The results of consultation, to be published this morning, show that, five years after the process began, there is agreement that some form of action is needed to restructure the Crofters Commission and tackle speculation on croft land, absenteeism (when crofters are not living on or near their crofts) and neglect.
But there is no clear consensus on how to proceed in the 311 individual responses, nor in the 111 from organisations.
The former Labour/LibDem Scottish Executive consulted and passed a crofting act, but not before it was forced to abandon controversial sections in September 2006. As a consequence, a committee of inquiry into crofting was appointed to develop a 21st century vision.
It conducted the largest-ever survey of crofters’ opinion and published its report in May 2008, which the SNP Government inherited. Ministers dropped some of its more controversial proposals in its new draft bill, which then went out for more consultation in May this year.
They are planning to put a Bill to Parliament before Christmas, and Environment and Rural Affairs Minister Roseanna Cunningham has already met with Opposition MSPs.
The most controversial proposal in the draft bill – a requirement that houses built on land taken out of crofting are to be occupied for at least six months per year – has already been dropped.
However, the consultation shows that 45% of written responses did not comment on the proposal and, of those who did, 20% supported it.
The Plockton Common Grazings Committee was clear that such a measure was needed to prevent croft land being sold to “... fuel the holiday home market. Holiday homes are an acute problem in our area resulting in pressure on croft land”. The crofter-led North Harris Trust agreed because it “wishes to see housing occupied”.
But Netta Mackenzie from Elphin in Sutherland, speaking for the Crofters Reform Committee, had a very different view: “This is total madness and cannot be defended in a modern society; is
contrary to human rights law and natural justice; and will do nothing to attract young active or older active crofters to engage in crofting activity. This is a nightmare – neighbour spying on neighbour.”
Now the Scottish Government must come up with another means of quelling speculation in areas most under pressure from the holiday house market. Increased powers for the Crofters Commission on decrofting could present a possible route.
But opinion was divided on how the commission itself should be reformed. But there was support for having crofters elected.
However, when it came to expanding the commission’s powers, 79 were in favour and 76 opposed. There was also division on absenteeism and neglect of crofts, with 126 in favour of more effective action while 67 were opposed. Of the 153 written submissions on the proposal that the commission takes more effective action on crofts not being put to productive use, 116 were in favour, 37 were opposed, while 73 called for a clearer definition.
Ms Cunningham said yesterday the Government was committed to safeguarding crofting’s future.
“If crofting is to survive, we need to tackle absenteeism, neglect and speculation. The challenge we all face is to work together to reach agreement on a way forward to ensure the future success of our crofting communities.
“We will not be taking forward the proposed occupancy requirement, designed to tackle speculation. However, the issue of speculation remains and consideration is currently being given to what constitutes the best means of addressing this problem.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article