Land Reform Policy Group: Identifying the Problems (February 1998)

5. Crofting

5.1 It is widely accepted that crofting tenure has played a significant role in minimising population loss in remote areas of the Highlands and Islands, by providing low cost land and housing as a basis for other economic activity; and that it encourages non-intensive methods of farming. That said, the numbers of worked crofts and active crofters have been declining, despite the work of the Crofters Commission and the availability of significant financial support.

5.2 Although there were 17,685 crofts as at December 1996, demand for crofts is well in excess of the available supply. Demand is both from young local people and from people from elsewhere without previous crofting connections. The Croft Entrant Scheme has helped, but is held back by a lack of out-goers. At the same time, it is estimated that about 40% of all crofts are unworked or underworked by their tenants or owners. Of these, around 15% of all crofts are sub-let; a further 10% are held by absentees; with perhaps a further 15% of crofts underworked by their tenants. The Crofters Commission has recently announced that it will be taking tougher action on absenteeism, but it remains to be seen how far this will result in meeting the demand for crofts. What measures could best help to ensure that all crofts are actively occupied?

5.3 Decrofting part or all of a croft permanently reduces the pool of land in crofting tenure. The Crofters Commission will therefore approve decrofting applications only to create extra housing; or if it is satisfied that the loss of crofting land is outweighed by resultant benefits to the community eg a community hall. But where there is no demand for the land, and no strong objections from the local community, or where there is no discernible crofting community, applications for decrofting will usually be approved. In 1996, 214 applications to decroft house sites (31.5 hectares) were successful and 206 (of 328) other applications succeeded (44 hectares). Should decrofting be discouraged and land kept in crofting tenure wherever possible?

5.4 Many commentators have called for the creation of new crofts or smallholdings: either limited to the current crofting counties; or in all remote rural areas of Scotland; or throughout Scotland. Only very small numbers of new crofts are created each year (eg 14 in 1996) and new crofts are usually subdivisions of existing crofts; existing crofting law makes creation of new crofts difficult. The lifestyle is one which is attractive to many; and the pattern of land settlement it implies fits well with the objective of sustainable development of rural communities. The main benefits of defining this as crofting would be that those involved would get low cost access to unimproved land, long-term security of tenure and access to crofting financial support. These advantages however have to be balanced against the extra costs to the public purse; and the risks of creating new communities which continue to be dependent on public subsidy. Could this change be worth considering for specific areas provided that it would help stem or reverse population loss in remote rural communities through the encouragement of self-sustaining economic activity?

5.5 The right to buy provisions of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 have so far resulted in nearly 4,300 croft houses and 3,000 crofts passing into private ownership. Owner occupation is not in itself a problem but it can become a route to decrofting. In most cases the croft and croft house are separated and the decrofted croft house sooner or later changes hands on the open market, often at a price beyond the reach of local young people. Should current right to buy legislation be amended and, if so, how?

5.6 The Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Act 1997 gives tenants of the crofting estates owned by the Secretary of State the right to opt for community ownership. Despite the work of the Crofting Trusts Advisory Service, which provides advice and support to crofting communities thinking about community ownership, so far most such communities have concluded that they prefer to remain tenants of the Secretary of State, without the burdens of ownership. The Group believes that barriers to community ownership should be removed where this is what communities want, but that community ownership should not be forced on unwilling communities. On the other hand, there have been calls for community ownership rights to be extended to other, privately owned, crofting estates. In fact, this could be done under existing legislation (through a complicated and time-consuming process of apportionment of common grazings to each crofter’s inbye, then each opting for individual right to buy, then each vesting all the land in a community trust). Under these circumstances, would it make sense to look at ways to bring all other crofting communities into a single simplified procedure for acquiring community ownership?

5.7 Current administrative systems for crofting and crofting support are remarkably complex. From a crofter’s perspective, they are also distant (administered from Inverness or Edinburgh); and they reflect a largely outdated concept of the crofter as passive and in need of the protection and direction of the Crofters Commission (and others). Is this part of the problem? An approach which gave more power and responsibility to crofter communities themselves at local level might be more in keeping with empowering local communities as much as possible.