Tag Archives: Shucksmith

Back to the Future of Crofting

2 Replies
Back to the Future of Crofting

But Doc, nothing has changed in 10 years!

If you were to travel back in time 10 years ago to the day you would find a headline in The Scotsman that read ‘MSPs heap pressure on Crofters’ Commission with criticism of bill‘.

It was 5 July 2006 and on that day the Scottish Parliament’s Environment and Rural Affairs Committee released its findings on the Crofting Reform Bill after taking evidence at five meetings that year.

Some salient points from The Scotsman’s report from then:-

Critics of the commission during the evidence-gathering sessions included the National Trust for Scotland, which said the commission’s work is regarded as “inconsistent and ineffective”. The Scottish Crofting Foundation also gave an example of the “long-term regulatory failure” in one township where 11 out of 19 croft holders are absentees despite demand from prospective new entrants.

The report adds: “The committee was struck by the range of negative comments and the depth of frustration and long-standing dissatisfaction expressed by witnesses about the commission’s practice.”

It also said it was “astonished” a proper register of crofts has not been produced despite it being a statutory obligation on the commission for over 50 years.

Rob Gibson, the SNP’s land reform spokesman, said the bill offers no vision for the future of crofting and said successive governments had failed to ensure the commission does it job.

The report in The Scotsman also mentioned Brian Wilson, the former Government Minister, saying of the report:-

The whole thing has turned into an indictment of the Crofters’ Commission and its failure to implement its regulatory role. I think they [the commission board] should now consider their positions.

Fast forward 10 years and not much has changed. It is now called the Crofting Commission as opposed to the Crofters Commission. Similar but perhaps more acute criticism is being laid at its door. Indeed, I was speaking to a crofter just today who said that the Crofting Commission of 2016 is much worse than its predecessor, the Crofters Commission, was 10 years ago.

Headlines in the news over the past few weeks have included:-

Crofting Comission branded as ‘dictatorial, vindictive and unjustified’ by Upper Coll crofters

Row between national body and local crofters on Lewis deepens

Crofting Commission ‘flouting the will’ of Parliament

Crofting commissioner resigns in Lewis grazings row

Pressure grows on Crofting Commission as row over committees continues

Demands intensify for inquiry into operations of Crofting Commission

Crofting Commission “cover-up” blasted

Sleat storm surrounds Crofting Commission

Crofting Commission’s Mangersta U-turn welcomed, but calls for government investigation continue

It was in the wake of the near collapse of the Crofting Reform Bill in 2006 that pressure from the Scottish Crofting Federation led to Scottish Ministers commissioning a Committee of Inquiry on Crofting. This was chaired by Professor Mark Shucksmith. The Committee of Inquiry on Crofting undertook many community meetings throughout 2007 and delivered their final report in 2008.

The Shucksmith Report commented on the Governance of Crofting as follows:-

Crucial issues for the governance of crofting are transparency, source of legitimacy, accountability and the balance of central and local interests. Centralised arrangements,
together with a lack of clear functional boundaries between the key institutions, particularly
between the Crofters Commission and the Scottish Government, cloud the lines of public
accountability for the effective governance of crofting. Recurring themes in the evidence
were that the Commission should be more accountable; have greater area representation;
should enforce regulations more effectively; should be better aligned with other relevant partners; and should have closer communication with local people and Grazings Committees.

All issues that appear to remain today. Perhaps that is because in introducing the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 the then Scottish Parliament ignored many of the recommendations actually contained in the Shucksmith Report.

There is currently a major crisis in crofting. The consensus of opinion appears to be that the problems are caused by the Crofting Commission and the decisions taken by them and manner in which they execute those decisions.

A recent online poll conducted by The Scottish Farmer indicated that 96% of readers who took part considered that the Scottish Government should enact an independent inquiry into the workings of the Crofting Commission.

The Scottish Farmer in conducting this poll stated:-

The level of criticism has mounted so quickly that it is now incumbent on the Scottish Government to institute an independent external audit of the commission.

And, if the Crofting Commissioners feel the criticism to be unjust, they too should welcome independent scrutiny of their actions.

One thing is for sure, Scottish ministers cannot continue to sit on their hands on this one. Action must be taken swiftly and decisively!

I sincerely hope that in 10 years from now we don’t look back and say that nothing has really changed and indeed the situation at the Crofting Commission has got worse not better. The Scottish Government has the opportunity to change the future and must now do so.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: Back to the Future © Amblin Entertainment

Croft House Grant Scheme Consultation

Leave a Reply

New Croft HouseThe legal requirement for a crofter to live on or near the croft brings with it a requirement for that crofter to have somewhere to live. This has long been recognised by both Westminster and the Scottish Government. Over the past thirty years, support has been available to meet this need but that support now requires rethinking if it is to meet today’s housing needs. To this end, the Scottish Government are currently seeking responses to its consultation on proposed changes to the Croft House Grant Scheme (CHGS). It is a consultation that many would argue is long overdue.

The Scheme aims to attract and retain crofters by enabling them to build (or improve) housing on their croft. That residency requirement has always been enshrined in the Crofting Acts. A crofter must be resident on, or within 32km, of their croft. This is currently a key driver of Crofting Commission policy. The consultation comes at a time when crofting legislation itself is being closely scrutinised by crofting law practitioners and parliamentary committees.

The current levels of support for the construction of a new house from the CHGS is £22,000 for a ‘high geographical priority area’, £17,000 for a standard priority and £11,500 for low priority. This prioritisation is largely based on the view that building on the islands and some of the more remote parts of the mainland is more expensive, therefore grants are increased accordingly.

To be eligible for the grant you must be a tenant crofter, a Kyles crofter or cottar (the meaning of the latter two is for another blog post). Tenants who have purchased and become owner-occupiers in the last seven years were supposed to be eligible, but this is currently uncertain – see my colleague Eilidh Ross Maclellan’s post on that subject.

The proposed changes increase the rates to £28,000 and £23,000 respectively for a High and Standard priority areas, and introduces just two geographical areas – Island and Non-Island. This change in geographical boundaries will mean an increase in support for some areas compared to the previous scheme, which will be good news for some. However, looking back to the CHGS’s predecessor, it is arguable that the proposals put forward in the consultation will still have little impact.

The previous Croft Building Grant and Loan Scheme (CBGLS) was introduced in 1986. Initially, the scheme contained a loan element – paid back to the Government over a period of time (typically 40 years), and a grant element.

It helped many crofters secure a home on their croft. (In fact, the house I grew up in was, largely, paid for by it. In 1986, my parents would have been some of the first people to build their house with assistance from the CBGLS). Back then, if you were frugal, the loan and grant could go a very long way. Nowadays, the amount offered might barely cover the cost of an average house kit.

The Scottish Crofting Federation recently gave their views on the matter, and highlighted some interesting figures. The average cost of building a house in 1986 was £27,860, and the CBGLS, on average, met 82% of building costs. However, over the years the level of support no longer increased with the rising cost of building a home.  The loan element was withdrawn in 2004, and was not replaced with the introduction of the CHGS. The Federation calculated in 2008 that support was around 14% of total build costs.

The Shucksmith Report of 2008 stated that the support levels were too low, in an age where typical build costs exceeded £100,000 – a figure that has only increased. The only way that most crofters could raise the finance to build was to decroft, in order to obtain commercial lending. This remains the case. Currently, decrofted house sites are not eligible for grant support. However, the consultation proposes that decrofted houses linked to the croft would be eligible for support, as would ‘adjoining or adjacent’ land.

Another question the consultation poses is the size requirements of a house. It is currently the case that only houses of three beds or more will be eligible for funding – a  rule that makes outdated assumptions about the size of a crofter’s family and does not give consideration that houses – like families – can grow and evolve over the years when time and finances allow. The current restriction looks short-sighted.

Any increase if of course welcome, however marginal it may be, but without the ability to obtain the support of a lender, the increase will make little difference, meaning decrofting will continue to be the only route for many. Most crofters are not in the fortunate position of being able to finance the building of a house without a mortgage. If one of the key aims of the Crofting Commission is to retain croft land in crofting tenure, and people working that land, then the Scottish Government may need to consider reintroducing a croft house loan, or, as suggested by the Scottish Crofting Federation, exert some pressure on commercial lenders to consider mortgage products for crofters. The latter may require a change in the law to facilitate mortgages over croft land.

The consultation closes on 31 March 2015 and can be found at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2015/01/4893/0

Martin Minton

Image Credit: Urban Realm: Highland Croft House completes

Common Grazings and the Lewis Gathering

Leave a Reply

Crofting Federation GatheringI was in Stornoway, Isle of Lewis, on 19 and 20 September 2013 for the Scottish Crofting Federation’s annual Gathering. The theme of this year’s crofting conference was Common Grazings: Utilising Potential.

The conference was ably chaired by Derek Flyn and well organised by Patrick Krause and his staff from the Federation. A good and diverse range of speakers made for a very interesting and enjoyable conference. I am not, in this review, going to cover all the talks that were given but will focus on those that had a crofting law aspect as this is, after all, a crofting law blog.

Paul Wheelhouse MSP, Minister for Environment and Climate Change, should have been the keynote speaker but parliamentary business detained him in Edinburgh and his place was taken by David Barnes, Deputy Director of Agriculture and Rural Development.

David told us that the Crofting Commission has a focused not diminished role. Some, I would suggest, might argue with a focus in the wrong places!

Over 80 new crofts have been created in the last 5 years. Mention was made of crofters being allowed to be absent with good cause. My experience does not bear this out. But then my view of good cause may be quite different from that held by the Crofting Commission.

The Scottish Government were disappointed by the number of voluntary registrations on the Crofting Register. Not that surprising. Apart from a token discount for community registrations there was no real incentive to do it voluntarily.

Crofting Federation Gathering (Fair Isle Bunting)

David Barnes referred to the “specific and acute problem” with the 2010 Act that created a flaw in decrofting procedures and resulted in the 2013 Act to remedy that. The Scottish Government were very aware indeed that this is far from being the only issue with crofting legislation. They will be carrying out a consultation later this year. They need to take their time. Owner-occupiers who are not owner-occupier crofters and cannot decroft without the consent of neighbouring landowners may take a different view about the need to take any more time over that particular issue.

On the question of what form legislative reform might take David Barnes asked: “Do we look for where holes are and put patches on them or do we have a root and branch rewrite?” This question is one that is likely to tax MSPs in the coming months (or years perhaps depending on how much time will actually be taken over it).

My own view is that there are pressing issues that need be dealt with sooner rather than later and others where time can be taken. We may need at least two Bills: one within the next year (patching holes) and a more comprehensive one (possibly a rewrite) to follow in the fullness of time.

Julia Aglionby from the Foundation for Common Land told us of some of the differences between Scotland and England & Wales. In England & Wales a shareholder is a commoner. In England & Wales all renewable payments go to the landowners and none to the commoners. Compare crofting shareholders in Scotland who receive 50% of those payments. Less than 5% of common grazings in Scotland are signed up to schemes to assist them. In England more than 80%. Why? We didn’t get any clear answers.

John King of Registers of Scotland gave an update on the Crofting Register. There are 300,000 transactions that pass through Registers of Scotland each year before the new Register of Crofts is counted in. Professor Shucksmith recommended a map based Crofting Register and that is what we now have. The Crofting Register is free to view online. 29 common grazings have been registered on the Crofting Register to date. This is much better than I ever expected by this early stage. 9 crofts have been registered to date. Most with plans produced by crofters themselves. Registers of Scotland can help by providing crofters with OS maps to plot their croft on. Derek Flyn referred to Registers of Scotland having been user friendly with the Crofting Register.

Alister Danter of Business Gateway discussed management structures for crofting communities and mentioned the possibility of crowdfunding.

Iain Maciver from Community Land Scotland told us that freehold land is often favoured over common grazings for development because of crofting issues that arise. Soumings are now relevant more than they were in the past when renewable developments take place on common grazings.

Whilst we were in Stornoway Town Hall other crofting activities were taking place around Lewis for the school children participating in Crofting Connections. The children also sat in on some of the sessions in the Town Hall.

I enjoyed the Gathering and am already looking forward to next year’s one.

Brian Inkster

Crofting Gobbledygook

2 Replies
Scottish Land Court

Will the Scottish Land Court have to decipher the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013?

The Scottish Parliament has voted to pass the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. In due course, it will receive Royal Assent. Owner-occupier crofters will be able to decroft, and the Scottish Government will breathe a sigh of relief that the decrofting debacle has been buried.   However, this bill has been far from the Scottish Government’s finest hour. The bill has added a further layer of complexity to a legislative framework I have previously, publicly, labelled a mess and a shambles. The Act will result in the Crofting Commission processing applications once again, but the decrofting provisions are now so incomprehensible that it can only be a matter of time before they are challenged in the Courts. Then we shall hear accusations that solicitors are getting fat on the ever-diminishing bank accounts of crofters.  The time and effort taken by myself and by other professionals in this field indicate that we have an interest in clarifying legislation to avoid crofters facing high legal costs. Yet the Scottish Government saw fit to ignore all submissions and suggestions, however helpful they may have been. The quality and clarity of the Bill could have been far improved, had the Scottish Government accepted help from those best placed to provide it. Sooner or later, we will all simply stop responding to consultations and will have no heart to contribute to the parliamentary process.

Furthermore, this Bill has given birth to a fresh debate over wider crofting legislation. I have long been of the view that crofting legislation should be left alone for a time, to bed in, and to allow a body of case law to become established. However, in light of the 2013 Bill I have changed my view, and I have called for an overhaul of all crofting legislation. The numerous problems which have become apparent with the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, coupled with the prospect of yet more impenetrable sections (when a few simple sections would have achieved the same effect), made me despair that the current framework could ever work. There are simply too many problems to overcome; the decrofting uncertainty was merely the tip of the iceberg. I do not suggest another evidence-gathering committee in the mould of Professor Shucksmith, but it is both possible and desirable to deconstruct the legislation and rebuild it so that it makes sense and is, to use a phrase so beloved of government, ‘fit for purpose’.

Rob Gibson MSP appeared to have taken offence at my labelling of the legislation as a “mess” and a “shambles” but I stand by my remarks, and I refute his comment that crofting law is merely “complex”. Most areas of law are complex, and solicitors are trained to operate in such an environment, but crofting law since the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 – which his Government must take responsibility for and cannot be blamed on inheritance – has become incomprehensible, not merely complex. I urge Mr Gibson to listen to the suggestions offered by experienced professionals, rather than taking the defensive stance we saw in the debating chamber yesterday afternoon.

Eilidh I. M. Ross