Am Bratach No. 198
April 2008
editor@bratach.co.uk

Rhiconich crofter favours right to buy

In evidence submitted to the Scottish government’s Committee of Crofting Inquiry, a North West Sutherland crofter, who for a number of years was a prominent member of the Scottish Crofters Union North West Sutherland Area, illustrates the advantages of both the tenant’s right to buy and of the tenancy system itself. The right to buy — introduced by Act of Parliament in 1976 — is under threat, according to some commentators.

“It would be quite wrong to create another set of laws that disadvantaged the crofter,” states Mr Forbes of Rhivichie, near Rhiconich. “One of the major advantages of being a tenant is precisely that the bank can’t seize your assets and nor can the council in your old age to pay for your care, because you are a tenant the same as a council tenant.

“However, like a council [house] tenant, if you want to, you can exercise the power of purchase, if you think you are better off that way. There are numerous programmes on the television extolling the virtues of today’s property developer. Today’s society sees nothing wrong in Mr Average buying a property, tarting it up and selling it on for profits in the region of £50,000 after two to three years.”

Mr Forbes goes on to ask why a crofter should be discriminated against in trying to maximise his assets, after having struggled on poor land. “If local crofters can get £40-£60,000 for a housing plot, good luck to them,” he says.

But Mr Forbes himself is in no hurry to sell out. “I remain a tenant with the power of purchase, like many others,” he told the committee of inquiry, headed by Professor Mark Shucksmith. “I must retain that power of purchase to give me adequate incentive to invest, in order that, should the worst come to the worst, I can realise my assets should I ever need to — the assets I have worked hard to accrue.”

In his wide-ranging analysis, Mr Forbes praises the Crofters Commission. “Most respondents to your inquiry will be from those who experienced problems and adequate weighting must be made for this,” he points out. “The staff of the commission and local SEERAD staff are very helpful and knowledgeable to many crofters; we would be very, very, very disadvantaged if they were lost in a needless reorganisation — replaced by whom and with what, if any, knowledge?

“Crofting law, crofting administration, crofting development, the role of the Land Court, are all interlinked and extremely complex. There is a clear need that has been repeatedly stated by previous inquiries for a clear, well-funded development role, and a body such as the Commission is ideally placed to deliver this — just give them the funding.”

Although he commends the committee’s vision (See “Planner’s Dream"), he also warns against a tendency to regard crofting as a social experiment. “Crofters don’t deserve this burden,” he states. “Experiments go wrong, often to prove that it can’t be done and that another way needs to be found.”

The full text of Mr Forbes’s letter can be read here. By April 30 — at the latest — it will also appear on the crofting committee’s website, along with other responses to “Towards the future of crofting”. The mid-April date previously indicated for publication of the committee’s final report is highly unlikely: a committee spokeswoman said it was “ministerial dependent”.