Crofting law reform proposals: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

Background

The Scottish Government published the National Development Plan for Crofting in 2021. This set out the importance of crofting and the need for the development of crofting, its communities, its economic strength and its contribution to the environment.

The principal legislation for crofting is the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. The last time the Scottish Parliament made significant reforms to crofting law was in 2010 through the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. That legislation established the Crofting Commission as successor to the Crofters Commission; introduced the Crofting Register; defined the status of an Owner-Occupier Crofter; and introduced substantial new procedures for the Commission’s enforcement of crofters’ residency and land use duties, including the requirement for every crofter to return an Annual Notice (census).

While these reforms led to profound changes, crofting faces continuing challenges and opportunities. While many crofters are active members of their communities and working their land productively, other crofts are currently in the hands of those who are not able, or not willing, to use their land. Similarly, although there has been an upturn in the number of active grazings committees, they and the landowners face complex processes if they wish to take forward innovations such as peatland or habitat restoration. For aspiring crofters, the price of obtaining a croft in the area of their choice can be prohibitive. And both the Crofting Commission, and the crofters who make applications to them, advise that the regulatory processes set out in law are often onerous and sometimes illogical.

Building on earlier reforms, the Scottish Government is now exploring legislative options to update crofting law to address these challenges. A public consultation on a range of proposed reforms ran between 6 June and 2 September 2024. Across the consultation questions (see Appendix A), views were sought on proposed changes which aim to:

• Help more people become crofters and better support existing crofters and their activities and businesses;
• Enable more and different activity to be undertaken on common grazings, including peatland restoration and other environmental initiatives;
• Empower the Crofting Commission to tackle breaches of duty through streamlined processes; and
• Resolve crofting regulatory issues more quickly through new and revised powers for the Crofting Commission.

Respondent profile

In total, 163 consultation responses were received^[2]. Most were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the analysis team.

Individuals provided 136 responses to the consultation; the remaining 27 responses were from organisations. Please see Appendix B for a list of organisations that responded.

To aid analysis, organisations were grouped on the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

The analysis also included notes collated from 15 in-person consultation events hosted by the Scottish Government. These were held in a variety of crofting communities and attended by a total of 257 people. Please see Appendix C for a list of locations and number of attendees. These events were an open forum for attendees to discuss the proposals but were not solely structured around the consultation questions.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and where possible using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Similarly, the technical nature of some of the proposals outlined in the consultation means it is impractical to fully repeat or explain these within this report. Further information on the proposals can be found in the consultation paper.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 49 closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across questions and sub-groups, this report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question.

For clarity, each results table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 163 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses (rows including and under “All answering”). To maintain respondent confidentiality, organisation responses have only been broken down into two categories of ‘Crofting organisations’ and ‘Other’.

Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

Notes from the consultation events were reviewed to identify any differences in opinion compared to the main sample and to identify any new themes. The themes evident in the events typically aligned with those evident in the main sample, but any additional or unique perspectives are noted in this report.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider the following:

• Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population, or of everyone within the crofting community.
• Many qualitative questions in the consultation allowed respondents to elaborate on the views they recorded at the closed questions. However, not all respondents chose to comment, with those who did providing varying levels of detail. The qualitative analysis can therefore only be based on the information provided by those who commented. In general, it was more common for those who disagreed with a proposal to add a comment to explain why, than for those who agreed with the proposal. As a result, in many cases, where the table of responses confirms the majority were in agreement, the qualitative analysis nevertheless concentrates on various reasons for disagreeing with it, among those who did.
• Some respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include these comments to avoid repetition.
• Not all closed questions were followed by an open question to provide comments, leading a small number to leave comments on a proposal at another question. Again, these points have been included at the most appropriate place in this report.
• Where appropriate, quotes are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• The most/second most common theme; most frequently identified.
• Many respondents, 15 or more respondents, a common theme.
• Several respondents, between 10 and 14 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between five and nine respondents, another theme.
• A few / a small number, fewer than five respondents, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in only one or two responses.