra length does not necessarily ensure clarity or minimise the risk of future challenge. Indeed it could well (and I think in this case does) do the opposite. Prior to the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 decrofting by owner-occupiers (which then included owner-occupier crofters) was linked to the same provisions for decrofting by tenant crofters. That worked well and without problem. It was tried and tested. The intention was for the 2010 Act to do the same thing for owner-occupier crofters. I believe it achieved that. Others believe not. Hence why we have the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. But there is no reason why that Bill needs to over complicate the fix. Aligning the fix with the existing provisions for tenant crofters is the obvious, logical and easiest way to do so. Instead the Scottish Government have attempted to mirror those provisions anew within a fresh set of provisions but at the same time have introduced new law into those with no real regard to the consequences of so doing.

I provided a simpler solution and Sir Crispin Agnew provided arguably an even simpler one. These have been ignored. Crofting law is a mess and it is about to get even messier.

Brian Inkster

How many owner-occupier crofters?

808 not 700 owner-occupiers who are not owner-occupier crofters

1 Reply

At the stage 1 debate on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill on 6 June 2013 the following exchange took place between Rob Gibson MSP and Paul Wheelhouse MSP, Minister for Environment and Climate Change (with responsibility for crofting):-

Rob Gibson asked:-

How many people are in this multiple owner situation and how many are caught up in these decrofting problems? Does that, too, conform to the 80:20 principle?

Paul Wheelhouse responded:-

Estimates of the numbers involved vary. To pick up Alex Fergusson’s earlier point, I believe that there are between 3,000 and 4,000 owner-occupier crofter crofts and know that the figure of 700 has been bandied about for crofts in multiple ownership. We believe that the actual figure might be slightly higher, at 808, but if it will assist, we can clarify the exact number for the committee and members as we move towards stage 2. The issue is another that falls outwith the scope of the bill but which we recognise needs to be addressed, and I hope that members whose constituents are affected will note that. The bill deliberately has a tight focus to address a key issue and our view is that, unfortunately, any deviation to cover such a substantive issue would not necessarily respect the expedited procedure that is being applied to the bill, on which there is clearly a consensus to address the existing decrofting issue.

The figure of 700 was not really bandied about as such. It was an unknown figure when the question was first asked of the Scottish Government on 15th May and one that was supplied at a later date (22nd May) by an official from the Crofting Commission. One would have thought, at the time, that this would therefore have been a fairly accurate and reliable figure. However, as we have seen it is a moving target as the Crofting Commission check and reduce the number of owner-occupier crofters thus increasing the number of owner-occupiers who are not owner-occupier crofters. Paul Wheelhouse recognises that 808 may not be the exact number and this has still to be clarified. It is amazing that we are now so many weeks down the line and such clarity has still to be given.

Paul Wheelhouse did not answer the second part of Rob Gibson’s question, i.e how many owner-occupiers (who are not owner-occupier crofters) are caught up in decrofting problems. Rob Gibson had asked the same question on 22nd May and at that time Paul Wheelhouse said:-

I am happy to try and establish, after the meeting, whether there are any statistics that would give us an idea about how many crofters might be affected. I apologise that I do not have the numbers in front of me now.

This, I would suggest, is a more important figure to be clarified than the total number of owner-occupiers in existence. Perhaps MSPs need to press for an answer on this question at the final debate on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill on Tuesday 25th June. It has been dodged by the Minister at least twice now during the passage of the Bill. It may not be directly relevant to the Bill as the Bill does not deal with those decrofting problems. But it might highlight the real need for a swift Crofting (Amendment No. 2) (Scotland) Bill to resolve the plight of the owner-occupiers, not to mention the ‘aliens‘, who still will not be able to decroft once the first of those two Bills becomes an Act.

There was also an implication by Paul Wheelhouse that this is a new decrofting issue. It should be remembered that the decrofting problem faced by owner-occupiers actually pre-dates the one faced by owner-occupier crofters albeit by 7 days.

Brian Inkster

What happened to the six non owner-occupier crofters?

1 Reply

At the stage 1 debate on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill on 6 June 2013 Paul Wheelhouse MSP, Minister for Environment and Climate Change (with responsibility for crofting), stated:-

“There was of course a question over what to do with… the 44 applications that are currently held in abeyance. The observant will have noticed that the figures have changed slightly from the earlier announcement in Parliament on 28 March—the number of outstanding applications has reduced from 50 to 44 as a result of checks undertaken by the Crofting Commission at our request, which have verified that six of the outstanding applications did not in fact relate to owner-occupier crofters.”

What pray did those applications relate to if not owner-occupier crofters? Aliens perhaps 😉 There is no explanation that I can find in the Stage 1 debate and no MSP enquired as to the fate of the six involved. So I made my own enquiries of the Scottish Government and was advised that these were, as I suspected, owner-occupiers who were not owner-occupier crofters.

Thus, whilst on the face of it, Paul Wheelhouse’s announcement looks like the decrofting problems of some have been reduced the fact of the matter is it may only be beginning. Those owner occupiers are likely to be owners of part of what is technically classed by the Crofting Commission as one croft unit. Thus, given the Crofting Commission’s recent policy (apparently based on legal advice which as usual remains top secret), decrofting applications will only be considered by the Crofting Commission if all the distinct owners of that croft unit concur in the application. That could happen in all six cases but it may only happen in some or indeed none. If the latter you then have six people who simply cannot decroft land that they own. The six are therefore potentially in a worse position than they would have been if classed as owner-occupier crofters with a resolution in sight, by virtue of the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, possibly as soon as the end of this month.

Thus this latest spin actually hides a problem that the Scottish Government is at the moment continually sidestepping. Whilst they have indicated an intention to tackle the numerous other problems that exist in crofting legislation this is one that certainly needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Remember… crofting is not a perfect world.

Brian Inkster

[Photo Credit: Nature’s number 6 by David M. Goehring]

6 out of 10 to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

1 Reply

The Summary by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on their Stage 1 Report formed the last post on this blog. I will now give my views on that Report.

10 Points

The Committee get 10 points out of 10 from me for acknowledging “the considerable body of opinion, particularly from the legal profession, expressing the view that the Bill as drafted is unnecessarily complex and, in places, requires amendment in order to avoid further difficulties in legal interpretation in the future.” This is something that Paul Wheelhouse MSP has, so far, failed to recognise. In the evidence gathering session by the Committee on 22 May he said:-

…the legal team has worked extremely hard to ensure that the bill is consistent with the measures in respect of tenant crofters. There are different ways to draft a bill, but we are not aware of any defects at this stage.

Many potential defects had, by that stage, been identified in the submissions made by myself, Sir Crispin Agnew QC, Derek Flyn and others. Paul Wheelhouse MSP may be turning a blind eye to these but it is good to see that the Committee is not. Indeed, the Committee went as far as to state that:-

…it strongly recommends that the Scottish Government carefully considers any amendments which may be required to the Bill at Stage 2 to allow for full scrutiny (seeking information, evidence and advice on any legal issues as appropriate) to ensure that the Bill is clear and competent and does not add further complexity to an already complex body of legislation, or have the potential to give rise to further unintended consequences.

Let’s hope that the amendments that do need to be made are indeed made at Stage 2.

Another 10 points for the Committee for highlighting that other problems exist with crofting law that need to be fixed. As they said:-

The Committee notes the significant number of other outstanding issues relating to crofting many believe require to be addressed by the Scottish Government following the conclusion of consideration of this Bill by Parliament.

With the Committee going on to ask:-

… the Scottish Government to identify how it intends to address the other issues within crofting law which were brought to the Committee’s attention during its scrutiny of the Bill and to inform the Committee of how it intends to proceed. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government indicates how it intends to address the wider criticisms that have been made, particularly by the legal profession, of the current state of crofting law as a whole.

I, as I am sure other crofting lawyers do, look forward to hearing what the Scottish Government will be doing about the general crofting law mess.

5 out of 10

The Committee, to give them their due, highlight my point about there being no place for new law in the Bill by quoting a section of my submissions on this point:-

The proposed new section 24C(2) to the 1993 Act appears to be new law in that I cannot see why the existing section 25(1)(b) cannot equally apply as it stands to owner-occupied crofts. There should be no place for new law in the Bill rather than a necessary fix of existing legislation. Any new law requires careful consideration and should not be rushed through as part of this particular legislative process. Thus I would submit that the proposed new section 24C(2) should be removed from the Bill.

They go on to state:-

…the Committee notes that a number of issues have been raised regarding the drafting of this section of the Bill, particularly with regard to the definition of a “decrofting direction”; the new section 24(C) which the Bill would insert into the 1993 Act; and the protecting of access to crofting land. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government gives careful consideration to these specific issues ahead of Stage 2.

This is good. But a general declaration that the Scottish Government should not be creating new crofting law by virtue of the Bill but simply fixing the perceived ‘flaw’ created by the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 would have been better. Furthermore, I made the same point in my submissions about the proposed new section 24D(3) to the 1993 Act. However, that seems to have been overlooked by the Committee.

Nul Points

The Committee fell down, in my eyes, in certain areas where they achieve ‘nul points’. A number of submissions had raised the spectre of problems with decrofting by owner-occupiers who are not “owner-occupier crofters”. The Committee, to give them their due, did highlight the issue but unfortunately did not recognise the real significance of it. They said:-

The definition of what legally constitutes an owner-occupier crofter, and issues facing multiple owners of distinct parts of the same croft, seem, from the evidence submitted, to be the most pressing. However, the Committee is of the view that this Bill is not the appropriate place to seek to address such issues, given the urgency of the current problem, and the expedited process that is being sought to try and rectify the situation as soon as possible.

I would suggest, as I have previously, that leaving 700 owner-occupiers who are not “owner-occupier crofters” in decrofting limbo is a significant issue and one that could and should have been dealt with in the current Bill. There is also the ‘alien owner-occupier‘ issue that came to light after the date for receipt of submissions had closed. Notwithstanding that fact it was still brought to the attention of Committee members but unfortunately they did not consider it in their Stage 1 Report.

The impact of putting off dealing with these issues may only become fully apparent when the current Bill is enacted and it becomes clear that decrofting is still being prevented in situations where it simply should not be. Will we see, sooner rather than later, a Crofting (Amendment No. 2) (Scotland) Bill to resolve the plight of the 700 owner-occupiers who are being discriminated against by virtue of the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill?

Overall Score

So with some 10 points, 5 points and ‘nul points’ I would, on balance, give the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 6 out of 10 for their Stage 1 Report. They could have done better. However, no doubt they could have done worse.

Brian Inkster

[Picture Credits: Strictly Come Dancing © BBC (Photographer: Guy Levy) and Engelbert Humperdinck – Eurovision Song Contest 2012 © BBC]

700 owner-occupiers of croft land to be left in limbo

7 Replies

At the evidence gathering session for the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 22 May the Convenor, Rob Gibson MSP, asked:-

I have a small point about Richard Frew’s answer to my question at last week’s meeting about the number of multiple owners of crofts. When I asked whether he had a ballpark figure, he said: “I am not aware of the exact figures, but I am sure that the Commission has a list of the different types of crofter.”

Can we take that answer any further just now?

I have already given my views on that response by Richard Frew at Crofting is not a perfect world

Paul Wheelhouse MSP said:-

I will ask Joe Kerr to comment on that. He is on secondment from the Commission, so he may be more closely involved with the issue.

Joseph Kerr gave the answer we have all been waiting for:-

An exercise was undertaken that looked at the different status of people in the crofting elections. In terms of multiple ownership, I understand that the figure was around 700, and that the ballpark figure for owner-occupier crofters was between 3,000 and 4,000.

So there we have it. There are 700 owner-occupiers compared to say 3,500 owner-occupier crofters. Thus, due to the interpretation put on the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 by the Crofting Commission, one sixth of owner-occupiers (if for present purposes we take it that owner-occupier crofters are a sub-set of owner-occupiers) potentially cannot decroft land they own. Furthermore, they still will not be able to following the enactment of the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill which, as currently drafted, addresses only decrofting by owner-occupier crofters and not decrofting by owner-occupiers who are not owner-occupier crofters. One-sixth is surely a fairly significant proportion to simply ignore? There is, of course, an argument that if only one person could not decroft due to a flaw in the existing legislation that flaw should be fixed so that one person was not discriminated against compared with the other 4,199 people who could decroft.

Owners of croft land who are aliens to the Crofting Commission

6 Replies

Some owners of croft land are aliens to the Crofting Commission

We are consulting with Ripley as to your crofting status.

It came to my attention today that there is yet another situation where the Crofting Commission are not currently processing decrofting applications. This one appears to have received no publicity as yet and no policy statement has been issued on it by the Crofting Commission (I assume because they have still to actually formulate one).

The situation is as follows:-

A croft house and garden ground is purchased by the crofting tenant without being decrofted.
That crofting tenant becomes the owner-occupier of the croft house and garden ground and remains the tenant of the surrounding croft.
The now owner-occupier sells the croft house and garden ground onto Mr. A and remains the tenant of the surrounding croft.
Mr. A’s solicitor does not pick up on the fact that the croft house and garden ground has not been decrofted.
Mr. A, many years later,is in the process of selling the croft house and garden ground to Mr. B. Unfortunately for Mr. A it is picked up by Mr. B’s solicitor that there is no decrofting direction.

The solution to the problem is, of course, for Mr. A to apply to the Crofting Commission for a decrofting direction. He immediately does so but receives this response from the Crofting Commission:-

As the croft house site has not previously been removed from crofting tenure, it remains part of the croft [name of croft given]. Unfortunately, where a croft is partly owned and partly tenanted, as in this case, the status of the owner is currently unclear. We have sought legal guidance on this matter and are unable at present to determine whether you are entitled to lodge a decrofting application. We will provide you with an update as soon as this guidance has been obtained.

Incredible! First we had owner-occupiers of a historically ‘divided’ croft not being able to apply for decrofting directions without the consent and concurrence of other owner-occupiers of that croft. Then we had owner-occupier crofters not being able to apply to decroft full stop. Now we have owner-occupiers of croft houses surrounded by tenanted croft land who cannot apply to decroft because “the status of the owner is currently unclear”. Where will this end? The Crofting Law Hydra is certainly in full flight and gaining heads by every turn.

The Scottish Government must seriously question what is going on at Great Glen House. The Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, as currently drafted, is clearly seriously deficient in dealing with the decrofting problems that are emerging by the day. The last post on this blog suggested that the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is a mess. There would appear to be no doubt about that given the constant desire by the Crofting Commission to reinterpret it.

Brian Inkster

[Picture Credit: Alien – 20th Century Fox]

The Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is a mess

4 Replies

Crofting law may be as messy but not as tasty as eton mess!

Submissions by Eilidh I. M. Ross on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

The perceived need for, and the technical detail of, the draft Crofting Amendment Bill has been covered by my colleague Brian Inkster in his own submission, which I fully support.

For my own part, I will make a few comments on the limitations of the draft bill, and the need for further, radical, improvement of crofting legislation. I note the Scottish Government’s position that the bill will only be used to address one of the specific (perceived) problems with decrofting of owner-occupier crofts by owner-occupier crofters, namely the issue of whether such crofts can ever be vacant.

Not only are there many anomalies, hiccups, and unforeseen consequences of the provisions currently contained in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 caused by the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, but the 1993 Act itself is, in my view, a mess.

Matters are now to be exacerbated by the addition of yet another layer of incomprehensible extra sections and consequential amendments to an Act which was consolidated 20 years ago, and which has been (badly) amended numerous times. If the Act which my fellow crofting solicitors and I work with on a daily basis, and on which we must advise our clients, is in such a poor state of repair, that has serious implications for our profession (not to mention for crofters and landlords).

It is, in my view, now imperative that further steps are taken by the Government to address the wider problems of the 1993 Act. Further amendment is not sufficient, nor even perhaps consolidation, if that would not result in an act which was understandable. The Government know what people want from crofting legislation (that was established by Mark Shucksmith quite recently and, although some do not support his findings, I am not aware of calls for a new committee of enquiry), and the 1993 Act tries to achieve those objectives that but fails in almost countless ways. The Act should be deconstructed and then redrafted in a way which is simple, understandable, and which clearly sets out the rights and obligations of all those whom it regulates (and affects in other ways).

The crofting act is important not simply from a historical perspective (although in my view that element is important); it is an essential part of the economic and social fabric of the Highlands and Islands and it is simply not acceptable that the legislative framework which supports that system is such a shambles. It is now incumbent upon the Scottish Government, once this single problem amongst many has been addressed (albeit in my view doing so complicates matters still further), to address the 1993 Act without delay. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the crofting system as a legal entity depends upon it.

Eilidh I. M. Ross

[Picture Credit: Channel 4: Very messy Eton mess recipe]

Are owner-occupier crofters a sub-set of owner-occupiers?

3 Replies

Are they really crofters?

At the evidence taking session on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill on 15^th May the Convenor, Rob Gibson MSP, asked whether there were any views on my argument that the Bill is not needed?

Richard Frew stated:-

Yes—we have considered Brian Inkster’s view. It is not surprising that different people reach different conclusions on the issue, as a number of people who are involved in this have done. It is clear to us that, although that issue is worth considering, section 23(10) of the 1993 Act clearly sets out that a croft is not vacant if an owner-occupier crofter is on the croft.

Unfortunately, Richard Frew ignores any exploration of section 23(12A) of the 1993 Act but there again that has been a continual failing of both the Crofting Commission and the Scottish Government throughout this process. However, Derek Flyn took up the cudgel on section 23(12A):-

When I brought the matter to the Crofting Commission’s attention, Brian Inkster’s response was pretty immediate. However, having looked very closely at the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, as amended, I think that he has missed one thing. The requirement for an owner-occupier to report to the Commission within a month of becoming an owner-occupier is contained in section 23(12) of the 1993 Act, but there is also section 23(12A), which seems to talk about an owner-occupier crofter as a subset of owner-occupiers.

I am sorry—I realise that the issue is complicated, and I know that most people’s eyes glaze over when I start to talk about it. The point is that owner-occupiers are not entitled to occupy their crofts, which can therefore be held to be vacant, and they can be asked to take tenants. However, owner-occupier crofters are entitled to occupy their crofts and must intimate to the Commission the fact that they are owner-occupier crofters. Instead of their being persons who have to give notice, they are persons who give notice as owner-occupiers as well as intimating the fact that they are owner-occupier crofters. I think that Brian Inkster has missed the fact that owner-occupier crofters are a subset of owner-occupiers. The matter is very complicated but, having looked at it many times since Christmas, I cannot see how one can be persuaded that an owner-occupier crofter could have a vacant croft.

The two things that are needed for decrofting are an application by a landlord or landowner and a vacant croft. Although an owner-occupier crofter could be seen as a landlord under the legislation, he certainly could not have a vacant croft.

If your eyes have not glazed over and you are still reading this then I do not believe that owner-occupier crofters are a sub-set of owner-occupiers. Indeed to the contrary an owner-occupier crofter appears to have received special status by way of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 setting them into a category of their own that is very distinct from owner-occupiers. You need look no further than the current controversy over problems associated with applications to decroft by owner-occupiers as opposed to by owner-occupier crofters.

Section 23(12A) is one of those deeming provisions in the 1993 Act which often seem to cause difficulties in understanding and interpretation. It quite simply deems an owner-occupier crofter to have a vacant croft for the purposes of decrofting under section 24(3) of the 1993 Act. If that is not the purpose and intent of section 23(12A) what does that section actually do and why was it introduced by the 2010 Act?

However, as Sir Crispin Agnew QC diplomatically put it:-

I think that the Bill will solve the particular problem by making it clear that the Crofting Commission can decroft owner-occupier crofts. Brian Inkster might well be right but Derek Flyn might well be right that he is wrong. Until a case has gone to the Land Court and it has made a determination, it is sensible to clarify the situation for the avoidance of doubt.

That is indeed where we are at and we shouldn’t, at the moment, whilst some redrafting of the Bill is necessary and hopefully in hand, spend much time debating whether or not the Bill was necessary. There may be a place for a post mortem after the Bill becomes an Act to see if things could have been done differently by the Crofting Commission and or the Scottish Government when the ‘problem’ first manifested itself. From that lessons may be learned for the future to hopefully avoid such a situation arising again.

[NB: This blog post forms part of Submissions (Part 3) by Brian Inkster on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. See Crofting is not a perfect world and The Crofting Law Hydra which both also form part of those Submissions (Part 3). In addition see Submissions (Part 1): A Sledge Hammer to Crack a Nut; and Submissions (Part 2): An Alternative Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill]

[Picture Credit: SUbSET via The Presidents of the United States of America]

The Crofting Law Hydra

4 Replies

At the evidence taking session on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill on 15^th May Alex Fergusson MSP stated:-

The whole thing seems to me to be a bit like the Hydra—you cut off one head and two others appear. With crofting, we get rid of one problem and two others appear in its place. What other issues have been identified during the process for the 2010 Act and the recent process, and what timescale might the Government have in mind for addressing them?

Richard Frew responded:-

I am certainly aware that there are other issues, albeit that they are not of the scale of the one that is dealt with in the bill. There are issues not just with the 2010 Act, but with the 1993 Act and of course, the Crofting Reform etc Act 2007, which came between them. It is everybody’s responsibility, from the development of draft legislation—in this case, in the Scottish Government—and as it passes through Parliament to ensure that legislation is fit for purpose when it is passed and that it delivers what it is intended to deliver. We all need to work closely to ensure that that is the case with this bill, focused as it is.

There are problems. One that I would like to have a look at, as I mentioned earlier, is the definition of “owner-occupier crofter” in section 19B of the 1993 Act. Some people do not necessarily fall within that definition in the legislation. Whether they need to fall within it could clearly be considered. Other issues in the legislation are mostly to do with cross-references and how various sections interact, an example being the register provisions. It would be useful to look at those issues but, as I said, when and how that happens is a matter for ministers.

Alex Fergusson asked further:-

As a brief follow-up question, what priority do those issues have and how important is it to address them? I am afraid that I genuinely do not understand that. I presume that, if the problems are important, they ought to be addressed fairly soon.

Richard Frew responded again:-

As I said, it is for ministers to decide when such matters are addressed. I am sorry if I sound repetitive. Before we introduce any legislation, we have to consider carefully what it would do and what issue we are trying to address. If something is highlighted as being a particular problem, we would clearly want to consider not just legislation, but other ways of resolving it. For example, that might be done administratively, which I think would be the first choice.

It is a pity that as part and parcel of introducing the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill the Government has not given a commitment to resolve all other problems associated with crofting legislation with a timetable for so doing. Much effort is going into a Bill which I believe was not necessary in the first place. There are many other problems with crofting law that have more unanimous support for being issues where the law is indeed flawed. Richard Frew has his work cut out if he is going to kill the Crofting Law Hydra as Heracles managed to kill the Hydra of Lerna. But the sooner Richard and the ministers he advises tackle it head on the better.

[NB: This blog post forms part of Submissions (Part 3) by Brian Inkster on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. See Crofting is not a perfect world which also forms part of those Submissions (Part 3). In addition see Submissions (Part 1): A Sledge Hammer to Crack a Nut; and Submissions (Part 2): An Alternative Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill]

[Picture Credit: Hydra Monster from Istaevan]

Crofting Law Blog

From Inksters Solicitors

Tag Archives: owner-occupiers

Length is not everything

How many owner-occupier crofters?

808 not 700 owner-occupiers who are not owner-occupier crofters

What happened to the six non owner-occupier crofters?

6 out of 10 to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

700 owner-occupiers of croft land to be left in limbo

Owners of croft land who are aliens to the Crofting Commission

The Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is a mess

Are owner-occupier crofters a sub-set of owner-occupiers?

The Crofting Law Hydra