Identifying The Solutions

• A comprehensive, easily accessible land register is very desirable and important, but the cost of achieving this quickly would be very high;
• There is little merit in accelerating the current land registration programme;
• Complete registration should be the long term aim, but registration of larger holdings is desirable in the short term;
• There is a need for map-based information on land ownership and management to be locally accessible and cheap to obtain to inform decision making and planning. This does not need to be as detailed as the information held on the Land Register and would therefore be cheaper to produce;
• Many public bodies and organisations already hold datasets relating to land ownership and management. If these could be accessed and co-ordinated/integrated it would go a long way towards meeting the perceived need for information;
• Although a number of respondents support a full cadastral system, none define exactly what this would entail;
• It is desirable for beneficial owners to be disclosed, but it is likely to be difficult to achieve (many suggest identification of someone accountable for management is a more important issue);
• There should be greater transparency in how and where public assistance is spent, but with an indication of the public benefits and conditions attached to prevent the information being misconstrued. A number of local authorities and public bodies in particular felt this information would be of benefit to them.

• more definitive information readily available about land ownership;
• more broad-brush information readily available about land ownership;
• more information readily available about beneficial owners;
• more information readily available about public support relating to land.

Vision for the future

Possible legislation and other action to achieve this

INF2 Provide incentives for voluntary registration.

INF3 Make access to public assistance conditional on registration.

INF5 Extend current ScotLIS (Scottish Land Information Service) project to include all public body datasets including those of relevant public utilities.

INF8 Make provision of public assistance conditional on agreement for information on such assistance to be made public.

More definitive information readily available about land ownership.

Require all holdings above given size to be registered in the Land Register, regardless of change in ownership.

This would involve primary legislation to amend the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979, requiring owners to register all properties above a certain size.

This would be a new task for Registers of Scotland and would have staffing implications if Registers of Scotland were to record guaranteed titles for all properties fitting the description. Registers of Scotland would also need to promulgate the new requirements. Some form of enforcement and penalty arrangements would be needed. Initially, Registers of Scotland would need to conduct research to establish which properties would be affected, which would not be straightforward. It should be remembered that large holdings are generally more complex to register. Registers of Scotland would need to purchase more IT mapping kit.

Registers of Scotland estimate that it would cost between £5-£15 million to register all holdings over 1000 acres (400 hectares), and at least £80 million to register all holdings over 125 acres (50 hectares). Costs to individuals would vary, but they would have to pay legal expenses and registration dues.

• Would fill some of the gaps in registration which would otherwise remain once the current Land Register programme is complete.
• Would provide information on some of the landholdings most likely to be of interest.

• The Land Register would still be incomplete.
• The size limit would be arbitrary.
• Compulsion would be unpopular.
• Need for enforcement/penalty arrangements.
• Registers of Scotland do not have basis for easy identification of affected properties.
• Would be very costly.
• Registrations of large properties are usually complex and time-consuming.

Probably yes in the longer term: in the short term, the desired benefits could be achieved more cost-effectively by implementing some of the other options in this Chapter.

More definitive information readily available about land ownership.

Provide incentives for voluntary registration.

Primary legislation would be required to amend the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979. Secondary legislation (at least) would be required to provide for incentives.

Any incentive deals (eg free or discounted registration fees) would need to be devised and publicised. The Keeper can currently accept a voluntary registration if part of the property falls within an area which is operational under the new Land Register, but it would be difficult for Registers of Scotland to undertake voluntary registrations for areas outside those covered by the Register.

The costs would depend on the nature of the incentives. There would be the cost of administration at Registers of Scotland, and a possible reduction in fee receipts would have to be allowed for. This option would be fairly significant for Registers of Scotland to undertake alongside their current programme; but would certainly be more feasible after completion of the Land Register extension programme in 2003. The costs for applicants for registration might be of a medium order: the cost of registering an estate worth £5 million would be about £7,500 excluding legal fees.

• Increased coverage in the Land Register.
• More attractive than compulsion.

• Information would still be incomplete.
• Might not catch the information that is most sought after (cases attracting media attention etc).
• Administration costs might not justify results.
• The private costs for applicants (in terms of solicitors fees etc) might serve to reduce the incentive.

Maybe after 2003: but it would not give complete coverage and costs could well outweigh benefits.

More definitive information readily available about land ownership.

Make access to public assistance conditional on registration.

Primary legislation would be required to amend the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979. At least secondary legislation would probably be required to amend scheme rules. (This would depend on how schemes were established legally.) The rules of some EC-funded schemes would not allow such conditions to be applied; for others, appropriate criteria would have to be negotiated with the EC.

This would have implications for all grant giving bodies (eg AEFD, Scottish Natural Heritage, Forestry Commission, Local Enterprise Companies, Historic Scotland). Publicity would be required to ensure awareness of the conditions amongst scheme participants and the general public. Some provision for enforcement would need to be put in place and a link would have to be established with Registers of Scotland who would provide the necessary certification. It would be difficult for Registers of Scotland to administer in areas not yet covered by the Land Register. Appropriate procedures could prove quite complex to develop. If a Land Certificate was required as proof before public assistance could be paid, then Registers of Scotland would come under pressure to give priority to cases where applicants were awaiting payment. If proof of application was all that was required, repayment arrangements would be needed for instances where applications were cancelled.

Registers of Scotland would incur costs in providing the appropriate certificate. Individuals would have to pay legal expenses and registration costs.

• Increase in coverage of the Land Register.
• More attractive than compulsion.

• Still incomplete information, limited to those receiving public assistance.
• Might be a disincentive to take up public assistance.
• Possible delay in public assistance payments, especially with large estates which take time to register (although this could be minimised by issuing the certificates shortly after receipt of
• the application for registration as is currently done for Standard Securities granted by
• Limited Companies).
• Administrative process would be fairly complex.

Probably yes but not yet: scheme by scheme action would be necessary. Perhaps this should be considered as a fallback option if other options fail.

More broad-brush information readily available about land ownership.

Produce map-based (non-authoritative) information on land holdings based on information from the Register of Sasines, by combining and publishing all existing data held by public bodies, including relevant public utilities (unless of particular sensitivity eg protected species, national security etc), and encouraging rural landowners to assist by providing information about their holdings.

Most of the desired information can be extracted from the Register of Sasines: supplementing it from other public data would require primary legislation for all-purpose disclosure compatible with the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 and current disclosure rules under the policy of Open Government. (Where information is compulsorily obtained, it is only used for the purposes for which it was acquired.) Legislation might be required later to regulate the keeping of the information.

A Ministerial letter could be used to require a public agency to collect and publish all data on landholdings and use in the possession of public bodies to supplement the information gleaned from the Register of Sasines. Alternatively this could be contracted to a private organisation. This would be an extra burden for the agency selected but it might be possible for the work to be carried out relatively cheaply without significant staff resources. IT availability for creating the digitised maps would have to be assessed; but the degree of integration of data might depend on the format in which it is held. The question of responsibility for updating the maps would need to be addressed. The terms of the Data Protection Act could affect this proposal.

Publication costs would require to be met. The cost of drawing up comprehensive digitised maps would need to be investigated but it could probably be done for less than £1 million. Costs might be offset by access charges to user.

• Release of substantial amounts of data.
• Information gathered could be integrated with ScotLIS and the Land Register in future.
• Reduction in duplication of research effort for public and private sector interests.
• Positive response to calls for information holdings to be made available/integrated.
• All information would be held in one central access point.
• Would provide a lot of information relatively cheaply.
• Clearer overall picture of a wide range of data relating to land holdings, use, access etc.

• Unless new IT system/expensive compilation undertaken, data collected will not be integrated or held in a compatible form.
• All information would not necessarily be complete and/or reliable.

Probably yes: useful extra data even though non-authoritative and not integrated. A good option for bringing together a large quantity of coarse-grained information cost-effectively.

More broad-brush information readily available about land ownership.

Extend current ScotLIS (Scottish Land Information Service) project to include all public body datasets including those of relevant public utilities. (This proposal depends on a successful outcome to the ScotLIS pilot, and implementation to include a wide variety of public sector-held information.)

No legislation required.

This would involve the extension of the pilot project; making a range of information on land holdings available at public access points across Scotland using new technology. It would require administrative co-ordination to expand data holding by tapping into a wide range of information, including the Land Register.

There could possibly be significant savings to users in avoiding duplication of effort. Public administration costs should be low due to commercial and business community interest and financial support.

• Organised co-ordination of information across Scotland.
• Readily accessible (local access).
• Reduction in duplication of effort.
• This would be a better option than a cadastral system because of the range of organisations involved - and it would also be compatible with the existing basis of land information.
• Benefits for private sector business interests in terms of planning interests, researching feasibility etc.

• Quality of information not assured.
• Cannot be complete in terms of land registration data until the Land Register is complete.

Probably yes: if the pilot testing/evaluation of ScotLIS is a success.

More information readily available about beneficial owners.

Introduce a power to investigate beneficial ownership of land. The Sasine and Land Registers are good at revealing legal ownership, but transparency of ownership is optional. In particular, wherever a discretionary trust is involved, the trustees can decide (amongst a limited class of persons) who is to benefit and by how much. It could be part of a code of good practice on land ownership that information on beneficial ownership be supplied when registering titles.

Primary legislation would be required, along the lines of section 442 et seq of the Companies Act 1985. The practical value of such provisions would however be limited, because justification for investigation would be needed and investigations could be costly. But this would be more promising than a general duty to disclose beneficial ownership, which would face great difficulty in defining the type of ownership intended to be covered and the penalties for failure to comply.

Power to investigate: would depend on scale of use. General duty to disclose: significant implications for enforcement.

Would depend on scale of use.

• More information would be available about land ownership.

• (Power to investigate) Need for justification for investigation.
• (Power to investigate) Cost of investigation.
• (Duty to disclose) Difficult to introduce water-tight legislation.
• (Duty to disclose) Difficult to enforce.
• (Duty to disclose) Difficult to identify cases in which the obligation has been breached.

Maybe for power to investigate, probably not for general duty to disclose: desirable in principle but it probably could not in practice be made to work. Probably yes as part of code of good practice.

More information readily available about public support relating to land.

Make existing information on recipients of public assistance available.

Whether or not there would be any legislative implications would depend on whether the relevant legislative basis of the particular funding allowed for such disclosure. The rules of some EC-funded schemes would not allow such conditions to be applied; for others, appropriate criteria would have to be negotiated with the EC.

Publicity would be required to ensure awareness amongst agricultural scheme participants and the general public.

The costs for this would be minimal since the information is held already. There should be no cost implications for individuals.

• Public accountability in return for public funding.

• Might be a disincentive to seek public assistance.

Probably yes so far as possible: but scheme by scheme action would be necessary.

More information readily available about public support relating to land.

Make provision of public assistance conditional on agreement for information on such assistance to be made public.

This would depend on whether the relevant legislative basis of the particular funding allowed for such conditions to be attached. Secondary legislation would probably be required in some cases, to amend scheme rules. (This would depend on how the schemes were established legally.) The rules of some EC-funded schemes would not allow such conditions to be applied; for others, appropriate criteria would have to be negotiated with the EC.

This would have implications for all grant giving bodies (eg AEFD, Scottish Natural Heritage, Forestry Commission, Local Enterprise Companies, Historic Scotland). Scheme conditions would require to be amended. Publicity would be required to ensure awareness amongst scheme participants and the general public.

The costs would be minimal, although publication costs might be required. Alternatively, the information could simply be held available. There should be no cost implications for individuals.

• Public accountability in return for public funding.

• Might be a disincentive to seek public assistance.

Probably yes so far as possible: but scheme by scheme action would be necessary.