Tag Archives: Rural Affairs Climate Change and Environment Committee

Crofting Convenergate?

Infamy, infamy they’ve all got it in for me!

We recently blogged on the change of Convener within the Crofting Commission. There was reference in that post to what has been called a “witch-hunt” and “a bad smell”. Three letters written by Dr Iain MacKinnon to the West Highland Free Press give more detail on what one might refer to as ‘Crofting Convenergate’. We publish them here in their entirety and as they were written (the West Highland Free Press edited the second of the three letters a little prior to publication).

Letter 1: 3 May 2015

The anonymous Crofting Commissioner quoted in last week’s Free Press claimed discontent with Susan Walker’s convenership of the Commission has “been going on for some time”.

If that is so, then why did the five alleged complainants not wait for the scheduled Commission board meeting on 13th May to raise their no-confidence motion: what sudden calamity made their ‘emergency meeting’ such an imperative? The anonymous commissioner was silent on this, as they were on any details about Susan Walker’s failings.

The Free Press then claimed they had been told: “The commissioners did not want to go on the record at this stage”.

This remarkable statement suggests the complainants have agreed collectively to leak the story anonymously while anticipating going ‘on the record’ in the future.

This would be an astonishing course of action. The conspirators must be aware there are proper procedures available to them for resolving such disputes. Instead they must have decided collectively to throw the organisation that they represent – and crofting regulation generally – into public disrepute.

This matters because section 2.1. of the Commission’s Code of Conduct states commissioners “have a duty to act in the interests of the public body of which they are a member and in accordance with the core functions and duties of that body”.

The code then states: “You have a duty to promote and support these principles by leadership and example, and to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the public body and its members in conducting public business.”

The code also demands that commissioners must respect their fellows, “treating them with courtesy at all times”. The anonymous briefings clearly breach this part of the code.

If they have been jointly briefing against Susan Walker the five complainants appear to be in breach of the Commission’s Code of Conduct and liable to investigation by the Standards Commission for Scotland which polices ‘The Ethical Standards in Public Life Act’.

Additionally, “promoting the interests of crofting” is a requirement for commissioners under Part 1 of the Crofting Act and, if they are shown to have acted against this, then under Schedule 1 they can be found unsuitable to continue and dismissed.

If, as is alleged, five anonymous commissioners want to declare ‘no-confidence’ in Susan Walker, they are free to do so. However, if they have also unnecessarily called an ‘emergency meeting’ and then systematically leaked that news to the media for maximum publicity, then they have undoubtedly weakened “the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity” of the Crofting Commission and they have brought their own positions within it into disrepute.

If this is the case, the Crofting Minister must consider whether such people are fit for public office. If it turns out that, in fact, the anonymous briefings have been instigated by one or two individuals, without the consent of other complainants, then those complainants who have been used in this way need to think carefully about the ugly, cowardly whispering campaign of which they are now part.

Letter 2: 18 May 2015

I would like to add to the tributes offered to former Crofting Commission convener, Susan Walker. My primary reason for writing is as it was two weeks ago – not as a friend and one-time colleague of the former convener, but as someone concerned about the future well-being of crofting tenure.

The whispering campaign against Susan Walker began in the media at the end of last month. Since then, her work on behalf of crofting throughout the Highlands and Islands has been praised by the Scottish Crofting Federation and the chairs of the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs Committee and Cross-Party Group on Crofting.

It is worth reflecting on the breadth of that support. It includes the crofting representative body, the senior parliamentarians on crofting issues and also the Scottish Government itself. All appear to believe that “the new enlightened way in which the Crofting Commission functions” has been in part the result of Susan Walker’s leadership, and had given grounds for optimism for a tenure system that had previously been described, almost universally, as “failing”.

Her critics, on the other hand, appear to comprise her disaffected former colleagues and one or two newspapers. One of these newspapers is the Free Press – with one columnist dismissing her as a ‘trusty’ in the pocket of Government.

While the Free Press’ editorial two weeks ago gave an admirably clear argument for a fully elected Crofting Commission, it also acknowledged that the newspaper publicised the conspiracy against Susan Walker without knowing what she is said to have done wrong.

So what has Susan Walker been doing right these last three years? The contrast between Taynuilt and North Ballachulish indicates the Commission’s wider change in attitude under her leadership. In 2005, when ten houses were proposed on croft land in Taynuilt, the old ‘failed’ Crofters Commission folded to the developer’s demands with barely a whimper. By contrast, under Susan Walker’s leadership the new Commission has taken its opposition to the current plan for ten houses on a croft in North Ballachulish all the way to the Land Court.

This principled opposition was not the result of new legislative requirements but of a new determination within the Commission itself. The wide-ranging praise Susan Walker has received in recent weeks suggests this step-change has been noted throughout the organisation’s work.

The commissioners responsible for the covert briefings against her have breached standards required for public life and brought the Commission into disrepute. They have lost the trust of government and have surely failed the trust of those who elected them to turn around the mess they inherited. It would be a real service to crofting if the Free Press were to disclose their identity.

The media coverage no doubt greatly reduced the opportunity for a mediated process within the commission to resolve the conflict and allow Susan Walker to continue the good work she had started. The unstinting dedication for the good of crofting that she brought to her role will leave the commission with her.

Letter 3: 23 June 2015

The Minister for Crofting, Aileen McLeod, this week told the Crofting Commission she is “very pleased to support their proposal on the selection of a new convener”.

However, files I obtained from the Commission last week through Freedom of Information legislation reveal that the conduct of Commissioners has been privately criticised by the Minister, with an unnamed official expressing Dr McLeod’s disappointment “at events being played out through the media” following the conspiracy against former Commission convener Susan Walker at the end of April.

A full two months after the conspiracy against Walker began, no credible information has yet been forthcoming from any Commissioner or from Government about the nature of the problems Walker is supposed to have created. The Commission is even refusing to name those Commissioners who organised the proposal of no-confidence against her – removing all but one signature from the copy they sent me of the letter in which some Commissioners put that proposal forward.

Dr McLeod’s disappointment does not stand alone. Crofters, crofting administrators, the Scottish Crofting Federation and a senior Member of the Scottish Parliament have all criticised the behaviour of the Commissioners involved in the move against Walker.

One crofter, summing up his views on social media, concluded that the Commission is in “chaos” and “disarray”, and presently not fit for purpose.

According to the FoI files, even the chief executive of the Crofting Commission, Catriona Maclean, has privately criticised the way Commissioners have handled this affair and she has gone further, with one internal note suggesting the Commission may have underplayed the level of division within their board during discussions with Government. Writing shortly after the convener’s resignation she said that, while the Commission “wanted to reassure the Minister [for Crofting] that they were keen to move forward in a united and positive way”, her own view is that there are “still differences of opinion on the merits of what happened”. In a later commentary she specified disagreement between board members which will require “a focus on healing”.

Such is the sorry state of the crofting regulator. It seems everybody knows it, yet no-one in Government or the Commission is willing to admit it, and, so far as their public statements go, it appears there will be no attempt to investigate what has really gone wrong at the Commission – and to investigate why at least one Commissioner seems to be allowed to break the organisation’s code of conduct with impunity.

Indeed, this despicable soul may even be elected convener and become the new face of crofting regulation – the files show that this was a well-orchestrated manoeuvre, and those in charge had a clear outcome in mind. The files also suggest that, in fact, the campaign against Walker had two main instigators – with at least one of them male.

Allowing the Commission to elect their own convener in such circumstances is not simply a humiliation for the Scottish Government, and for the Crofting Commission as an organisation; it undermines the credibility of crofting regulation as a whole.

Dr Iain MacKinnon is researching the politics of crofting at Coventry University, although the letters on ‘convenergate’ are not part of his academic work.

Main image credit: Carry on Cleo

Crofting law is a complete mystery

Should the Chairman of the Land Court be hung, drawn and quartered?

2 Replies

"should my friend the new chairman of the Land Court, Lord Minginish, be hung, drawn and quartered"

It would be unusual to penalise the Chairman of the Land Court!

The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee of the Scottish Parliament were today taking evidence on the Scottish Government’s amendments to the crofting community right to buy at Stage 2 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill.

Eilidh Ross MacLellan will be looking at the relative crofting provisions in a little more detail in a future blog post. In the meantime I will just draw your attention to a particular highlight from today’s proceedings.

It was pointed out that Section 92 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 allows the Scottish Land Court four weeks from the hearing date to give its reasons in respect of a valuation appeal. A proposed amendment will extend that period to eight weeks. Should that extended timescale not be sufficient, the Land Court is to notify all parties of the date on which it will provide a written decision.

Derek Flyn gave his view on this:-

What sanction is available to parties if the Land Court does not do as instructed in the legislation? No sanction is included. If there is no result within the eight-week period and no information about when the written statement will be produced, should my friend the new chairman of the Land Court, Lord Minginish, be hung, drawn and quartered?

A good point. Derek went on to say:-

How the Land Court goes about its business should be in its rules and regulations. If it is in the bill, nothing will be able to be done about it if it goes wrong. It will just cause a legal problem that will go into the courts and stay there.

Hopefully the Scottish Government will endeavour to avoid such legal problems.

It was decided to ask the Minister about this one.

I trust Lord Minginish will not be in jeopardy of any penalties, especially of the medieval variety, by the time the Bill becomes an Act.

Read the Official Report of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee – 18 February 2015 [PDF]

Brian Inkster

The Scottish Government knows best about Crofting Law

1 Reply

At the Stage 2 Debate on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, on 12th June, Alex Fergusson MSP asked:-

Given the issues that have been raised by Sir Crispin Agnew, in particular, about some parts of the bill not matching up with others, if I can use such loose terminology, why have you not seen fit to lodge amendments to address his concerns?

Paul Wheelhouse MSP, Minister for Environment and Climate Change, responded:-

We are aware that there are a number of alternative views about the form and content of the bill, as was discussed during the stage 1 debate. We are aware of those views and respect the opinions of Sir Crispin Agnew and Derek Flyn and others, including Brian Inkster, but we believe that the bill provides the necessary clarity and legal certainty that the owner-occupier crofters and other stakeholders are looking for to allow them to decroft their land. The commission will have the power to consider such applications after the bill is enacted.

The Scottish Government considered the detailed drafting issues that were raised; I can promise the committee that we have gone over them in some detail. However, as it is drafted, the bill achieves its purpose. A number of key witnesses to the committee, such as Sir Crispin Agnew, and the Crofting Commission, through David Balharry and Derek Flyn, all agreed that the bill delivers on the purpose that the Government has set out of giving owner-occupiers the ability to decroft.

The Scottish Government is committed to drafting in as plain and accessible a manner as is consistent with achieving the necessary outcome. We all know that crofting law is horrendously complicated: that message came across loud and clear at last week’s debate, and I do not disagree with that conclusion, which was reached by many members. As I said during the stage 1 debate, the key issue is that the provisions in the bill, in its current form, are as close as we could get them to the provisions for tenant crofters. That will enable us to deliver similar treatment, which we all want. I cannot prejudge what the committee will say, but the nature of the debate so far seems to indicate that we want to give owner-occupiers provisions that are similar to those for tenant crofters where appropriate. Obviously, some aspects, especially on land tenure and right to buy, had to be modified, but we are talking about the general provisions. In order to do that, we have kept as close as possible to the original wording of the provisions for tenant crofters.

The bill has therefore taken a particular form. I appreciate that some people are concerned that it could have been simpler, but then there might have been more room for doubt that the provisions were meant to be the same as those for tenant crofters. By taking the view that we have, we have managed to minimise that possibility. I hope that that answers Mr Fergusson’s question.

Alex Fergusson responded:-

It does, and in much more detail than I was expecting; I thank you for that. I just want to clarify that my reason for raising the point was not to question the purpose of the bill or its likely outcome but to look for confirmation, which I think you have given me, that you looked at the technical drafting points that were raised by Sir Crispin Agnew, which were not really questioning the outcome of the bill but questioning whether separate parts of the bill worked together in a way that goes beyond my ken. You have told me clearly that you have looked at all that and are satisfied with the way in which the bill is drafted, and I am quite happy to accept that. It is good to have that on the record.

The position stated by Paul Wheelhouse at Stage 2 is really much the same as when he gave evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee back on 22nd May (see: length is not everything). But by now we have really moved away from the debate on length. It is clear that the Scottish Government has no intention of rewriting the Bill in more simplistic terms (that is probably too much like hard work in the short time frame available to ensure that the Bill becomes an Act).

However, many of the comments made by Sir Crispin Agnew QC, Derek Flyn, myself and others related to the detail of the Bill in its current form and small tweaks to that necessary to avoid confusion, problems and, in at least one case, to close a loophole that the Scottish Government had inadvertently opened. All of this appears to have been sidestepped. If the Scottish Government did indeed consider “the detailed drafting issues that were raised” and went “over them in some detail” would it not have been good (perhaps essential) to have seen a detailed written rebuttal of each with reasons why the Scottish Government thought the expert crofting law views on each to be of no apparent value? Without that how easy is it for MSPs to easily consider the matter given the complexity of crofting law that they are all ready to acknowledge? They simply have to accept the Minister’s word for it as Alex Fergusson did. But at least he did get it on record and that just might come back to haunt the Minister.

At the Stage 1 Debate comments were made of the fact that the Scottish Government were benefitting from free legal advice from crofting law experts and should be taking advantage of that. As Graeme Dey MSP put it:-

Sir Crispin Agnew offered helpful advice on wording, and it is not often that a learned QC offers advice gratis.

Jamie McGrigor MSP said:-

I am not a lawyer or a legal expert so, like the committee, I can only urge ministers to take on board and address the concerns that have been expressed by eminent figures such as Sir Crispin Agnew QC and Brian Inkster. Ministers should, if required, lodge amendments to the bill at stage 2 so that we do not find ourselves having to enact yet another amendment bill in a few months or years. We must try to avoid that at all costs.

This was a sentiment expressed in the debating chamber by many of the MSPs who spoke at the Stage 1 Debate. However, we are now approaching Stage 3 and the Bill remains as originally drafted by the Scottish Government and it looks likely that it will be enacted as so drafted.

20 crofting lawyers in a room together thought that amendments were required to the Bill. But clearly the Scottish Government knows best and the views of the legal practitioners who know and deal with the legislation on a regular and detailed basis is of no real concern.

Those lawyers will be the ones picking up the pieces and arguing before the Scottish Land Court, in the fullness of time, about any problems and unintended consequences that may have been created by the Scottish Government.

Jamie McGrigor also said:-

Not long ago, I attended a meeting of crofting lawyers in the Signet library, at which an eminent lawyer assured the brethren there that there would be much work for them in crofting law for the foreseeable future. I am beginning to understand why he said that.

The crofting lawyers in question have actively tried to reduce that workload by seeking to assist the Scottish Government in the drafting process. However, the Scottish Government in rejecting that assistance appears content to increase the workload those lawyers will have by adding to the complexity of crofting law. So be it for now.

However, the lawyers are not about to give up offering their help (although perhaps, some might argue, they should simply leave the Government to it). The Crofting Law Group will be at the Signet Library again on 27th September 2013 for their annual Crofting Law Conference in association with the WS Society. The theme of this year’s Conference is to be Crofting Reform. It is to be hoped that the Scottish Government will take that opportunity to engage with crofting lawyers and participate in the Conference for the benefit of both organisations and ultimately, hopefully, for the benefit of crofting tenants, owner-occupier crofters, owner-occupiers (who are not owner-occupier crofters), landlords and others affected by crofting law. I will blog more about the Conference once the programme for it has been finalised.

Brian Inkster

[Photo Credit: 1984: Virgin Films]

Length is not everything

2 Replies

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

20 Crofting Lawyers in a room together

2 Replies

Not sure if any of these lawyers know anything about crofting law!

At the evidence gathering session on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 15th May the following exchange took place concerning 20 lawyers in a room together.

Richard Lyle MSP introduced the concept:-

I am not a lawyer or a crofter. However, I know that in 1993, 2007 and 2010, and now in 2013, we have had to try to deal with this problem. I am sure that it is a very important issue for many crofters. With the greatest respect to Sir Crispin Agnew, however, I am sure we can agree that if we put 20 lawyers in a room, they will come up with 20 different answers. In relation to the interpretation of the law, the point was made earlier that between an “owner-occupier” and an “owner-occupier crofter” there can be a world of difference as to whether those people fit into the bill. As was mentioned earlier, Brian Inkster suggests that we can deal with the problem elsewhere, and Sir Crispin Agnew said earlier that he has other items to present to the committee. Can you really tell me that the proposals in the bill will solve the problem? Do you agree with me that there will be other problems that need to be addressed but which may have to be addressed at a later date because people have not even thought of them yet?

Sir Crispin Agnew’s view on this was:-

Yes. Where there are two lawyers, they can give different opinions. If something is well drafted, generally speaking— although not always—lawyers will give the same advice.

Derek Flyn gave his thoughts:-

On getting 20 lawyers in a room, I do not think that you would find 20 crofting lawyers who were prepared to sit and talk knowledgeably about crofting—although, as we know, there might well be more than 20 lawyers wanting to listen.

Well, on 31 May the Crofting Law Group held its AGM in Edinburgh and almost managed to get 20 lawyers in a room together to discuss the Bill. There were in fact 17 plus two non-lawyer members who probably know more about crofting law as most lawyers do.

Many, as Derek Flyn identified, were happy to listen but others talked knowledgeably about the Bill and the problems associated with it. One thing that was striking was that there was no disagreement amongst the 19 members of the Crofting Law Group in attendance as to the problems raised. There was not the 19 different answers that Richard Lyle might have suspected there to have been.

There could have been as many as 19 issues raised about the Bill. These were all of the issues already raised by myself, Sir Crispin Agnew QC, Derek Flyn (all three of us being in attendance at the AGM) and others in evidence given to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. There was general agreement that these issues were all problems that required to be addressed in the necessary re-drafting of the Bill. Let’s hope that the Scottish Government pay attention to the ’20 lawyers in a room’ who all held the same opinion.

[Picture Credit: Ally McBeal © 20th Century Fox Television]

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]

Stage 1 Report on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

1 Reply

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee published their Stage 1 Report on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill on 31 May 2013. They summarised their findings as follows:-

1. The Committee regrets that an unintended consequence of omissions, and/or a lack of clarity in existing crofting legislation has led to the Crofting Commission suspending decisions on applications by owner-occupier crofters to decroft all or part of their land, as the Crofting Commission considered there was no legal basis on which to make such decisions. Such applications had been made, and decided upon, since October 2011, until the problem came to light earlier this year, and the suspending of consideration of such applications has prevented some owner-occupier crofters enjoying equal rights to tenant crofters, which was the policy intention of the existing legislation.

2. The Committee agrees that the legislation needs to be corrected and therefore welcomes the Scottish Government’s swift bringing forward of amending legislation which should not only remedy this issue for those making such applications to decroft in the future, but will also retrospectively apply to all those who previously made applications, or who currently have applications on hold as a result of the issue being identified.

3. However, whilst acknowledging that amending legislation is required, and that the Bill as drafted should address the identified problem, the Committee notes 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.

4. 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.

5. The Committee was struck by the evidence it received from those knowledgeable in this area of the law, which demonstrated significant frustration and concern with the increasing complexity and layers of crofting law. Crofting law as it stands was described as “a mess” by more than one respondent to the Committee’s call for views.

6. The Committee makes specific comment on the provisions in the Bill in the main body of this report below. However, the Committee welcomes the policy intention of the Bill to rectify the anomaly which has been identified that currently prevents owner-occupier crofters from applying to decroft all or part of their land. The Committee therefore recommends that the Scottish Parliament support the general principles of the Bill at Stage 1, to allow the Bill to pass to Stage 2.

7. However, in doing so, 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.

8. The Committee asks 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.

Read the full Stage 1 Report on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

I will give my views on the Stage 1 Report in the next post on the Crofting Law Blog.

Brian Inkster