A former grazings committee in Lewis has told the Crofting Commission that they will “have no part” in distributing public money for purposes other than that for which it was obtained.
Members of the Mangersta Grazings Committee – which was disbanded by the commission – has stated in a letter: “We strongly believe that it would be an improper use of public funds if money was distributed in this way and returned or not returned at the discretion of individual shareholders, including absentees.”
The letter continues: “We simply do not believe that such a cavalier approach to the use of public funds can be within the law and we will have no part in it.”
Mangersta crofters will ‘have no part in cavalier misuse of public funds’
14 June 2016
These latest exchanges follow a decision by the commission to re-
Similar action has been taken in Upper Coll, also over the issue of how funds received for agricultural and environmental schemes should be dealt with.
The Crofting Commission has issued guidelines which state that all funds received by a grazings committee, for whatever purpose, should immediately be distributed to individual shareholders and declared to HMRC as taxable income. The grazings committee should then ask for the money back for specific purposes.
Critics say the commission's advice signals “the death of crofting on any communal basis.”
Maintaining that the body had no legal powers to disband the grazings committee or install the grazings constable, the letter notes that the commission has refused to respond to that legal argument claiming that it can only be determined by the Scottish Land Court.
The letter argues: “Surely then it is then the responsibility of the Crofting Commission to refer the question of legality to the Scottish Land Court rather than blundering on in the expectation that no Grazings Committee will be in a position to challenge it”.
Crofting law solicitor, Brian Inkster, has also called on the Crofting Commission to defend the legality of its actions. He claims that they have compounded the illegality of their original action by extending the appointment of grazings constable, a Donald Harrison of Taynuilt, Argyll.
Mr Inkster urged the commission to set out a “case law reference” if they disagree with his interpretation of the law. He disputes their claim that they have no power to revisit a decision, even if it is shown to be illegal. In fact, he points out, they have revisited it by extending the appointment of Mr Harrison.
All shareholders in Mangersta Common Grazings – including the original complainant – have confirmed that they do not wish to receive individual shares of the money held by the former Grazings Committee.
While welcoming a "limited apology" offered by the commission for having given the Mangersta Grazings Committee “conflicting advice”, the letter notes that this does “not begin to come close” to the pubic apology they are insisting on for the Commission’s conduct.