Land Reform Policy Group: Recommendations for Action

Annex A: Summary of Responses to the Second Consultation Paper

1 The Group received a large number of responses (846 in total) to its second consultation paper. The overall breakdown of the responses is as follows:

14 public bodies (Crofters Commission, Crown Estate, Forestry Commission, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Historic Scotland, Ministry of Defence, North of Scotland Water, Scottish Borders Enterprise, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Scottish Homes, Scottish Land Court, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Office Agricultural Staff and Directorate of Administrative Services Land and Property Division); 17 local authorities (Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll & Bute, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, Fife, Highland, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Moray, Orkney, Perth & Kinross, Renfrewshire, Scottish Borders and COSLA); 5 political bodies (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Rural Policy Group, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Scottish National Party, Scottish Land Commission and Arran Labour Party); 10 non-Governmental organisations (Friends of the Earth, John Muir Trust, Game Conservancy Trust, National Trust for Scotland, RSPB, Scottish Council for National Parks, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Shelter, WWF Scotland and Woodland Trust); 18 professional or representative bodies (Association of Professional Foresters, Institute of Chartered Foresters, Law Society of Scotland, National Farmers' Union of Scotland (2), Farmers Union Crofters' Committee, National Sheep Association, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Scottish Agricultural Arbiters' Association, Scottish Anglers National Association, Scottish Council Development & Industry, Scottish Crofters' Union (4), Scottish Landowners' Federation, Strathspey Crofters & Tenant Farmers' Association, and the Tenant Farmers' Association); 74 community councils; 87 other organisations; 224 landowners; 63 land agents; 31 tenant farmers; 46 crofters; 257 other individuals.

Vision for the future

2 In general:

public bodies mostly restrict their comments to specific topics related to their own remit, but there is general agreement and endorsement for the overall vision being in line with their own strategies; local authorities strongly endorse in principle the key themes and vision, but there is some concern about the resource implications for local authorities themselves; political bodies all find the vision laudable and are broadly supportive, but there are inevitably different approaches as to the means of transforming this vision into reality; non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) are very supportive of increased diversity and community involvement, but conservation bodies feel that environmental concerns were not given enough weight; professional or representative bodies tend to concentrate on single issues, but where a wider view is taken there is general endorsement of the key themes and vision. The emphasis on local focus and community involvement is welcomed, with recognition that no single solution would suit all circumstances. However, many bodies are concerned about how the 'community' would be defined; community councils have given a much stronger response to this second paper as a result of targeting them directly; many express their appreciation of the chance to contribute to the debate and had convened special meetings to discuss the paper. Overall there is broad support for the vision, but several state that views of their members vary widely regarding the detail, making it difficult to present a consensus response; other organisations: a large proportion of these are concerned with single issues. There is strong representation from fishery boards and trusts opposed to the abolition of sporting rate relief. Similarly there are a number of bodies lobbying for land value taxation. However, amongst the diverse other organisations represented there is broad agreement with the overall vision and key themes; landowners: as with the last paper, landowners represent a significant proportion of respondents. Overall there is a very mixed response. Some are totally opposed to any kind of change (several commenting on a move towards a communist state), whilst others embrace the need for reform and feel proposals do not go far enough. A significant number question definitions, especially of community involvement; land agents present a much wider spectrum of views than was the case for the first paper, with some wholeheartedly supporting the overall vision, whilst others disagree strongly with the underlying 'assumptions' and find the vision flawed. Many do not give a clear opinion, being concerned about the lack of definition of 'community', 'sustainability' and 'rural'. There is uniform opposition to changes in taxation; tenant farmers in the main do not comment on the vision per se, although many are pleased with the proposals for simpler dispute resolution arrangements and are keen to be able to diversify. Concerns are voiced about how community involvement would apply to them - a number of tenant farmers feel this would be giving people control who know little about agriculture; crofters give clear support to the concepts of sustainable crofting communities, diversification and more active crofters, but there are very mixed views on the amount of local involvement in crofting administration and degree of control. Where views are expressed on the wider themes within the paper, there is broad support; other individuals: as with "Identifying the Problems", individuals represent nearly a third of responses and a wide spectrum of views. 20% had responded to both papers. In general there is clear support for reform and a majority of individuals could relate to and agree with the key themes and vision for the future. Some want to go further; but others advocate cautious, incremental change.

Land ownership

3 The main themes are as follows:

The options which attract most support across the board are LO1, LO13, LO14 and LO15 (greater local accountability for private landowners, public bodies and NGOs); and LO8 (support for those considering community ownership or management). Landowners predictably tend not to be in favour of change, but a significant majority would find greater local accountability (LO1) acceptable provided that this was by means of a voluntary code, though there are frequent questions about the detailed definition of the local community and about how community involvement might operate. The proposals LO2 (time for the assessment of the public interest) and LO9 (community right to buy) receive a mixed reception, with most landowning interests opposed and most others in favour. There are many detailed comments as to operational difficulties. A similar pattern of landowning interests opposed and others in favour emerges in relation to compulsory purchase powers (LO3 and LO10); and landowners, land agents and tenant farmers all tend to reject LO13 (smallholdings) as inappropriate in current agricultural circumstances. The options most strenuously opposed are LO5, LO6 and LO7 (changes in land taxation): even those landowners, farmers and land agents who are relatively relaxed about or supportive of change otherwise are firmly opposed to re-introduction of sporting rates or other changes which would add to land costs, most referring to the current drop in agricultural prices and/or the impact on salmon fishing. There are however some individual respondents (often non-UK) who favour the immediate introduction of land value taxation, as an alternative to other types of measures. The other options which attract least support across the board are LO12 (compulsory leasing); and LO4 (regulation of land sales). Those who do support this last often also express support for banning foreign and/or absentee ownership, or forcibly breaking up large landholdings.

Law reform

4 The main themes are as follows:

A large majority of respondents welcome reform of the feudal system and the end of the use of terms such as "superior" and "vassal". They strongly favour the retention of the beneficial aspects of the feudal system: burdens which protect the amenity of a neighbourhood. There does, however, appear to be a widespread misconception that all burdens are imposed under the feudal system, whereas in practice around half of all burdens and conditions affecting property are imposed in non-feudal deeds. The adage of not "throwing out the baby with the bath water" is quoted by a number of respondents who are insistent that the good features in the present system should be retained for the future. There is widespread consensus that burdens will continue to have an important function in both rural and urban areas in the future. These views are expressed across the whole range of respondents, though some landowners express support for the retention of a private system of land regulation separate from the planning system which might be susceptible to political pressure. A number of landowners argue for compensation for superiors where land has originally been sold at a reduced price due to the conditions imposed upon it. A minority of respondents favour complete abolition of the feudal system and of all burdens and conditions on property. These views tend to be localised and seem to be the result of dissatisfaction with local landowners/superiors. Some suggest that legislation would need to provide for the public interest as well as the private needs of local residents. A minority of respondents doubt whether it is necessary to review the law of the foreshore and seabed.

Information about land

5 The main themes are as follows:

Options INF4 (combine existing information into non-authoritative map-based system) and INF5 (ScotLIS), attract most support across the board. Predictably the vast majority of those against these proposals are landowners and land agents, but on INF5 particularly, many landowners who oppose other options support this one. A smaller majority are in favour of INF7 (publication of existing grant details) and INF8 (future grants conditional on publication of details). Most landowners against proposals INF7 and INF8 complain that publishing details of grants would give the public a false impression, since details of the expenses they incur would not be published with the grant information. Many landowners however feel this is a reasonable quid pro quo, providing that it is not done retrospectively. Options INF1 to INF3 (measures for increasing the scope of the Land Register - INF1: holdings over a certain size to be registered; INF2: incentives for voluntary registration; INF3: public assistance conditional on registration) receive a mixed reception, with a significant minority across the board against all three on the grounds of cost. Many respondents consider the idea of a fully comprehensive Land Register is excellent, but may not fully understand the current system. Many people also query the need for further information in view of the statistics compiled for the IACS returns. INF6 (disclosure of beneficial owners) is the most strenuously opposed option with most landowners and land agents opposing it. Overall, respondents are in favour of more information, but generally do not feel that it is worth spending a lot of money on it.

Land use

6 The main themes are as follows:

The options which attract most support across the board are LU1 to LU5: those which propose to take forward the theme of better integration of policy for rural land use at national level. Specifically, these include: improving co-ordination of activity between public bodies; clarifying and streamlining public assistance, and making it more user-friendly; introducing a code of practice, and making public assistance conditional on its application. Also popular was LU11 (requiring all public landowners to develop land management plans in consultation with the local community). Landowners are split between those favouring change and those resisting it, with others questioning the need for certain options and some registering qualified support for change. Some landowners support the use of rural development strategies as a local planning tool to encourage integration, but others are more guarded. While landowners express clear resistance to the introduction of new conditions for public assistance, their responses indicate the most acceptable form of conditionality is that requiring adherence to a code of land use practice. The most strenuously opposed options are LU7 (the use of local land councils) and LU9 (extending planning control to more rural land use developments). On LU7, opposition is widespread, across all interest groups. On LU9, it is mainly (but not exclusively) the landowners who are against change. Some respondents (not solely landowners) comment that extended planning controls might serve to hinder rural development. Opinion is divided over whether or not stronger enforcement of deer control measures is required, with most landowners against the option or questioning the need for such change.

Landlord and tenant

7 The main themes are as follows:

The idea of introducing greater flexibility into tenancy arrangements for new tenancies - LT1, LT2 and LT3 - is generally welcomed. However, of those three options, LT3 (adaptation of the existing legislation) attracts much the strongest support across the board. LT1 (separate legislation for farm business tenancies) and/or LT2 (abolition of the existing legislation for new tenancies) are supported by landowners and agents, but are not favoured more widely. The option that draws most frequent and vehement opposition from landowners and agents is LT4 (the introduction of a right for tenants to buy their farms), although this is supported by tenant farmers and some other individuals and organisations. There is very wide support for LT5 (simplifying the procedures for resolving disputes) and for LT6 (giving the Scottish Land Court a greater role), although the latter is criticised by some land agents. The various options aimed at providing wider opportunities for tenant farmers to diversify (LT7 to LT14) draw a more mixed response. There is widespread support for LT7 (introducing statutory provision for diversification), LT8 (part-time farming by tenants), and LT11 (management by tenants for nature conservation). However, reactions are polarised on LT9 (providing greater protection for tenants against operation of notices to quit), LT10 (introducing rights for tenants to benefit from farm woodlands), and LT13 (strengthening farm tenants' rights to compensation for game damage and in respect of mineral developments): tenant farmers and other individuals generally favour these options, whilst landowners, agents and other organisations are opposed. LT12 (introducing a pre-emption right for farm tenants to acquire vacant sporting leases), and LT14 (providing for landlords and tenants to share royalties for mineral developments), are generally opposed, particularly amongst landowning interests. Greater protection for those who own property built on leased land (LT15), is opposed by landowning interests, but favoured by others.

Crofting

8 The main themes are as follows:

The options which attract most support are CR2 (community management), CR3 (newcomers), CR8 (subdivision), CR9 (subletting), CR11 (succession), CR12 (absentee action), CR13 (multiple tenancies) and CR16 (grants). In every case there are respondents who oppose the option with CR3 attracting the least opposition and CR12 the most support. Opposition is not confined to any one group and there is identifiable crofter opposition to all these options. There are small majorities in favour of CR1 (community right to buy) and CR14 (decrofting). The greatest opposition to both these options is from landowners and land agents. There is a large majority against CR5 (extension of crofting) and a smaller but clear majority against CR4 (create new crofts) with the vast bulk of the opposition from landowners and land agents and a mixed or marginally favourable reaction from some other groups. There is overwhelming dislike of CR6 (local authority involvement in regulation) and mixed reaction to CR7 (devolve regulation). A majority of crofters oppose both. There is a mixed reaction to CR10 (assignations) with crofters mostly opposing change. There is also a clear majority against CR15 (end right to buy) with opposition spread across most groups although crofter opposition is particularly significant.

9 All responses (apart from those which senders have asked to be regarded as confidential) may be viewed at The Scottish Office Library in St Andrew's House, Edinburgh.