Commission may have had just and valid reasons

Considerable press and media coverage has been afforded to statements and comments, made by or attributed to a number of former Mangersta, Lewis, Grazing Committee members following their removal from office by the Crofting Commission, claiming that the Commission at no point has it shown any interest in defending the crofting interest and instead has inflicted untold damage on the morale of a well-run, active crofting village through it’s erratic, overbearing and contradictory behaviour and could bankrupt every Grazings committee in Scotland.

Claims made by some members of the former Committee also state that ‘in response to his claims, there have been repeated investigations, all of which concluded that the village’s affairs have been managed with integrity and efficiency’.

Some of these statements are clearly incorrect and misleading thus providing the public with information which is incorrect and misleading.

Former and current members of the Mangersta Grazings Committee will very well be aware, from their own records, that a number of investigations and reports concluded and recorded that:

• The Committee were not advising all shareholders of township activities;

• The past Committee did breach both legislation and grazings regulations in some areas;

• The clerk was in breach of grazings regulations in some areas;

• Shareholders funds were spent on ineligible items;

• The Scottish Government Agricultural, Food and Rural Communities Directorate recorded that the Committee had failed to ensure that the requirements of the SRDP scheme had been fulfilled;

• The most recent investigation and report concludes and records that considerable grazings fund monies to the value of £37,364 were spent on ineligible expenditure which is not associated with valid Common grazings expenditure. Additionally a sum of £20,000 of grant funding associated with this ineligible expenditure was applied for and received from the local council CNES.

What the former members of the Committee fail to include in their media statements is why a cheque was returned by a former shareholder. The cheque was returned, uncashed, to the clerk on 13th May 2014, advising the clerk that it could not be accepted as it contained a sum using calculations made during the period when there was no Grazings Committee in office and thus be party to any unauthorised or inadmissible transactions.

There was no further response from the clerk and it took over two years for the former Committee members to raise the subject in media releases.

An agreement was reached by all shareholders in March 2014 that payment be made with an action point relating to said agreement. A further action point was that apportionment fences be made stock proof in accordance with the conditions pertaining to the granting of apportionments with an action date of May 2015. This action is still outstanding.

Shareholders have a legitimate entitlement to their legitimate share of funds accrued during their time as a shareholder. It is not for a committee or former members of a committee to withhold, for example, monies due under resumption orders as determined and directed by the Scottish Land Court under a Resumption Order. Shareholders should be offered their share and it is not for any Committee or clerk to withhold or not to offer such payments which were sent to the clerk on behoof of shareholders.

The Land Court has given guidance as to how a Grazings committee should act; Grazings Committees are in fact trustees for the whole tenants having rights in the Common Grazings…. The Committee must act openly, frankly and fairly…..the Committee must exercise their discretion, not partially or capriciously but as trustees for the whole shareholders in the Common Grazing and therefore it is their duty to act impartially and judicially.

The former Committee members stated in a letter to the Commission that they will ‘have no part’ in distributing public money for purposes other than for which it was obtained and went on to state ‘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’ and continues to state ‘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 in it’.

The former members should familiarise themselves with section 49 (2) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, as amended and their own grazing regulations section 26 and section 3 of the Amendments to Common grazings Regulations in relation to the Crofting Reform Act 2007, where it clearly states the legislation and the regulations which the Committee are duty bound to adhere to relating to the recovery of monies from shareholders.

Section 49 (2) of the Act is readily available on line for anyone who chooses to read it and Section 26 of the Mangersta grazing regulations state more or less what section 49 (2) of the act says; Where the Committee have incurred expenses in managing the Common Grazings for the purpose of this Regulation or in providing, maintaining or keeping in good repair any fixed equipment therefor, each shareholder shall be liable for a proportion of the expenses thus incurred corresponding to his right in the Common Grazings’.

The Committee may, before commencing any such works as are authorised by this Regulation, levy on and recover from the shareholders such sums as will in the opinion of the Committee be sufficient to enable them to meet any expenses which they may incur in the discharge of their functions under this Regulation.

Is the ineligible expenditure of such large sums of shareholders funds nothing less than a cavalier approach to the improper use of public funds? Ineligible expenditure is expenditure outwith the law, legislation and regulations.

Despite the continuing adverse publicity heaped upon the Commission and the convenor Mr Kennedy in particular, the Commission may have had just and valid reasons for removing the Committee from office and contrary to the former Committee members feeling aggrieved and hard done by, it seems abundantly clear that the Commission have been exceptionally and exceedingly benevolent towards the Committee’s breaches of legislation and grazings regulations over a considerable period of time.

It may be of considerable interest and concern to all Committees and crofters who abide by the legislation and regulations why the Commission have brushed the substantial ineligible expenditure under the carpet and instead issued not one but two apologies. If any apologies should be offered it should be to the Convenor Mr Kennedy who clearly has tried his best to uphold the Crofting Act, Legislation and the will of parliament.

As always there are two sides to every story and as always the truth will come out eventually. There are no winners in such situations, only losers.

Finlay Macleod.

Former shareholder

Mangersta Common Grazings