wpd2898f19_0f.jpg
wpd4670b58_0f.jpg
Bookmark and Share
MAbanner
wpdc5c474c_0f.jpg

Letters @hebrides.biz

Letters should include full name and address for publication. Please include a phone number for verification.

 

                                     

MSP’s ignorance of croft law could lead to landlord windfall    3/5/10

 

 

Sir,

 

Considering he’s the MSP for the Western Isles, Alasdair Allan demonstrates an astonishing ignorance of crofting law and practice when he says (Isles’ MSP bid to close crofting loophole, Hebrides News, 28 April):  

"[The Macdonald Whitbread] ruling ... allowed a small number of crofters to appoint a "nominee", often associated with the building trade, who receive croft land at right-to-buy prices, without any clawback.

 

This is even when there is clearly no intention for the land to be used either for crofting, for a croft house, or for houses for the relatives of a crofter. The consequence is a fear that some areas of good crofting land have been speculated on for house plots in parts of the Highlands.

 

My amendment to the Crofting reform Bill does NOT affect a crofter's right to bequeath or assign a croft to whomever he or she likes. However, it does remove the much more rarely-used right to appoint a "nominee" unless it is a family member.”

Leaving aside that a crofting tenant does not have a right to bequeath or assign his/her croft to “whomever he or she likes”, the reality of Macdonald Whitbread and nominees is this (as Jennifer Aniston used to say in the shampoo ads “Here comes the science bit – concentrate.”)

When the crofting right to buy was introduced in 1976, it provided that, if a crofter buying his land at “right-to-buy price” (i.e. negligible bare land agricultural value) sold it on within 5 years to a non-family member (in practice usually at full de-crofted open market development value), the crofter had to pay the landlord 50% of the uplift.

But the landlords’ clawback was effectively neutered when the courts decided in the Macdonald v Whitbread case in 1992 that no clawback was due when, instead of taking to title to the land and later selling it on to a third party, the crofter has the landlord convey it directly to the third party, the crofter’s nominee (i.e. instead of there being two conveyances, landlord (L) to crofter (C) then C to third party, there is only one – L to 3P (nominee)).

Though it cuts them out of their clawback, landlords cannot refuse to convey directly to a nominee in this way so, in practice, tenants seldom invoke the right to buy to take title to croft land (apart from the croft house site) themselves and what instead happens is this: planning permission for a development on the croft is obtained and the Crofters Commission dutifully de-crofts the site.

The crofter then sells it for a five or six figure sum to a builder, his nominee. The transaction is completed by the crofter invoking the right to buy and paying the landlord the two or three figure “right to buy price” and requiring him to convey the site directly to the builder-nominee. The crofter thus pockets typically more than 95% of the full development value of the land.

Unless, due to being populated by very badly advised (or very generous) crofters, practice is radically different in the Western Isles compared to the mainland areas I used to deal with, this is the entirely standard method by which croft land is sold for non-croft related development, be that fish-farms, housing (affordable or otherwise) or whatever: it’s not the isolated shady deal Mr Allan implies. Nor is there any question of nominees “associated with the building trade, [receiving] croft land at right-to-buy prices.”

If there is concern about croft land being lost to non-crofting related development, then the way to address that is in planning and decrofting legislation (ideally a synchronisation of the two).

Imposing what amounts to a 50% tax on land sales won’t stop “speculation” any more than Capital Gains Tax does: if anything, this risks increasing it by encouraging crofters to buy their land and retain it (dare one say – horrors! - “land-bank” it) until expiry of the clawback period (to be extended – quite pointlessly - in the Scottish Government’s present bill from 5 to 10 years).

Nor do I imagine that Mr Allan’s proposal to fork 50% of the proceeds of “speculation” into the pockets of landlords – whether community trusts or heirs to brewing fortunes – will endear his party to many voters at upcoming elections outside the membership of the Scottish Landowners’ Federation.

Neil King

Rua da Assumada

9960-010 Fajã Grande

Ilha das Flores

Açores

Portugal