Far from benefiting crofters, the move will prove a waste of their money and trigger a welter of legal disputes, according to the Crofters' Rights Emergency Action Group (CREAG).

Group chairman Rhiconich crofter David Forbes also hit out at what he said was the short shrift the Crofting Reform Bill was given by the Scottish Parliament last Thursday.

Mr Forbes helped set up the group in the wake of the report by the Shucksmith Inquiry, which led to the review of crofting legislation.

He said the planned new register was unnecessary and predicted it would lead to a succession of legal disputes. He said that normally, land registration tends to become an issue when land is sold or when someone dies.

He said: "Outwith crofting, there is no question of asking a tenant of a property to go on the register.

"It's going to prove extremely costly to crofters and it will, as far as I can see, put the crofter at a disadvantage to the landowner who, after all, owns the title deeds. I can see this creating dispute after dispute after dispute as people won't agree on the boundaries of the croft or its status as a croft.

"The crofter will then be faced with horrendous legal costs in trying to prove his or her case." Mr Forbes claimed the politicians who supported the register badly underestimated the complexity of the issues involved.

He also blasted Holyrood for "rushing through" the debate in which it dealt with over 200 amendments to the bill.

He said six years of consultations on the issue had been compressed into a day's business at Holyrood, the day before it broke up for the summer recess.

Mr Forbes said: "It's certainly not a good reflection of how the Scottish Parliament works." SNP and Tory backers of the register claim it will create a "clear and unambiguous" record of croftland in active use and provide greater security of tenure.

The bill was hailed by North MSP Rob Gibson as safeguarding the industry's future. He said it would open the door to active crofting and "root out neglect".

Mr Gibson, a long-standing member of the Scottish Crofters' Union and its current version - the Scottish Crofting Federation - said croft registration costs to define areas and boundaries are long overdue and would be a similar price to a TV licence.

He argued Labour's rejected amendment to give votes to all in crofting households in elections for the new Crofters Commission would have cost millions to compile..

He accused Labour and the Lib Dems of peddling an outdated view of crofting that ignored market realities.

"I find it odd that a Labour Party that spent the 1990s attempting to get a register for the land of Scotland should exempt crofts from that approach, and should make it more difficult to administer crofts in a manner that is fit for the 21st century," he said.

"Many arguments have been aired around this issue before, but the nub of the matter is that many of the experts (including the SCF and the NFU Scotland) say that there is a need for a land register. The fact that the land registers take time to build up should not stop us from starting the crofting register.

"The land register will give crofters a legally-valid title properly registered. The cost for this is the same as a TV licence, it is a small price to pay for certainty and will open the doors to active 21st-century crofting." Mr Gibson claimed the bill would also root out neglect and would tackle neglect and absenteeism head on.

He added: "The Government want to see croftland used to its full potential, and for it to continue long into the future. Modernisation of the laws is needed and has happened. I am confident that the passing of the bill will mean a new and positive dawn for crofting." NFU Scotland's crofting, Highlands and Islands committee chairwoman, Jo Durno, said: "The bill has taken years of discussion and consultation to reach a conclusion which may not satisfy all crofters. However, the areas of greatest contention were quite rightly removed from the original draft and hopefully what is now in place can secure the long-term future of crofting in Scotland's most remote rural areas." Scottish Labour insisted that the economics of crofting is important, not more costly regulation.

Labour's rural affairs shadow cabinet secretary, Sarah Boyack, made it clear that the most controversial, costly and bureaucratic part of the bill - for a second and unnecessary croft register - will be kept under close review over the months to come.

Highlands and Islands Labour MSP Peter Peacock said: "This double registration scheme is costly and unnecessary.

"The bit in the bill about the register alone runs to dozens upon dozens of pages of complex bureaucracy.

"At minimum, crofters may have to pay close to £1000 to have their croft registered and if they fail to comply there is a fine of up to £1000..

"This new double registration system, which will take upwards of 40 years to complete, has little or nothing to do with better supporting crofting..

"There has been a profound and fundamental division in parliament about this new, extra register." He went on: "At root, the challenges crofting faces are economic, not regulatory. With every successive bill on crofting that is passed, the regulation becomes more complex and this bill is no exception.

"If crofting provided more of a living, and there was more economic strength and more diverse economic opportunity in crofting areas, we probably would not be debating absenteeism.

"If we really want to support crofting, we should spend less time legislating and more time solving the economic development questions..

"This bill, with its extra regulation, will do little for crofting."

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark this

---