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

4. DEMONSTRATING LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO LAND REFORM

Background

The Scottish Government proposes to introduce a Scottish Land Reform Commission to provide oversight of the wide spectrum of land reform issues that impact on ownership, access and use of land. It is proposed that the Commission could have responsibilities such as: promoting land reform; collecting evidence and carrying out studies; and monitoring the impact and effect of law, policies and practices on landownership in Scotland.

Proposal 1: A Scottish Land Reform Commission

Question 4: Do you agree that a Scottish Land Reform Commission would help ensure Scotland continues to make progress on land reform and has the ability to respond to emergent issues?

4.1 959 respondents (82% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (79%) agreeing that a Scottish Land Reform Commission (SLRC) would impact in the manner proposed. Table 4.1 presents views by category of respondent.

Table 4.1: Views on whether a Scottish Land Reform Commission would help ensure Scotland continue to make progress on land reform and has the ability to respond to emergent issues (Question 4)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	35	92	3	8	38
Private landowner organisations	12	32	25	68	37
Private sector and professional bodies	19	86	3	14	22
Community organisations and representative bodies	18	95	1	5	19
Government and NDPBs	9		0		9
Local non-government organisations	6		0		6
Local Government	9		0		9
Academic	1		1		2
Total organisations	109	77	33	23	142
Individuals	652	80	165	20	817
Grand total	761	79	198	21	959

4.2 Amongst the largest sectors of respondent, most or all respondents agreed with the statement. This trend was reversed, however, amongst the private landowner organisations who provided a view, with around two-thirds (68%) disagreeing with the statement.

4.3 Campaign responses all agreed with this statement.

Question 5: What do you think the advantages or disadvantages of having a Scottish Land Reform Commission would be?

Perceived advantages of having a SLRC

4.4 715 respondents (61% of all those who responded to the consultation) provided a response to the question of potential advantages to the SLRC. Two perceived advantages to having a SLRC dominated most of the responses.

Maintenance of high profile, impetus and continuity of reform

4.5 225 respondents across a wide range of sectors envisaged SLRC to be a vehicle to sustaining the pace of reform, providing a focus and profile for land reform issues and ensuring progress and action continue to be driven as a process over the longer term, irrespective of changes in government. Comments included:

"It would ensure that land reform is not subject to the whims of political parties, but instead becomes an on-going, comprehensive and enduring concern that is firmly located at the heart of the work of policy development in the Scottish Government" (Development Trusts Association Scotland).

"It would signal that land reform was to be an on-going, long-term process, not limited to the current bill" (Reforesting Scotland).

"Provide a higher profile and stronger government commitment to issues associated with land reform" (South Lanarkshire Council).

"One advantage of having such a Commission would be that the stated aim of making land reform a process rather than an event could be realised" (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar).

Establishment of evidence-based knowledge and expertise

4.6 104 respondents across a wide range of sectors welcomed a SLRC as an impartial centre and resource for objective evidence-building on issues of land reform. In turn this was viewed as ensuring sound underpinning of policy and on-going monitoring and evaluation. Comments included:

"It would have a positive impact on the development of evidence-based policy relating to land-use matters" (Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce).

"Provide the opportunity for impartial review and study of research, proposals and outcomes relating to Land Reform to ensure that lobby groups and vested interests do not dominate and divert the process of Land Reform" (StòrasUibhist).

4.7 A range of other advantages were identified by less respondents. 44 respondents commented specifically that policy built upon such objective, impartial evidence would be balanced and fair and reflect a broad range of perspectives.

4.8 42 respondents considered that the collation of relevant information and objective evidence under one roof would be hugely beneficial for individuals and organisations alike in that there would be a single point of contact for accessing this. The terms "hub" and "one-stop shop" were used by some.

4.9 Another prominent benefit of having a SLRC was seen as greater cohesion and co-ordination in policy-making on land reform. 71 respondents from a wide range of sectors welcomed the consistency in approach which they considered that this would bring with streamlined, more efficient decision-making and oversight of policy direction. Comments included:

"....many of the issues pertaining to land reform encompass areas from different governmental offices, and any discussions on reform can be slow due to this. A specific, streamlined and independent body focusing on issues quickly, as and when they arise, is essential to ensure that land reform is an on-going process, and is not allowed to stall" (Ind).

"It would allow land reform proposals to be developed coherently across all areas of public policy, rather than in an ad hoc manner" (Woodland Crofts Partnership).

4.10 Many respondents (81) focused specifically on issues of land ownership and envisaged the SLRC leading the way on clarifying ownership of land and ensuring fairer distribution of land ownership in Scotland.

4.11 A recurring theme was that the proposed body could represent the people's voice (31 respondents), ensuring that community views are heard, giving them more power and possibly adjudicating where disputes arise (37 respondents).

4.12 Another theme was transparency, with many respondents identifying benefits of independence from Government (28 respondents), openness to public scrutiny (12 respondents), transparency and openness in decision-making (37 respondents).

4.13 27 respondents considered that the SLRC could be beneficial in providing a forum for open debate amongst stakeholders, in which views are listened to and information can be provided as required.

Views from campaign responses

4.14 Common Weal campaigners considered the advantages of a SLRC to be:

• Maintenance of focus on the continuing process of land reform.
• Establishment of the principle of interventionism on how the land is owned and managed.
• Potential quasi-judicial powers to determine access to disputes and a role in acting for communities in land disputes.

4.15 The proposed body was envisaged as beneficial in providing oversight of the process of land reform, being well informed and enabling the various strands of land ownership within a cohesive framework.

4.16 Views from the Birnam Land Reform Workshop were that the SLRC could be a driver to move policy forward and to arbitrate disputes between landowners and communities.

Perceived disadvantages of having a SLRC

4.17 621 respondents (53% of all those who responded to the consultation) addressed the question of potential disadvantages to the SLRC. Many respondents outlined potential risks rather than clear disadvantages.

4.18 By far the most common drawback identified (101 respondents, mostly individuals) was the anticipated high cost of establishing and operating the SLRC. Some respondents remarked that the cost could possibly be offset through land reform tax; a few commented that additional costs are inevitable and may not necessarily be a disadvantage.

4.19 Another common view (74 respondents) was that the SLRC could become overly bureaucratic and create delays to progress. One respondent commented:

"Dangers with all bureaucracies where the existence and continuance of the body become the main focus" (Ind).

4.20 59 respondents expressed concerns over the membership of the new body and had reservations over how this could be established to be seen to represent all parties and interests fairly. Risks were associated with being perceived as influenced too heavily by activists (40 respondents), by landowner groups (33 respondents), or those overly intent on redistributing land ownership (13 respondents). Many respondents anticipated difficulties in achieving an appropriate balance in membership which could facilitate progress and is not stifled by too many disparate interests.

4.21 56 respondents identified a disadvantage to be potential political interference and bias in the operation of the SLRC. Caution was expressed over political intervention for short term gain, and the possible lack of independence of the SLRC if influenced by politics.

4.22 A common view (49 respondents) across several sectors was that the SLRC could serve to de-stabilise the rural economy. A typical comment was:

"It could lead to uncertainty and so inhibit investment" (Highlands and Islands Enterprise).

4.23 37 respondents argued that depending on its set up and remit, the new body risked becoming a "talking shop", with decisions hard to reach and delays inevitable.

4.24 Other possible disadvantages to the proposal which were identified by fewer than 30 respondents were:

• May have no "teeth" and be simply "window dressing" but without legal powers. One respondent commented:
  "If ineffective or under equipped with powers and resources it could be a lame duck that diverts our energy from more effective means of bringing about change" (Ind).

• Just another quango.
• Will end up too remote/top-down/centralised with decisions being taken by people far away from the impact on the ground.
• The SLRC may feel it has to justify its existence and be pressurised into taking actions which are not justified.
• Will result in estates being split up and communities turning against each other.
• Duplication of effort with existing organisations. One remark was:
  "May be unnecessary given the role, remit and activities of those already in existence, including the Land Court, Scottish Land Fund and the Registers for Scotland, as well as the Land Reform Unit of the Scottish Government" (The James Hutton Institute).

• Insufficient resourcing of the SLRC.
• Amounts to meddling and unnecessary interference.
• Raises expectations of reform which cannot be met.

4.25 106 respondents stated that they could not identify any disadvantages to the proposal. 15 argued that land reform may not be necessary and more evidence is required before setting up dedicated bodies to take this forward.

Question 6: Do you have any thoughts on the structure, type or remit of any Scottish Land Reform Commission?

4.26 626 respondents (54% of all those responding to the consultation) provided commentary in relation to this question. Many responses overlapped with those already provided on the perceived advantages to the establishment of the SLRC. Responses ranged from the very general in nature to those which were much more specific in detail, for example, recommending precise numbers for membership, or even specific people to be on the SLRC. Several overarching themes emerged from general and specific responses alike and are documented below.

Structure and type of SLRC

4.27 A dominant theme was that the SLRC should be independent in thinking. Respondents emphasised that the SLRC should be seen to be at "arm's-length" from Government and also separate from the influence of vested interests. A small minority of individuals suggested that membership should include a cross-representation across the political spectrum, but the absence of political or other interest bias was viewed as essential overall in establishing credibility of the new body.

4.28 Another prevailing theme was that membership of the new body should be representative of a wide range of interests. Many respondents specified stakeholder groups which they felt merited representation on the SLRC. These included: landowners; community representative bodies; rural bodies; urban bodies; environmental organisations; forestry bodies including the Forestry Commission; third sector organisations; local government; retailers; farmers; church; recreational bodies; land management bodies; tourist bodies; tenants; and academics.

4.29 Representation of lay people was also recommended, with emphasis on people who manage and work on the land in rural areas and have robust working knowledge and experience. A recurring view was that the SLRC should represent "all sectors of society". Another was that representation should include a balance of gender, age, educational background and be accessible to those with a disability. Gaelic speakers were also suggested by a few respondents. Some suggested remuneration should be in place to promote wider diversity in membership and enable those without the means to take part otherwise, to be included.

4.30 Many respondents emphasised their view that experts in the field, including academics, should be included in membership of the SLRC. Others considered that rather than have permanent membership, those with expertise could be called upon to appear before the SLRC to provide advice as required.

4.31 There was a contrast between those respondents who advocated a broad, wide-ranging membership, with the minority of respondents who explicitly specified a tighter format, restricting the numbers of members (for example to between 5-7 members) which in their view would facilitate more efficient decision-making. One respondent remarked:

"(The SLRC)... must be lean, respected and swift in action and investigation" (Ind).

4.32 One recurring suggestion was for membership to be time limited, so participants remained on the SLRC for a set length of time, before being replaced. This was seen as a means to refresh the SLRC with new ideas and energy and was also a way of appearing accountable and open. One respondent (NNG) envisaged an "ad hoc" body which formed only when required to deal with particular emerging issues.

4.33 Many respondents used the word "democratic" when referring to the proposed SLRC, with terms such as "democratically controlled", "democratically accountable" and "democratically elected" appearing frequently and indicating perhaps expectations of fair representation and being called to account.

4.34 Individuals and community organisations in particular recommended innovative ways to ensure the SLRC appears open and accessible across Scotland. Ideas included setting up regional sub-commission offices, ensuring the SLRC headquarters is outwith the central belt, the concept of a "mobile" SLRC which travels around Scotland meeting in different locations, and using information technology such as Skype to overcome physical distance and other barriers to participation. Repeated calls were made for the SLRC not to become overly centralised.

Views from campaign responses

4.35 Views emerging from the Common Weal and Birnam Land Reform Workshop focused largely around ensuring that membership of the SLRC is carefully considered and involves people with a direct interest in the land, living on it and earning a living from it. The Common Weal response cautioned against membership with links to powerful vested interest groups and called for the SLRC membership to reflect Scottish society and ensure a gender balance. The Birnam Land Reform Workshop response envisaged an independent Land Reform Commissioner, championing land reform issues with a clear remit to take action.

Remit of SLRC

4.36 Many^[10] respondents expressed their agreement with the general suggestions outlined in the consultation paper that the remit of the Commission could include:

• promoting land reform;
• collecting evidence and carrying out studies; and
• monitoring the impact and effect of law, policies and practices on land ownership in Scotland.

4.37 A few respondents urged that care be taken to ensure the remit of the SLRC does not overlap with that of existing bodies working in the same area such as Scottish Natural Heritage or local authorities.

4.38 The broad theme of openness and accessibility continued in relation to remit, with calls made for transparency in working, for example publishing all meeting documents and minutes. A recurring theme amongst individual respondents was for the SLRC to "get on the road" to consult face-to-face with stakeholders and hear their views in both urban and rural locations. Education of the public as part of the SLRC remit was raised by a few respondents.

4.39 There was much support for the remit of the SLRC to encompass land reform promotion and oversight, including issues of land ownership and use, and related environmental, social and economic topics. A small number of respondents recommended that the SLRC be responsible for putting in place an appropriate tax regime to support land reform.

4.40 A recurring theme was that the objectives and aims of the SLRC should be realistic and tangible, and set according to a timetable with progress measurable. Many respondents referred to SMART principles^[11] in this regard.

4.41 Divergence of opinion emerged amongst some individual respondents in relation to the extent of the SLRC's remit. Of those who expressed a view, the predominant opinion was that the remit should be wide ranging to enable longer-term, innovative and forward-thinking policies to develop. A minority view was that the remit should be restricted to short-term policy issues to promote achievement and tangible progress over the immediate term.

4.42 Another dichotomy in view emerged over whether the new body should have statutory powers of intervention, acting as a regulator and/or watchdog, or whether the role should extend only as far as data gatherer, research and advisory/information provision functions, with no clear dominant view emerging. Two respondents (Ind, NNG) suggested that a conflict of interest may arise if the SLRC sets policy against which it then monitors its own progress.

4.43 A recurring view, particularly amongst individual respondents, was that the SLRC should take on an arbitration role in disputes, for example between landowners and communities. A repeated recommendation was that the SLRC should address issues around planning permission.

4.44 Whilst a few respondents explicitly stated that they envisaged the SLRC reporting to Scottish Government and being held to account by them, others considered that the SLRC would hold Government to account on issues of land reform.