• more sustainable crofting communities;

Vision for the future

Possible legislation and other action to achieve this

CR2 Encourage more community management of croft land.

CR3 Ensure there is no bias against newcomers in crofting administration.

CR4 Create new crofts.

CR5 Extend crofting tenure to other parts of Scotland.

CR7 Devolve significant crofting regulation responsibilities to local communities.

CR9 Simplify controls over subletting.

CR10 Simplify control over most assignations and reduce control over relets.

CR11 Reduce Crofters Commission involvement in succession matters.

CR13 Restrict the size of multiple tenancy holdings.

CR14 Reduce scope for resumption and decrofting of croft land.

CR15 End or modify right to buy croft or croft house and garden ground.

• Would encourage greater self sufficiency in crofting communities.
• Would give crofting communities greater control over development.

• Communities might not have adequate resources to exploit their asset effectively.
• Likely to be vigorously opposed by landowners.
• Likely to be limited interest from crofting communities.

More sustainable crofting communities.

Encourage more community organised management of croft land through mechanisms such as stock clubs which run all the community’s stock as a single business with individual crofters as shareholders. This would ensure that all the land is used and the stock and land are managed professionally.

None.

Would require greater emphasis on development of good practice guidance by AEFD and the Crofters Commission. Needs input from communities who are already co-operating successfully. It would be essential to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of this approach in the utilisation of common grazings.

There need not be any, but some modest input of staff time by AEFD agricultural staff and the Commission’s Chief Technical Officer might be desirable to develop some useful written guidance. There are no cost implications for crofters or landowners.

• Croft land would be fully utilised for the benefit of all the tenants.
• Active members of townships would be paid to work for the stock club so helping to retain them in the community.
• Would be agriculturally more efficient.
• Might help with retention of cattle in crofting areas.

• Enterprising individual crofters might have scope for diversification limited.
• Could only be successful if there is consensus within the community.
• Would be move away from the traditional approach and lifestyle.

Probably yes: as it demonstrates how communities can gain from working together.

More sustainable crofting communities.

Ensure there is no bias against newcomers in crofting administration which at present discriminates in favour of the families of crofters and long-standing members of the local community.

Uncertain, possibly none but if the Crofters Commission or Land Court indicate that the present presumption in favour of locals and crofters’ relatives in decisions on assignation and relets is founded on provisions of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 then, for the avoidance of doubt, primary legislation might be needed.

None. All that is required is a change in emphasis in crofting policy.

None.

• Open communities with inward and outward migration are healthier.
• Newcomers might have more financial resources to develop their crofts.
• Newcomers might be more adaptable and less dependent on subsidies.
• Newcomers might be younger.

• Newcomers might not fit into small closed communities.
• Locals might be priced out of the market for crofts.
• Some newcomers might not genuinely intend to work the croft and might be looking for a holiday or retirement home.
• Could adversely affect the maintenance of the crofting way of life and Gaelic culture.

Probably yes: even with a change in legislation the Crofters Commission would be able to exercise discretion as necessary to protect vulnerable communities and keep croft prices from escalating.

More sustainable crofting communities.

Create new crofts on land within the crofting counties which is not used for crofting at present to extend existing crofting communities.

Under present legislation it is not possible to create new crofts on non-croft land: to create the conditions to do so would require primary legislation to amend existing provisions of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993.

Landlords who created new crofts where this was an appropriate means of utilising land (eg Community Trusts, NGOs, Non-Departmental Public Bodies and Government) might end up devoting more time to estate management. There would be pressure on public sector agencies to create new crofting communities by purchasing suitable areas of land and developing these into smallholdings. Mechanisms to do this exist and are available to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Community Land Unit and Local Enterprise Companies.

Costs for landlords extending areas of land under crofting tenure within their existing holdings might not be significant. However, if tenanted holdings were to be created by a public sector landlord there would be substantial capital costs (probably sums in excess of £500,000 for each individual acquisition). With a withdrawal strategy following each acquisition it might be possible to restrict long term administration costs to £200,000 - £300,000 a year. There would also be a marginal increase in demand for crofting grants.

• Would help meet demand for crofts.
• Would be welcomed by many in the crofting community.
• Would help sustain fragile rural communities.

• Would place more land in a tight framework of legal controls.
• Would be difficult to justify when so much croft land is unused or under-utilised.
• Might not be financially sustainable as crofting landlords generally lose money on their crofting properties.
• Would include right to buy with a consequent risk of exploitation by the new tenant.
• Significant acquisition and administration costs if used to create new communities.

Maybe: if deployed on a targeted basis where it would help sustain fragile rural communities.

More sustainable crofting communities.

Extend crofting tenure to other parts of Scotland which have similar characteristics and needs to the main crofting areas (eg Arran, Upland Moray, Highland Perthshire).

Primary legislation would be needed to amend the meaning of croft in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. It could alter the status of existing lowland smallholdings created under the legislation used to create crofts. If these holdings were to become crofts this would convey existing crofters’ rights, including right to buy, to the tenants of these holdings.

The main impact of the change of legislation would be an increase in the workload of the Crofters Commission to the extent that existing smallholdings become crofts. If the new crofting areas extended beyond the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area, there might be pressure to change the boundary with Scottish Enterprise.

Dependent on the scale of extension, there could be a significant increase in demand for crofting grants and up to £50,000 in administrative costs for the Crofters Commission. There might also be serious financial implications for landowners and any owner occupiers affected by holdings becoming crofts. In addition if this option is implemented in conjunction with the option to create crofts the costs associated with that option might be significantly greater.

• Would bring reassurance in areas like Arran if lowland smallholdings became crofts.
• Would help meet demand for crofts.
• Would widen access to crofting grants.
• Competition for limited crofting grant resources would use public funds more efficiently.

• Would place more land in a tight framework of legal controls.
• Could lead to significant acquisition and administration costs.
• Cost implications of extension of crofting right to buy.

Maybe: but probably only within the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area (ie Arran).

More local involvement in and accountability for crofting administration.

Transfer some or all responsibility for crofting administration to local authorities.

This would require major primary legislation to replace much or all current crofting legislation.

An extra task for Highland local authorities which would involve local authorities in an area where they have no present competence and which might not be given priority. However linkages with planning and development functions of authorities might yield minor cost savings. Unlikely that there could be a continuing role for the Crofters Commission and could end AEFD agricultural staff involvement in crofting administration.

Unlikely to be savings as a result of redistribution of the £1.5 million currently being spent on crofting administration amongst 5 authorities and there might be pressure for extra resources. Compensation payments to redundant Crofters Commission staff would also be a possibility. There are no obvious cost implications for the private sector.

• Local decision making.
• Crofting would be linked in with other land management issues.
• Democratisation of crofting administration.

• Might well be extra administrative costs.
• Fragmentation of crofting administration.
• Local authorities less likely to understand crofting issues and might have less direct contact with crofters.

Maybe: however, devolution of crofting administration to communities through the community planning process might just as effectively bring administration closer to those affected and be more cost-effective.

More local involvement in and accountability for crofting administration.

Devolve decision making on the sale, assignation, apportionment and relet of croft land, regulation of grazings and initiation of action against absentee crofters to local communities as part of the community planning process (assume that existing Crofters Commission staffing and organisation would continue to provide administrative support).

Primary legislation would be needed to amend the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 so as to allow decisions on crofting administration in particular areas to be made through the community planning process and to enable the Crofters Commission to involve the local community in decision making (and to define the community for this purpose).

A new structure would require administrative and technical support although much of the work might continue to be done by the existing Crofters Commission staff and AEFD agricultural staff.

Administrative costs are unlikely to be minimised but there could be some savings on the Crofters Commission budget to offset against these. There are no obvious cost implications for the private sector.

• Local decision making.
• Crofting would be linked with other land management issues.
• Would involve all of the local community, not just crofters.

• Some extra administrative costs.
• Fragmentation of crofting administration, with different approaches in different areas.
• Some communities might not want to be involved.

Maybe: this seems a better option than transferring powers to local authorities but it would not be easy to develop suitable structures and mechanisms to maintain effective decision making.

Much simplified crofting legislation and administration.

End the legislative requirement which aims to prevent subdivision of crofts into units which are agriculturally non-viable or to meet housing needs. Crofters are no longer dependent on crofts for subsistence and in modern agricultural terms very few crofts are truly viable.

The existing crofting legislation is framed with the intention of discouraging subdivision and to effect a change of policy would require primary legislation to amend Section 9 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. If combined with measures to ease access to housing assistance the residual demand for subdivision is likely to be for family and management reasons and control is then less justifiable.

Small reduction in work load for the Crofters Commission and AEFD agricultural staff.

There might be very minor cost savings for the Crofters Commission but expenditure on crofting grants might increase. There are no obvious cost implications for the private sector.

• Would let crofters decide the future use of their crofts.
• Would increase the number of house sites.
• Might result in more members of crofting families remaining in the community.
• Less bureaucracy and minor cost savings.

• Might lead to the creation of units which have no viability except as housing sites.

Probably yes: not a big issue but a relaxation of the law in this area gives crofting families more control over their land.

Much simplified crofting legislation and administration.

Simplify controls over subletting of croft land which at present are carried out within a policy framework which views subletting as a temporary solution to be put in place until arrangements are made to ensure that a croft is actively managed by the tenant.

At one level, ending controls could be achieved by a change of policy by the Crofters Commission, but if the basic role of the Commission in relation to subletting is to be changed, primary legislation to amend Section 27 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is necessary. There is also an issue in connection with owner occupied land which at present cannot be sublet without creating a new croft tenancy.

That situation could only be changed by primary legislation.

Small reduction in work load of the Crofters Commission.

Cost savings for the Crofters Commission but no other cost implications.

• Land tenanted by inactive residents and absentees would be more likely to be used productively, if sublet.
• Active crofters would gain access to more land.
• Would reduce crofting bureaucracy and deliver administrative cost savings.

• Cost of being an absentee would be reduced.
• Sublet land is rarely well maintained or improved.

Probably yes: the way existing controls operate makes little positive contribution to crofting.

Much simplified crofting legislation and administration.

Simplify control over assignations to people other than the crofter’s family and reduce control over relets by altering the Crofters Commission’s power to determine who the tenant should be when a croft becomes vacant for reasons other than the death of the tenant.

A change in the Commission’s role would need primary legislation to amend Sections 8 and 23 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. Such amendments need not be complicated, but care would be necessary to avoid giving landowners too much say in assignations or the ability to take crofts out of use.

Reduced workload for the Crofters Commission and the AEFD agricultural staff on investigation of cases and assessment of assignation and reletting proposals.

Significant cost savings for the Crofters Commission and AEFD agricultural staff; and there may also be savings for crofters and landowners.

• Less bureaucracy.
• Would deliver administrative savings.
• In the case of assignations could give crofter greater freedom to dispose of the croft as wished.

• Prices for croft tenancies might become too high for young local people.
• Might bring pressure from landlords to evict crofters who neglect their croft.
• Might lead to tenancies going to people who are less likely to be active or to participate in community activities.
• Abuses might increase.

Maybe: limited control is necessary but it might be possible to reduce bureaucracy and make administrative savings by altering the legislation to make it more flexible.

Much simplified crofting legislation and administration.

Reduce Crofters Commission involvement in decisions on succession to a croft following the death of a crofter.

A change in the Commission’s role would need primary legislation to amend Section 10 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 to create a presumption in favour of the tenancy transferring to the legatee or transferee and to reduce the Commission role so that it would only become involved if a landlord objects to the proposed tenant. The legislation might also usefully indicate the grounds on which an objection to a proposed tenant might be based.

Small reduction in work load of the Crofters Commission and of AEFD agricultural staff carrying out investigations on behalf of the Commission.

Cost savings for the Crofters Commission and AEFD agricultural staff and there might also be cost savings for crofters’ families.

• Respect for the wishes of deceased crofters.
• Less bureaucracy.
• Administrative cost savings.

• Less control over who gets croft tenancies.

Probably yes: reduces bureaucracy and, as at present it is rare for the Commission to counter the wishes of a deceased crofter, the existing arrangements produce no significant benefits.

More (or at least not fewer) active crofters.

More rigorous action on absenteeism by the Crofters Commission.

None. Could be done using existing powers of the Crofters Commission.

Additional work for the Crofters Commission only. However, the more rigorous the approach, the greater the likelihood of additional work on dealing with appeals and legal challenges and of reduced local co-operation. Legalistic or unsympathetic action would damage the Commission’s image and reputation in crofting communities and hinder the way it is able to conduct its other regulatory work.

Administrative costs of between £0 - £50,000 dependent on scale of action and scope for re-deployment of Commission resources. Potential low level of additional costs for affected croft tenants and landowners.

• Would reduce the number of completely inactive crofters.
• Would provide crofts for new entrants to crofting.
• Would send a strong message to the crofting community.

• Likely to be unpopular in practice within crofting communities.
• Would reduce prospects of better off natives returning to crofting.
• Would break family links with crofting areas.

Probably yes: provided action to tackle absenteeism is balanced by action to tackle other sorts of threats to viable crofting communities such as decrofting.

More (or at least not fewer) active crofters.

Restrict the size of multiple tenancy holdings.

It is possible that the general aim could be achieved by the Crofters Commission using existing powers to intervene in assignations and relets but it would be hard for them to apply such a regime comprehensively. To be fully effective in limiting accumulation of croft tenancies by single individuals primary legislation to amend the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 would be needed and it would be particularly difficult to limit such croft collecting if other existing controls over crofting are relaxed or ended.

Given the existing levels of Crofters Commission involvement in assignation, subletting and relets this need not create additional work.

There would be no significant administrative costs but there would be an unquantifiable cost to active crofters in that it would make it more difficult to build an agricultural business.

• Communities would not be destroyed through one family controlling most of the land.
• Would prevent speculative acquisition of crofts to realise the value of houses.
• More crofts would be available for new entrants.

• Would increase control over crofting to deal with something which is not a huge problem.
• Would be unpopular with active crofters who are the most likely to have multiple tenancies.
• Would prevent crofters accumulating enough land to become a full-time farmer.

Probably not: existing controls can have an impact in this area except where accumulation is through inheritance.

More (or at least not fewer) active crofters.

Reduce scope to resume or decroft croft land by redefining "reasonable purpose" as a purpose which conveys a benefit to the local community or is consistent with the wider public interest and eliminate decrofting or resumption which solely benefits landlords or individual crofters.

Primary legislation needed to amend the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. Drafting a suitable new definition of reasonable purpose might not be straightforward.

Fewer resumptions and whole and part croft decroftings would result in a small reduction in workload for the Crofters Commission.

No direct costs but landowners and owner occupiers may be unable to realise development value in cases where they could previously do so. Lost value in any one case could be hundreds of thousands of pounds where the land is to be used for housing. However, it is unlikely that they would be able to argue that they should be compensated for this financial impact.

• Would be more land retained in crofting.

• Would not be a straightforward change to make.
• Likely to have a limited effect.
• Could inhibit development of individual crofts.

Probably yes: although change would have little impact and the Crofters Commission mostly manage to control decrofting effectively already.

More (or at least not fewer) active crofters.

End or significantly modify (for example, introduce compulsory delay on resale or right of pre-emption on subsequent sale) right to buy either croft land or croft house and garden ground. The existing right to buy is disliked by landlords who are forced to sell at a price fixed by the Land Court and may then, much later, see the crofter realise a substantial premium on that price. It is also resented by some crofting interests as being the start of a slippery slope to decrofting and sale for non-crofting purposes, because owner occupied crofts go on the market at prices which locals often cannot afford and because it leads to the creation of bareland crofts.

It would require primary legislation to alter or end the right to buy provisions in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. Ending these rights would mean that crofters would not be able to wholly own and dispose of as they wish the home that they built or paid for. In that respect they would have less rights than ordinary housing tenants who have a right to purchase outright the house and land in which they live which was provided by the landlord. Legislation to alter the rights would be difficult to frame.

Only the Land Court will be affected because crofters may only exercise this right through a case brought in that court. An end to the right to buy would reduce the workload.

None. Land Court costs are recovered from the parties to the court action. A reduction in Land Court activity would therefore have no direct cost implications.

• Would maintain community and Crofters Commission influence over croft transfers.
• Would prevent future changes of ownership at prices locals cannot afford.
• Would prevent separation of house and croft.
• Would keep houses accessible to local people.
• Alteration of the right to buy would discourage speculative resale by crofters.

• Would be vigorously opposed by some crofting interests.
• Would not be conducive to development of crofts.
• Would prevent crofter from realising the investment made in the house.
• Existing tenants would be less likely to give up remainder of croft to new entrants.

Probably not: very difficult to remove or restrict a right of value to so many individuals even if this brings community benefits.

A wider range of land-based and other economic activity rather than predominately agriculture.

Decouple link between crofting capital grants and agricultural production.

Existing crofting grants schemes are agricultural in origin and eligibility is linked to agricultural production. Primary legislation would be needed to create new grant schemes which could assist crofters to enable them to diversify into non agricultural land based economic activity on the croft.

New schemes could be designed to be easier to administer than existing crofting schemes so that if they replaced the existing schemes the administrative burden would not increase.

There need be no new costs and there is potential for some savings if new schemes supersede existing schemes.

• Would support diversification.
• Would encourage use of land which is not dependent on ongoing farming subsidies.
• Would redirect support to the most active and enterprising crofters.
• Could deliver more efficient utilisation of resources.

• Changes in support arrangements are always unpopular.
• There would be losers as well as winners.

Probably yes: in line with Agenda 2000.