Inquiry into crofting

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ON CROFTING
FINAL REPORT

A number of themes – areas of debate – are identified:

First, there is the balance struck by crofting legislation and regulation between the interests of crofting, crofters and crofting communities …. Second, there is also the debate between those who see the future of crofting in terms of agriculture and amalgamation of holdings, on the one hand, and those who see its future in terms of non-agricultural sources of income and occupational pluralism on the other. Third, there is the difference in view between those who see the future of crofting in an Irish-style model of individualised owner-occupation and those who advocate a more collectivised model of community-owned estates and crofting tenants. Finally, there is a debate between those who see the future of crofting as lying in the hands of others (a recurrent argument has been that crofters lack the necessary ability) and those who advocate crofters themselves taking responsibility for the future of crofting and crofting communities. (p15)

The Report is clear that on the first point, there has not been the correct balance between the rights of the individual and those of the wider community

Unless there is a better balance struck than at present, giving wider interests, especially those of future generations, precedence over individual gains, crofting will ultimately disappear, and its potential contribution to sustainable rural development will be lost. (p6)

Crofting has a vital role in sustaining rural population levels:

crofting helps to sustain population levels because it provides access and a tie to the land, giving people a base from which they can earn a living in a variety of ways. In this way, crofting facilitates a connection to place, a sense of belonging and a desire to remain on, or return to, the land. In so far as crofting can provide an affordable home, some food and income, a good quality of life and a sense of purpose, we were told repeatedly that crofting constitutes a good mechanism for retaining population. (p21)

Rural development of crofting areas is dependent on building the capacity of communities…

Our view is that the most effective way of stimulating the broader rural economy of crofting communities is to build the capacity of these communities to develop their own enterprises. (p43)
Local people, their knowledge, experience, skills and networks (i.e. human and social capital) are vital to successful rural development. The stock of human capital is itself critically dependent on migration of different people into and out of an area. (p44)
The social economy is an important part of the economic vitality and development
of a rural area, particularly in remote areas. Dispersed and small populations make the provision of some services expensive for the public sector and unprofitable for the private sector. The social economy can be crucial to the sustainability of communities as well as a route to economic and social well-being. (p45)

….and building meaningful partnerships from the bottom up

For successful long-term rural development, rural communities need to be able to connect with and influence non-local organisations, including regional and national public sector organisations and partnerships, business networks and markets, as well as with networks between community groups operating in different locations.
Partnership working, both between groups and across sectors is widely accepted
as critical to many bottom-up rural development schemes….However, creating partnerships which are shaped from the bottom-up can be challenging. Often the funding conditions that give rise to the formation of partnerships in rural areas mean that they are assembled quickly, and are not as representative as they should be. The key to successful partnership working lies in all partners respecting the role and value of other partners. This may require a fundamental change of attitude amongst established organisations to recognise that community groups can and should participate fully, and actively to encourage this participation.
Other factors found to be important were: having clear achievable objectives, using community agents or ‘animators’ to initiate and assist community groups; receiving a high level of continuous engagement and commitment from relevant organisations, and benefiting from support of volunteers. (p45)

Affordable housing is a , perhaps the , key issue in many areas, and the report recommends a number of changes in the support and regulation of hosing provision for both crofters and non-crofters….

…and finally, ‘sustainable ruralism’ must be embraced through a cultural change amongst planners which allows new housing to be seen as part and parcel of place-shaping and sustainable development (p52)

Empowerment of crofters and the fostering of innovation which will sustain crofting
communities requires appropriate governance structures at all levels, devolving power to the most local suitable level while ensuring that other levels operate in ways which support local action and decision-making. … A framework which devolves power towards communities, within an appropriate regulatory structure, would have the further merit of enabling policy implementation, regulation and enforcement to reflect variations in local circumstances – an important consideration across the very diverse circumstances and traditions of the crofting counties. The regulatory bodies will play a key role in safeguarding and sustaining crofting in their localities. It
will be essential that they have knowledge of crofting, the confidence and ownership of crofters and that they have local accountability. While local authorities provide local accountability to some extent we do not believe that they bring this in relation to the localised communities involved, nor do they in general bring a knowledge of crofting or have the confidence or ownership of crofters in this regulatory role. Our view therefore is that there needs to be a realignment of the responsibility for crofting regulation founded on locally elected crofter representatives, alongside representatives of other legitimate interests. (p57)

The report recommends significant changes in the regulation of crofting:

Empowerment of crofters and the fostering of innovation which will sustain crofting
communities requires appropriate governance structures at all levels, devolving power to the most local suitable level while ensuring that other levels operate in ways which support local action and decision-making. … A framework which devolves power towards communities, within an appropriate regulatory structure, would have the further merit of enabling policy implementation, regulation and enforcement to reflect variations in local circumstances – an important consideration across
the very diverse circumstances and traditions of the crofting counties. The regulatory
bodies will play a key role in safeguarding and sustaining crofting in their localities. It
will be essential that they have knowledge of crofting, the confidence and ownership of crofters and that they have local accountability. While local authorities provide local accountability to some extent we do not believe that they bring this in relation to the localised communities involved, nor do they in general bring a knowledge of crofting or have the confidence or ownership of crofters in this regulatory role. Our view therefore is that there needs to be a realignment of the responsibility for crofting regulation founded on locally elected crofter representatives, alongside representatives of other legitimate interests. (p57)

3.12 Recommendations
3.12.1 We recommend a separation in the functions of (1) crofting regulation and
enforcement, (2) crofting development and (3) the maintenance of the crofting register. Greater local accountability and ownership is also required in the implementation of the regulation and enforcement function.
3.12.2 The Crofters Commission would therefore be wound up. We recommend that
the regulation and enforcement function should be discharged in future by a new
Federation of Crofting Boards, a single organisation consisting of 7-10 elected Local
Crofting Boards, and an executive supplying staffing support, finance and other central services to these Boards.
3.12.3 Responsibility for development of crofting should be given to a powerful Crofting and Community Development body, ideally within HIE.
3.12.4 Responsibility for the Register of Crofts should be taken over by Registers of
Scotland – following a consultancy exercise to assess the current accuracy of the Register, the specification required to maintain appropriate regulatory action in the future and a transition plan to bring the Register up to that specification.
3.12.5 At community level, grazings committees should be modernised to become
Crofting Township Development Committees with a broader remit and more inclusive
membership. Their primary function will be to develop and agree strategic plans for
local crofting development, with the support of the new Crofting and Community
Development body. (p61)
3.12.6 An annual “State of Crofting” Report should be submitted to the Scottish Parliament by the Federation of Crofting Boards, having consulted with the Crofting and Community Development body. (p61)

New legislation is proposed to simplify existing laws and to tackle the problems of absenteeism and neglect

3.15 Recommendations
3.15.1 We believe new legislation is needed to replace, simplify and clarify the accumulated laws which set the framework for crofting today.
3.15.2 No change should be made to those rights given to individual crofters in the
1886 Act, namely security of tenure, succession, fair rents and the value of their
improvements. However these rights should only be enjoyed by those resident on
or near their croft and using the land beneficially.
3.15.3 We recommend that all croft houses be tied to residency through a real burden, which would be deemed to be included in the conveyancing when next assigned or purchased. This would run with the land in perpetuity. Decrofting the house site or purchasing the landlord’s interest will not extinguish this burden. Crofters may apply to the Local Crofting Board to have the burden removed subject to the provisions in section 3.14.3.
3.15.4 A crofter wishing to assign or transfer their croft, or forced to do so through
failing to fulfil the residency burden or enhanced burden should be given three options as set out in section 3.14.4.
3.15.5 Owner-occupiers and tenants should be treated alike, simply as crofters, in all
aspects of crofting. Each Local Crofting Board should have the power to suspend (or
not) the 1976 Act’s Crofting Reform (Scotland) right to buy.
3.15.6 All sub-lets and tenancies should require the consent of the Local Crofting Board, who should also be given the power to place a limit on the number of crofts or the amount of land which can be held or worked by any one crofter. The Boards’ policies on these matters should reflect the content of local Crofting Development Plans, where these exist.
3.15.7 Responsibility for the croft register would be taken over by the Registers of
Scotland – following a consultancy exercise to assess the accuracy of the current
register, the specification required to maintain appropriate regulatory action in the
future and a transition plan to bring the register up to that specification.
3.15.8 Boundaries of crofts which in practice have been accepted for twenty years, or
more, will not be challengeable.
3.15.9 The Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act 1857 should be amended to make a crofting lease registrable and hence eligible for standard securities.
3.15.10 All holdings similar to crofts within defined crofting parishes should, if their owners or tenants wish, become subject to crofting regulation.
3.15.11 Government should consider back-dating the introduction of the real burden on all assignations and purchases made after May 12th 2008, as to question any rush to avoid the provisions of the legislation. ( p68)