Councillors win vote to halt croft house sale policy

At a special meeting of the full council on Tuesday evening, councillors voted 9-8 in favour of the move.

The moratorium will now remain in place until the Comhairle has fully reviewed its policies on the matter, with a comprehensive report on the legal and financial issues involved due to come before the next round of Comhairle meetings at the end of April.

During an impassioned debate - which occurred after eight councillors backed a motion under the authority’s standing orders to demand a special meeting of the full council to consider the matter - councillors warned that the practice of including croft houses in social care cost  assessments had meant that families had been forced to sell the croft house to cover care care home debts.

And that the existing policy was undermining the strength, historic cause and the future of crofting in the islands. 

Councillors rejected the findings of legal opinion, taken nearly 20 years ago, which held that croft houses could be considered as the property or capital asset of the croft tenant and therefore be included in social care financial assessments as being the correct basis for the Comhairle’s current policy. 

Opening the meeting Comhairle convenor, Cllr Norman A MacDonald (Sgir’ Uige Agus Ceann A Tuath Nan Loch), said that in response to the many concerns expressed about the policy, this “was a subject that the Comhairle should be looking at”, and the Comhairle “has a responsibility to come up with something that is fair and legally competent”.

The Comhairle should protect crofting law, the convenor stated, that was established: “so that crofters had more control over the land” and that is was the responsibility of the Scottish Government to determine the law on crofting and social care financial assessments.

Governments in both Westminster and Edinburgh, the Convenor concluded, had been “trying to shy away from this emotive subject”, and the only way forward was for the Comhairle to get a “definitive legal decision” on the matter, and that it would be “a disgrace, if this was the first council to consider signing away the rights of crofters”

The Comhairle’s chief executive, Malcolm Burr, said “at some point the Comhairle had to make a decision on the matter” and recommended that the issue be deferred to the next round of Comhairle committee meetings, at the end of April, to allow for the completion of a ’comprehensive’ report on the financial and legal consequences of the policy.

But, Cllr Calum MacMillan (Barraigh, Bhatarsaigh, Eiriosgaigh agus Uibhist a Deas) rejected that approach saying:  “What we have to do here is to set out a policy. We can’t kick this back to the Scottish Government.

“We have to formulate a policy here. There has been 20 years of extant policy in the Comhairle based on what happened in England.

“Croft houses are not just homes they are part of the croft business, a permanent improvement to that tenancy, and the Comhairle’s policy needs to be overhauled in terms of the primary legislation that regulates these tenancies.”

“We, as councillors”, Cllr MacMillan stated, “have to change this policy. We have to look at the crofting aspects of our community. I acknowledge that there are costs, but now we realise that this is a step too far.”

Cllr John A Maciver (Loch a’Tuath) referring back to the convenor’s opening comments, stated: “We were the first council to go down this road, and it is important that crofting is sustainable and that we protect it.”

Cllr John N MacLeod (An Taobh Siar Agus Nis) said that he was concerned about crofting and young people.

He said: “What is worrying is the list of crofts for sale see every week.We all know the costs of those, they can be 10s of thousands of pounds. How can the young afford those?

“We as a council should not be looking to selling croft tenancies, we should be looking at them being handed down, and that any sales should be anyway be properly approved and that is not happening.

“ There should be financial assistance for young people to buy a croft and we as a council should be supporting that.”

The Convenor then said, “those who have struggled to get land for crofting, the people who went to prison for that, they would be ashamed about how crofts are being sold and it is very wrong that that is happening.

“We should be going to the Scottish Government to try and get crofting back to where it was.”

Cllr Donald Manford (Barraigh, Bhatarsaigh, Eiriosgaigh agus Uibhist a Deas) said “Some of us have opposed this policy since it came into force. I ask, does a tenancy have a value such that it can be sold?

“My understanding is that a tenancy is not that, that it is not a definition of ownership.

“The croft house is a tied part of the croft business, and to force one part of that business out, to force it into ownership when it wasn’t that is brow-beating, that is bullying.

“If a tenancy is a form of ownership and has a value that can be sold - we’ve already been doing that for 20 years - where does that go if someone wants to use that against council houses or housing association properties or any other tied tenancy?

“If this is right in one instance of the law then is it right in another instance of the law. My worry is that this could be extended into social housing and that would be disastrous, we should now have a moratorium on this policy.

“This is Westminster legislation that required councils to go after those who owned property.

“Nowhere does it say that tenants are defect owners. We have chosen the definition. Tenancies are a form of ownership. But the buck stops with us. We need to sort out  when is a tenancy ownership? When did we decide it was? We should back-peddle.”

Cllr Manford concluded, “we should not have gone down this road in the first place. But let’s now have the courage of our convictions. Let’s cease this policy until we have the legislation that we require.” 

Cllr Manford then proposed an amendment to the original motion calling for a moratorium to be placed  on the existing policy until it is reviewed.

Chief Executive, Malcolm Burr, stated that the amendment “would not be my advice”, and there is “no suggestion” that the Comhairle “is doing anything unlawful in this policy, and it is normal practice to maintain the status quo. Mr Burr said a moratorium would have financial  and legal implications .

A vote was taken and councillors voted 9-8 to support Cllr Manford’s  amendment.