tso-banner.gif (2487 bytes) Previous page Contents page Next page
  
Land Reform Policy Group: Recommendations for Action
 
 
1. Introduction
 
1.1 With the advent of the Scottish Parliament, there will at last be the means to legislate in Scotland for Scottish land reform. To that end, the Government in October 1997 set up the Land Reform Policy Group, with the remit:

"to identify and assess proposals for land reform in rural Scotland, taking account of their cost, legislative and administrative implications and their likely impact on the social and economic development of rural communities and on the natural heritage."
Lord Sewel, Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries, chaired the Group personally, and other core members were:
  • Isabelle Low (Deputy Chair), Head of Land Use Division, Scottish Office
  • Professor John Bryden, Arkleton Centre, University of Aberdeen
  • Murray Elder, Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland
  • Alan Fraser, Head of Enterprise and Tourism Division, Scottish Office
  • Douglas Greig, Chief Economist, Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department, Scottish Office
  • David Henderson-Howat, Chief Conservator, Forestry Commission
  • Joyce Lugton, Civil Law Division, Scottish Office
  • Hugh MacDiarmid, Solicitor's Office, Scottish Office
  • John Randall, Head of Countryside and Natural Heritage Unit, Scottish Office
  • Philip Rycroft (until end August 1998) then Jan Polley (from September 1998), Head of Agricultural Policy Co-ordination and Rural Development Division, Scottish Office.
The consultation process
1.2 Land reform is an issue which impacts directly on the lives of the people of Scotland, particularly those who live in rural areas. The Group has therefore aimed to involve as wide an audience as possible in developing its recommendations for action. In February the Group issued a first consultation paper on identifying the problems and opportunities which land reform should address, attracting 364 responses. Then in September the Group issued a second consultation paper on identifying the solutions, assessing possible options for action in terms of what would be achieved by the proposed change; the legislative implications; and the administrative implications; and the cost. 846 responses were received to this second consultation phase (summarised in Annex A), and they are reflected in these final recommendations. The Group is most grateful to all respondents to its consultation papers.
 
Vision for the future
1.3 The objective for land reform is to remove the land-based barriers to the sustainable development of rural communities. Sustainable development is not something that can be readily defined in the abstract; but in practice it will consist of development which is planned with appropriate regard for local communities, local employment and the environment. It therefore needs an integrated approach which takes account of social and economic as well as environmental aspects. To achieve this, there needs to be:
  • increased diversity in the way land is owned and used: in other words, more variety in ownership and management arrangements (private, public, partnership, community, not-for-profit) which will lead to less concentration of ownership and management in a limited number of hands, particularly at local level, as the best way of encouraging sustainable rural development; and
  • increased community involvement in the way land is owned and used, so that local people are not excluded from decisions which affect their lives and the lives of their communities. What is meant by "community" will depend on the context. In some cases it will be right to define this quite narrowly, in terms of those who live and/or work on the land in question. In other cases, it should also include those whose livelihoods are affected by the management of an area of land. In other circumstances the issue is community involvement in wider decision-making, where the right definition may be in terms of the local rural partnership or community council. Broader communities of interest also exist, for example those with a specific conservation interest, and those visiting the area. There will be further discussions on the right definition for each individual proposal.
1.4 This translates into the detailed vision for the future shown in the box opposite. This has been enthusiastically endorsed by many respondents.
  • More local involvement, greater commitment and accountability by private landowners in rural Scotland
  • More scope for community ownership and management of local land where this can be sustainable
  • More scope for releasing land for housing and local development where this is sustainable and secures the retention and if possible the expansion of fragile rural communities
  • More scope for smallholdings supporting a wide range of land-based and other economic activity where this is sustainable and secures the retention and if possible the expansion of fragile rural communities
  • About the same level of ownership by public bodies, but with more local involvement and accountability and optimal employment of local people
  • More local involvement and accountability and optimal employment of local people by non-Governmental organisations who own land in Scotland
  • Outdated and unfair feudal arrangements swept away
  • Conditionality of land ownership where appropriate to reflect modern circumstances
  • A more constructive approach to problem cases, including those relating to the foreshore and the seabed
  • 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
  • Better integration of policy for rural land use at national level
  • More integrated planning of rural land use at local level
  • More community involvement in decisions about rural land use
  • More public access on a responsible basis
  • More scope for diversity of agricultural tenancy arrangements
  • Simpler and cheaper arrangements for resolution of disputes between agricultural tenants and their landlords
  • Wider opportunities for tenant farmers to diversify
  • Greater protection for those who own property built on leased land
  • More sustainable crofting communities
  • More local involvement in and accountability for crofting administration
  • Much simplified crofting legislation and administration
  • More (or at least not fewer) active crofters
  • Undertaking a wider range of land-based and other economic activity rather than predominantly agriculture
1.5 Recommendations for achieving this are set out in the Chapters that follow. A summary of these final recommendations as compared with the provisional views set out in the second consultation paper is at Annex B.
1.6 Overall, the scale of change required suggests that what is needed is not a single Bill but an integrated programme of land reform legislation over the next 4 or 5 years. Such a programme might comprise the following elements:
  • abolition of feudal tenure;
  • measures to secure the public interest and increase community involvement;
  • access;
  • leasehold casualty reform;
  • reform of real burdens;
  • nature conservation reform;
  • national parks;
  • agricultural holdings reform;
  • crofting reform; and
  • further land reform measures in due course flowing from an ongoing programme of further study.
  Previous page Contents page Next page