A Consultation on the Future of Land Reform in Scotland: Analysis of Consultation Responses

5. IMPROVING THE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF LAND OWNERSHIP IN SCOTLAND

Background

The Scottish Government understands that occasionally it can be difficult to trace and contact landowners, leading to practical difficulties for those seeking to engage with them or for enforcers of fiscal or environmental obligations.

The Review Group recommended that the Scottish Government should make it incompetent for any legal entity not registered in a Member State of the European Union (EU) to register title to land in the Land Register of Scotland, in order to improve traceability and accountability.

The Scottish Government supports the aims of this recommendation and is considering how any potential measures could work in practice whilst taking into consideration relevant policy and legal issues.

Proposal 2: Limiting the legal entities that can own land in Scotland

Question 7: Do you agree that restricting the type of legal entities that can, in future, take ownership or a long lease over land in Scotland would help improve the transparency and accountability of land ownership in Scotland?

5.1 944 respondents (81% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (79%) agreeing that restricting the type of legal entities, that can, in future, take ownership or a long lease over land in Scotland would help improve the transparency and accountability of land ownership in Scotland. Table 5.1 presents views by category of respondent.

5.2 Overall, individual respondents expressed stronger support for the proposal with 80% of those who provided a view in agreement, compared with 69% of organisations. Amongst organisations, private landowner organisations and private sector and professional bodies were those least supportive, with 50% and 45% of those providing a view in agreement, respectively.

Table 5.1: Views on whether restricting the type of legal entities that can, in future, take ownership or a long lease over land in Scotland would help improve the transparency and accountability of land ownership in Scotland (Question 7)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	28	93	2	7	30
Private landowner organisations	19	50	19	50	38
Private sector and professional bodies	10	45	12	55	22
Community organisations and representative bodies	16	89	2	11	18
Government and NDPBs	0	n/a	0	n/a	0
Local non-government organisations	5	n/a	0	n/a	5
Local Government	5	n/a	1	n/a	6
Academic	1	n/a	1	n/a	2
Total organisations	84	69	37	31	121
Individuals	659	80	164	20	823
Grand total	743	79	201	21	944

Question 8: Do you agree that in future land should only be owned (or a long lease taken over land) by individuals or by a legal entity formed in accordance with the law of a Member State of the EU?

5.3 827 respondents (71% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (82%) agreeing that in future land should only be owned (or a long lease taken over land) by individuals or by a legal entity formed in accordance with the law of a Member State of the EU. Table 5.2 presents views by category of respondent.

Table 5.2: Views on whether in future land should only be owned (or a long lease taken over land) by individuals or by a legal entity formed in accordance with the law of a Member State of the EU (Question 8)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	29	100	0	0	29
Private landowner organisations	12	34	23	66	35
Private sector and professional bodies	8	35	15	65	23
Community organisations and representative bodies	15	88	2	12	17
Government and NDPBs	1	n/a	0	n/a	1
Local non-government organisations	4	n/a	1	n/	5
Local Government	5	n/a	1	n/a	6
Academic	1	n/a	1	n/a	2
Total organisations	75	64	43	36	118
Individuals	605	85	104	15	709
Grand total	680	82	147	18	827

5.4 As with the previous question, individual respondents expressed strongest support for the proposal with 82% of those who provided a view in agreement, compared with 69% of organisations. Amongst organisations, private landowner organisations and private sector and professional bodies were again those least supportive, with their level of support reduced to 34% and 35% of those who provided a view, respectively.

Question 9: What do you think the advantages or disadvantages of any restriction would be?

Views on the advantages of any restriction

5.5 681 respondents (60% of all those who responded to the consultation) provided commentary in response to this question. Of them, 619 identified benefits to the restriction, the remaining 62 respondents stated that they saw no merits in restricting land ownership in this way. The advantages identified fell into 13 categories. These are presented in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Advantages identified to restricting future land ownership to individuals or to a legal entity formed in accordance with the law of a Member State of the EU

Advantages identified by respondents	No. of mentions
Transparency of ownership; knowing who owns what; owners becoming more responsible due to their identities being known; greater accountability; "meaningful land reform is off the agenda until it is clear who owns the land" (Ind).	315
Addressing tax avoidance; ensuring those receiving grants and incentives are paying appropriate tax; reducing loopholes which use foreign ownership of land as a vehicle for tax relief.	183
Promotion of wider ownership of land in Scotland; reducing cost of land ownership; making more land available for purchase; increasing diversity of ownership.	78
Making it easier to resolve disputes over land when the owner is known; easier for communities and others to contact owners over emerging issues such as access.	42
Stronger legislative control over landowners, scrutiny using EU law; enforcement of land reform measures made easier; "easier enforcement of laws and regulation" (Reforesting Scotland).	41
Will reduce "exploitation" of land in Scotland bought solely for commercial investment and profit.	37
Better stewardship of land in Scotland; addresses potential neglect of land due to owner being absent; more sustainable land use and attention to environmental issues. Land maintained to appropriate standards. "The closer land-owners are to their property, the more effective their environmental stewardship will be" (Ind).	29
Will promote Scottish ownership of Scottish land. "Land should be owned by Scots for Scots" (Ind).	17
Will reduce problems associated with absentee landlords	12
Could have impact on local economies with more local investment and economic growth.	11

5.6 Common Weal campaigners and the Birnam Land Reform Workshop participants agreed that there were advantages to the proposal, with the Common Weal identifying in particular improving transparency over ownership and limiting illegal activity. Both recommended that the restriction be applied retrospectively.

Views on the disadvantages of any restriction

5.7 579 respondents (around half of all those who responded to the consultation) provided commentary in response to this question. Of them, 428 identified disadvantages to the restriction; the remaining 151 respondents stated that they saw no drawbacks to restricting land ownership in this way. The disadvantages identified were grouped into 19 broad categories. These are presented in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Disadvantages identified to restricting future land ownership to individuals or to a legal entity formed in accordance with the law of a Member State of the EU

Disadvantages identified by respondents	No. of mentions
Potential loss of inward investment; "reduced GDP and restricted income generation or capital investment in a global market place. It could reduce flows of external funds into local economies. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Norwegian/Swiss/Middle Eastern owners have spent significant sums on holdings to the benefit of the wider rural economy" (SRUC); "by limiting ownership to a legal entity of an EU member state, this could threaten inward investment from other nationals, such as the Swiss" (Invercauld Estate); "Implying to the global community that Scotland is open for business only to those the Scottish Government sees fit to invite will drive away much of the potential investment" (Ind).	192
Loopholes will be sought and exploited by those intent on owning land; the restriction will not be watertight; could result in reducing transparency rather than increasing it; "It will still be possible for the true beneficial owners to conceal their identity within the permissible categories of ownership, e.g. shares in a UK/Scottish registered company can be held by nominees or residents of a jurisdiction in which Scottish law is unenforceable" (Ind); "Companies will just register in European countries and nothing will change if they are allowed to register in EU" (Ind).	52
Unfair; discourages a free market; possibly illegal; "it does undermine free ownership of property which is an essential cornerstone of any democratic country" (Strathbran Estate).	30
Too blunt an instrument; "catch all" will restrict desirable ownership such as innovative and pioneering owners who would manage their land well; "A catch all restriction like this will not make Scotland a better place. It appears arrogant about our own abilities and critical of the abilities of people of other nationalities. Such characteristics would not reflect well on Scotland as an outward looking nation engaged internationally" (Ind); "It would be a shame to miss out on owners who would inject private money and create jobs. You could create an owner selection committee. I can think of many EU residents that I would not want as land owners, and quite a few non EU people that I would welcome" (Ind).	25
Increase in bureaucracy; red tape even for legitimate purchasers under the restriction; "Local groups having to jump hoops to become owners of the land around them" (Ind).	20
May result in a fall in land prices in Scotland.	16
Does not address the key problems related to land use; land may still not be owned by locals and there may still be absentee landlords; there are other ways to address the key problems; "the problem is not with ownership...it is with use" (Ind); "ownership is not the issue; management is" (Ind).	15
Proposal is unworkable; not enforceable; too costly to set up; disproportionate.	12
EU legislation may conflict with Scottish land reform policy and may not always be in Scotland's interests; the restriction would put Scotland in vulnerable position; "EU laws might enforce use or controls not in Scotland's interest" (Ind).	10

5.8 Campaign responses in general did not envisage disadvantages to the proposal.

Question 10: How should any restriction operate and be enforced, and what consequences might follow if the restriction is breached?

5.9 453 respondents (39% of all those who responded to the consultation) provided commentary of relevance to this question (this excludes those who repeated their previous opposition to the restriction being introduced at all). There were conflicting views on whether the operation and enforcement of the restriction would be complicated with legal challenges likely and compensation requested, or whether enforcement could be relatively straightforward using formal procedures.

Views on the operation of the restriction

5.10 The most common response was that mandatory registration of land at the time of purchase supported by legal recourse for abuse would ensure that the restriction operated effectively. 93 respondents from a wide range of sectors explicitly supported this view, although some acknowledged that this would have registration resource implications. A typical comment was:

".....would be operated via the Land Register and it would not be possible to register title if criteria were not met" (Ind).

5.11 21 respondents (largely individuals) considered that any unqualified attempts to purchase or lease land would be identified at the stage of conveyancing with lawyers thereby preventing such transactions from proceeding.

5.12 A recurring view (46 respondents from a wide range of sectors) was that a period of grace should be allowed within the early stages of operation of the restriction, with various suggestions of time periods during which those breaching the restriction could be allowed to put their house in order, or existing owners who do not qualify for ownership under the restriction could take action to address their situation. 20 respondents from a range of sectors emphasised their view that the restriction should apply retrospectively.

5.13 15 respondents (all but one individuals) advocated restricting the area of land which could be held by one entity.

5.14 11 respondents (all individuals) suggested that highly progressive taxation would serve to restrict ownership of larger tracts of land.

Views on how the restriction should be enforced

5.15 A common view (80 respondents) was that existing legal frameworks and legislation were appropriate to enforce the restriction. Mention was made of criminal courts, land court and civil courts being involved. A few urged that breaches should be dealt with robustly and consistently in order for enforcement to be effective.

5.16 A small minority of respondents specified entities whom they considered could potentially monitor the operation of the restriction. These included:

• SLRC
• Scottish Parliament/Ministers
• Scottish Government
• Special unit set up for this purpose
• Local authorities
• HMRC/Companies house
• Local people or their representatives/community councils
• EU

Views on consequences in the event of breach of the restriction

5.17 The prevailing view (196 respondents from a range of sectors) was that one consequence of breach of restriction, particularly where this has been persistent and other penalties have already been imposed, should be loss of land whether by confiscation or enforced sale. Many potential benefactors were identified including: common good; local community; Scottish Government; local authority; National Trust; and the Scottish Land Fund. 13 respondents suggested compulsory purchase orders should be invoked in cases of breach.

5.18 Another recurring view (60 respondents from a range of sectors) was that the perpetrator of the breach should be fined. It was suggested that the size of fine should be related to income or percentage of land value.

5.19 19 respondents (all individuals) suggested that those breaching the restriction should lose their right to own land in Scotland in the future.

5.20 11 respondents (all but one individuals) recommended prison for persistent offenders or large-scale breaches.

5.21 The Common Weal campaign response recommended that failure to transfer ownership to a compliant entity within a reasonable timescale and with proper engagement would result in the land reverting to either a local authority or the Scottish Government. The Birnam Land Reform Workshop advocated that the land concerned should be placed under the care of the local community immediately and that the final sanction should be that ownership of the land should be transferred to the community.

Proposal 3: Information on land, its value and ownership

Background

The Scottish Government contends that clear and up-to-date information about land, its value and ownership provides a good basis for open and transparent decision-making for both the private and public sectors.

At present there is a wide range of information on land ownership and land values held across the public sector by different organisations such as the Registers of Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Assessors, local authorities in addition to the Scottish Government and other bodies. The Scottish Government considers that it will be beneficial to bring this information together and that the longer term benefits will outweigh the initial costs.

Question 11: Do you agree that better co-ordination of information on land, its value and ownership would lead to better decision-making for both the private and public sectors?

5.22 985 respondents (85% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (88%) agreeing that better co-ordination of information on land, its value and ownership would lead to better decision-making for both the private and public sectors. Table 5.5 presents views by category of respondent.

5.23 Only one category of respondent was not largely in agreement with just over half (51%) of private landowning organisations who responded to the question in opposition.

Table 5.5: Views on whether better co-ordination of land, its value and ownership would lead to better decision-making for both the private and public sectors (Question 11)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	37	95	2	5	39
Private landowner organisations	20	49	21	51	41
Private sector and professional bodies	22	92	2	8	24
Community organisations and representative bodies	19	100	0	0	19
Government and NDPBs	10	100	0	0	10
Local non-government organisations	8		0		8
Local Government	10		0		10
Academic	1		0		1
Total organisations	127	84	25	16	152
Individuals	741	89	92	11	833
Grand total	868	88	117	12	985

Question 12: Do you hold data you could share or is there any data you would wish to access?

5.24 435 respondents (37% of all those who responded to the consultation) indicated that they held data they could share and/or they had comments relating to data they or others would wish to access.

5.25 A common theme was that much information is already publicly available, or in the process of being made available, but barriers exist to easy and affordable access to this. Comments included:

"The data we sought was available in the Registers of Scotland. However access for those not able to use their excellent and user friendly services in person needs to be considered" (Holmehill Community Buyout).

"If I want to find out who owns land then I apply to the Land Register. Frankly, that is understaffed and costly already - so fix what is in place" (Ind).

"...there are many examples of important data being held in various silos which can be difficult to access. This is not good enough and is not consistent with the principles of transparency and clarity" (Ind).

5.26 A common view was that much more information could be made available for wider access, but care should be taken over data protection issues and the potential misuse of data.

Data which could be shared

5.27 There was a wide range of views on data which could be shared by the respondent or bodies known to the respondent. These ranged from individual respondents commenting that they had data on their own house, for example, contained in the deeds, to organisations publicising their own websites and registers of information which are available for sharing.

5.28 A recurring view from estates and trusts was that they already provide a wide range of data on a regular basis to their regulators including the Scottish Government.

5.29 Local authorities also highlighted their existing information databases on which information such as ownership, value, common good land and use was held.

5.30 The Crofting Commission and related organisations described the growing sources of information they held relating to ownership and demand for crofts.

5.31 A small number of individuals reported holding data which they could share on their own land, including woodland and planting regimes.

5.32 Local data, collected for specific purposes was also revealed by a few as potentially useful for others: common good land; land management in the north-east of Scotland; information (not comprehensive) on ownership in north-east Scotland.

5.33 Data on economic activity in rural Scotland was identified as being held by surveyors in rural areas, with a few respondents envisaging this to be useful to others if suitably anonymised.

5.34 A number of organisations declared their or other's ownership of databases which others could find useful if they were aware of them. Amongst these were:

• Big Lottery Fund data on awards to projects funded under the Scottish Land Funds and Growing Community Assets investment area.
• Environment-LINK members hold data on land ownership and use.
• Landscape Institute Scotland holds information on landscape condition and capacity.
• James Hutton Institute holds a number of spatial datasets that could facilitate the objective of enhancing the co-ordination of information, and ultimately improve evidence-based decision making. Examples of these include the land capability for agriculture and forestry.
• John Muir Trust reported that detailed information about all their properties is already available to the public on our website (www.jmt.org/properties.asp); and environmental information on all their properties is already shared through the National Biodiversity Network (https://data.nbn.org.uk).
• Highlands and Islands Enterprise reported that it holds data on its commercial property portfolio which comprises offices, industrial properties, development land and estate land. A record of land held in community ownership is also held though this is generally limited to community asset ownership projects we have supported. This information can be shared. An interactive map detailing the community owned estates in the Highlands and Islands be accessed from the home page on their website: http://www.hie.co.uk/default.html
• Ordnance Survey described how they currently deliver and maintain a wide range of OpenData sets and are experts in managing such information.
• The Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society informed of their database on allotments in Scotland.
• The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust highlighted their biological data on the environment, but stated that they already shared this information with others.
• Community Land Scotland reported that all community owners hold data which, by virtue of the nature of the ownership type, will be in the public domain. They stated that community owners would be happy to co-operate in arrangements to increase access to data.
• Development Trusts Association Scotland informed that their Community Ownership Support Service produced a baseline study of community ownership which is already publicly available.
• Scottish Land and Estates commented that, "individual owners already have basic information on websites or as part of projects such as The Economic, Social and Environmental Contribution of Landowners in the Cairngorms National Park".

Data which respondents would wish to access

5.35 Whilst most respondents responded in terms of their own requirements for access, others identified what they perceived others (for example, their constituent members) would wish to access.

5.36 There was much recognition that Registers of Scotland already hold very useful data on land and property, with many respondents urging that this be further developed and made more freely accessible to all. Many respondents commented that they already could access all the data they required.

5.37 The information most commonly cited as that which respondents wished to access was data on who owns land across Scotland, or in their geographical area. 173 respondents from a range of sectors highlighted this as data they and others would wish to access. There were many different reasons given for requiring access to this data, with examples provided below:

"Would enable the community to base decisions for the community with full knowledge of current ownership" (Canonbie and District Residents Association).

"We would appreciate access to information on land ownership to be able to support local groups who wish for better care of their local heritage" (Archaeology Scotland).

"I'd like to access data on who owns what, in respect of disused land and buildings that may be better put to work for local, community orientated use" (Ind).

"As a Water Bailiff I need to know who owns what so that it can be properly policed and protected" (Ind).

5.38 16 respondents specifically identified information on the value of land as important for them to access. However, 15 other respondents argued against wider sharing of data on value of land and property. Key reasons for their opposition were:

• Too expensive to keep up-to-date.
• Value is subjective and dependent on a wide range of current market and individual land factors.
• It will be very difficult to establish value.

5.39 13 respondents considered that they would wish to access information on the recipients of public subsidies and grants and the size of these.

5.40 12 respondents requested information on common good land and assets.

5.41 A few respondents advocated the establishment of various forms of sophisticated on-line, interactive databases for storing and providing information for wider access, with the Cadastral Land Register being highlighted in particular as having potential. There were differences of opinion over the benefits of establishing portals to comprehensive databases relating to a wide spectrum of information, or whether simpler systems, for example, focusing only on ownership, would be of greater use.

5.42 Amongst the campaign responses, the general view from the Common Weal and Birnam Land Reform Workshop was that as a group, they do not hold relevant information. A few individual campaign responses, however, referred to information which would be useful to access: ownership of local land; and business connections/vested interests in local land.

Question 13: What do you think the advantages or disadvantages of wider and more flexible sharing of land information would be and do you have any recommendations about how this can best be achieved?

Views on the advantages of wider and more flexible sharing of land information

5.43 527 respondents (45% of those who responded to the consultation) identified benefits of wider and more flexible sharing of land information. Of these, many simply stated that greater access to information constituted a key benefit in itself.

5.44 Other advantages identified could be grouped in a number of broad categories and are summarised below in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Summary of advantages of wider and more flexible sharing of land information which were identified by respondents

Advantages identified by respondents	No. of mentions
Transparency/accountability of ownership and responsibilities; democratic.	247
Increased knowledge about land ownership; awareness-raising; empowering communities to become involved in decisions on a more informed basis.	96
Increased efficiency of working as owners can be identified and contacted more easily. Speedier resolution of issues; better partnership working.	89
Better decision-making; better policy making.	49
Easier to address concerns about neglect of land/environmental issues as owner can be identified; aids environmental audit.	42
Better longer term planning; community planning.	39
Better co-ordination of information; data all in one place.	28
Makes taxation of land easier.	21
Cheaper and quicker conveyancing.	15

5.45 The Common Weal campaign response argued that it is in the public interest for communities to be able to find out who the owners of land are in order to identify bad management, abandonment or dereliction or inquire about leasing or purchasing. The Berwickshire Common Weal submission suggested that public availability of free-to-use open data is one of the keys to unlocking informed debate and will be a major tool at the disposal of the SLRC in pursuit of its aims.

Views on the disadvantages of wider and more flexible sharing of land information

5.46 237 respondents (20% of those who responded to the consultation) identified drawbacks of wider and more flexible sharing of land information. Further respondents simply commented that wider and more flexible sharing of land information is not needed.

5.47 The disadvantages identified were grouped under a number of broad categories and are summarised Table 5.7.

Table 5.7: Summary of disadvantages identified by respondents of wider and more flexible sharing of land information

Disadvantages identified by respondents	No. of mentions
Cost of setting up and maintenance.	69
Issues of confidentiality; loss of privacy; disclosure of sensitive commercial and personal information.	50
Too difficult to establish; land value information in particular will be too challenging to ascertain and keep up-to-date.	42
Will take a long time to establish.	30
Potential for abuse of information e.g. by advertising companies; political use; hacking; or misinterpretation.	24
Very complex with likelihood that land registration targets may not be met.	11

5.48 Campaign responses did not identify drawbacks to wider and more flexible sharing of land information.

Views on how wider and more flexible sharing of land information can best be achieved

5.49 412 respondents (35% of those who responded to the consultation) provided a response to this part of the question over and above the comments they had already submitted in relation to the other parts. Views were wide-ranging, with some relatively vague and difficult to interpret, particularly in relation to whether they were referring to existing databases (such as the Land Register) or envisaging new databases being established. Overarching themes did emerge, however, and are reported below along with comments submitted by only one or a few respondents, but nonetheless contain views of relevance.

5.50 The most common response (95 respondents) was that the Land Register should be completed as soon as possible. 32 respondents urged that adequate resources are made available to support the completion and upkeep of the register, including more staff.

5.51 A further 30 respondents referred to the establishment or creation of a national land database or similar such dataset, for example:

"An easily accessible national land data base confirming all aspects of land management, staff training, allocation of resources, environmental improvement, stock and catch figures (fish, deer, grouse etc), access to the countryside, numbers of people living on the land and measure to increase rural populations" (Ind).

5.52 The concept of a comprehensive collation of wide-ranging data in one integrated data framework was recommended explicitly by 11 respondents. However, the significant planning and management involved was acknowledged by some, for example:

"To produce an integrated land information service, the Scottish Government needs to create a governance framework, legal framework, a set of mandated information standards to support interoperability and publishing using web services, defined custodians of the land information with clear responsibilities, a data quality improvement program, and effective maintenance regimes of the land information. The government must have commitments and budgets from the custodians to migrate towards this vision and to maintain it. The use of these key land information registers must be mandated across local and central government" (Know Edge Ltd).

"The better co-ordination of information about the land is a feature of the Borders Land Use Strategy pilot helping better decision making for those who wish to make use of it. This information has been collected from secondary sources in a non-intrusive way. It is largely broad brush and not always entirely accurate but nevertheless very useful in showing up significant conflicts and positive interactions. Having this information, and that on ownership, readily and widely available would help enable higher-quality planning and decision making on land use and stewardship" (Borders Forest Trust).

5.53 A recurring view (24 respondents) was that current secondary sources of land information could be identified and co-ordinated, with suggestions made of who may be tasked with this including the Scottish Government, local government, the Community Land Agency, National Records of Scotland (or Land Register), HMRC and volunteers from the community. One individual respondent highlighted the Improvement Service as having undertaken much work in this field already.

5.54 43 respondents considered that wider and more flexible sharing of land information could be achieved by using dedicated, online mapping systems which could produce opportunities for sophisticated analysis and possibly interactive functions. GIS systems were mentioned, in addition to specific websites such as www.oasisnyc.net and the map-based systems operating in other countries such as Latvia and Montana which respondents described as having online cadastral systems that Scotland could learn from.

5.55 Ten respondents called for more open access to useful websites of public bodies which held land information data. The Scottish Government's Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate (SGRPID) and the Agricultural Holdings Register were highlighted in particular, with local planning bodies and universities also identified as hosts of relevant websites containing land information.

5.56 12 respondents raised the notion of an online "portal" or similar, through which signposting and access could be gained to relevant data sources. One respondent commented:

"The SG (Scottish Government) has developed through SEWeb better portals to access information to designated heritage assets and this process continues through the One Scotland mapping & INSPIRE actions" (Archaeology Scotland).

5.57 Some respondents focused on issues of acquiring the data and updating it once stored. A repeated view (18 respondents) was that efforts should be made to ensure the information is accurate and up-to-date with suggestions made that registration of details could be required as part of transaction procedures when land changes hands. The need to accept a trade-off between level of accuracy and extent of sharing of information was hinted at by a few respondents, for example:

"Any breadth or flexibility in sharing has to be balanced by levels of accuracy being maintained" (Scottish Land and Estates).

5.58 One overarching theme was that of access to land information, however it is captured and maintained. Whilst 50 respondents stated simply that information should be easily accessible, 68 respondents stipulated that online access should be the norm. Ten respondents called for information to be available in public places too, with libraries, council and government buildings and post offices being identified as outlets.

5.59 Whereas 23 respondents specifically recommended that access to land information should be free, three suggested charging in order to offset the costs of upkeep and also to reflect the commercial value of the data.

5.60 15 respondents called for the Scottish Government to consult local people and landowners and managers over the issue of sharing of land information, or to learn lessons from other jurisdictions before developing new systems in Scotland.

5.61 28 respondents considered that there was no need to widen or make more flexible the sharing of land information as the current systems and information were sufficient for requirements.

5.62 Common Weal respondents called for information to be made accessible as soon as possible, with a short timeframe set to allow for compliance in submitting land information details and heavy penalties for non-compliance. The Berwickshire Common Weal submission advocated the acceleration of completion of the land register.

5.63 Birnam Land Reform Workshop participants stated:

"We believe that it would be possible informally to crowd-source, through a website, information about land holding, ownership and management, based on existing field-boundary data. While we appreciate that crowd-sourced data would not be authoritative, such a website could be established quickly by citizen activism if the Government does not take action. It could also be linked into official and authoritative sources of data if the Government chose to make these available".