Land Reform Policy Group - Identifying the Problems

Land Reform Policy Group:
Identifying the Problems (February 1998)

8. Land registration

8.1 The Register of Sasines has been, since the 17th century, the official national register of title deeds to land which is open to public inspection. This is gradually being replaced by a new Land Register, which is map-based, computerised with its data quality-assured. This programme is due to be completed by 2003. Land sales trigger the transfer of data to the new Register.

8.2 Registers of Scotland (RoS) are also involved in piloting the computerised Scottish Land Information Service (ScotLIS). This aims to create easy and affordable access to a wide range of land and property information. Initially, the service is likely to concentrate on these data:

land ownership details, such as the owner’s name, value (in terms of price paid), whether outright ownership or tenancy over 20 years, and any information held on beneficiaries;
comprehensive topographic information (digitised mapping); and
current land use, development potential, council tax or rating status.

Subsequent phases will incorporate additional public sector information, such as rights of way, land cover, and natural and cultural heritage designations. Public access terminals (and Internet entry) are envisaged at local level for interrogating the range of ScotLIS information. To refine views about service, cost, funding and charging, ScotLIS aims to pilot the system in the City of Glasgow by mid-1998. Business community interest is likely to drive this work.

8.3 All in all, the arrangements in hand will deliver a good deal of information. One of the criticisms of current arrangements is that, with no comprehensive mapping or database, information can only be accessed plot by plot. However, the new Land Register will generate localised maps showing who owns each plot, supported by a database that can be interrogated, by owner, or by county.

8.4 It has been suggested that the transfer of data to the Land Register should be accelerated. To bring this work forward by 3 years, to 1 April 2000, would require the re-direction of funding of around £25m. Could this be justified?

8.5 By 2003, although all Scotland will be operational under land registration, there will remain significant areas that are not covered by the new system. Properties which have not changed hands for many years will not be included. While a complete listing would be neat, is it necessary? The Group is inclined to think that the question of ownership in itself is less important than creating conditions for effective management of rural land that supports thriving communities. Nevertheless, the Register could be made comprehensive (once the conversion of Sasines is complete) by requiring owners to register - within a stated timescale - all landholdings or perhaps those above a certain size, say 1,000 acres. To make the Land Register fully comprehensive would cost at least £300m (entailing the registration of all 800,000 titles presently outstanding); whereas the estimated cost of recording all holdings over 1,000 acres lies between £5-15m. The Group notes the substantial costs involved. Could a Register listing all land, or all holdings over a certain size, be justified?

8.6 It is sometimes suggested that lack of information on the beneficiaries of landowning companies or trusts is a key problem. RoS will include information on beneficiaries in the Register, but have no powers to require it. The Group recognises that it is the registered owner (be this an individual or a corporate body) that is legally responsible for the land. While there is a case in principle for making available information on beneficiaries, the Group recognises that it might in practice be difficult to define satisfactorily the categories of beneficiaries or beneficial owners about whom information was disclosed, and to ensure that such an obligation was met. Could introducing a duty to disclose such information be justified, and how might enforcement be achieved?

8.7 An alternative approach would be to provide more information on who receives public subsidies. Currently the names of recipients of public funds and the amounts paid through LECs, forestry grants and some other commercial or industrial grants are made publicly available. This has not been the practice to date for recipients of agricultural grants and subsidies. How much would publication of such data (to the extent permitted under EU legislation) help?