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

A consultation paper was published in Dec 2014 seeking views on a range of land reform proposals. This report provides an analysis of the responses received


9. ASSESSING IMPACT

Background

The Scottish Government believes that by setting out a clear LRRP and by implementing a broad range of land reform measures this will deliver a range of social, economic and environmental benefits for local areas.

The Scottish Government has a legal duty to consider the impact of policies on people who may be differently affected in relation to the "protected characteristics" under the Equality Act 2010 of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. They also wish to consider issues relating to poverty and social justice, to ensure that all individuals and communities are able to access the benefits that the Bill will deliver.

Equality

Question 41: Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, you feel the draft Land Rights and Responsibilities Policy or any of the proposals for the Bill may have on particular groups of people, with reference to the "protected characteristics" listed above. Please be as specific as possible.

Question 42: What differences might there be in the impact of the Bill on individuals and communities with different levels of advantage or deprivation? How can we make sure that all individuals and communities can access the benefits of these proposals?

9.1 The responses to these questions are reported together as respondents commonly provided commentary relating to both questions under question 41. Responses tended to be broad rather than specific with many respondents recommending in-depth examination and analysis by experts in order to achieve an educated assessment of the impacts of the proposals. Some respondents expressed confusion over the questions or stated that they did not understand the relevance of what was being asked, particularly in relation to "protected characteristics". One respondent remarked:

"Many charities fall within the Charity Exemption contained in the Equality Act 2010 which specifically allows them to discriminate in relation to protected characteristics. This exemption should be respected" (Law Society of Scotland).

Overarching themes

9.2 A few prevailing and overarching themes emerged from responses. Firstly, the policy focus on rural areas and communities was acknowledged, but in terms of the wider impact on individuals and communities across Scotland, many respondents highlighted urban areas of deprivation as potentially neglected by the land reform measures. Comments included:

"There will be concern that deprived urban communities with great social needs are disadvantaged by the focus on some of these proposals. A focus on urban Scotland as well as rural Scotland is therefore needed" (Ind).

"Given that the overwhelming majority of Scottish people live in towns and cities there is very strong imperative to ensure that Land Reform Bill addresses land development in urban areas and the provision of better designed, more affordable housing" (Community Central Hall).

9.3 Another dominant theme was that positive impacts on particular groups, individuals and communities are there to be had, but only if the potential recipients are equipped to engage with the processes proposed in the Bill and are supported to take up the opportunities on offer. Some respondents considered that training and support for local people will need to go hand-in-hand with implementation of the proposals. Comments included:

"Research shows not all communities have the capacity to engage......there needs to be a parallel set of processes which enhance capacity more broadly, otherwise only those who know how to engage, and have the resources to do so, will be able to, thus leading to implicit marginalisation" (Scotland's Rural College).

9.4 A third key theme was that the changes proposed in the Bill will not take place in a vacuum, but will sit within a wider, legislative and societal context of greater socio-economic impact on individuals and communities. Taking this perspective, the potential for significant impacts of the proposals was viewed as questionable by some.

Impacts on groups of people with "protected characteristics"

9.5 Very few respondents provided views specifically in relation to people with protected characteristics, or other specific characteristics, with a more common view being that their experiences would not differ from those of the general population. General comments included the expectation that higher local tax income generated from taxing sporting businesses could be used to support people in the community requiring physical or mental health care.

9.6 Younger people were highlighted as potential beneficiaries of the positive impacts of the proposals, through increased local employment opportunities and potential lower land prices leading to more affordable housing.

9.7 A few respondents felt that the proposals had the potential to reduce social isolation which would be of particular benefit to elderly people in the community.

9.8 The circumstances of travellers were highlighted by a few respondents who called for greater understanding of their needs in order to ensure they are able to access the potential benefits of the reforms.

9.9 Some respondents recommended that efforts should be made to ensure that local people are not excluded from accessing positive impacts on account of communication barriers. One respondent remarked:

"Consultation with relation to land/building use must be accessible to those with more limited access to written documentation or public meetings whether through ability or ethnic origin. Care should be taken in areas of mixed ethnic communities that the aspirations and needs of all groups are taken into consideration" (Ind).

9.10 More funds were called for to support adaptations which may be required to ensure people with physical disabilities are able to access land, for example, by providing wider fence/gate openings. One respondent commented:

"We suggest that the Scottish Government ensure that there are no negative impacts on those with mobility issues whilst revising proposals for public access" (The James Hutton Institute).

9.11 Calls were made for the rights and opportunities for Gaelic speakers to be respected in any proposals.

9.12 Linking the proposals to an overhaul of legislation relating to succession, was viewed as positive by many, particularly for women:

"The widening out of land ownership, linked to Scottish Government's proposals to radically overhaul the law of succession, will have positive impact on women's access and involvement in land ownership" (Forest Policy Group).

Impacts on individuals and communities with different levels of advantage or deprivation

9.13 Comments on positive impacts ranged from very broad and vague to more specific identification of potential impacts, but all generally falling within the following seven themes:

  • Increased social justice; fairer society.
  • Better balance between landowners and local communities, for example in terms of distribution of land.

"Rural communities, in particular, are often almost entirely dependent on one or a few landowners for their health and development and have no power to influence their futures. The Land Rights & Responsibilities Policy should address this and in so doing should re-balance the scales, empowering communities to speak out against conditions currently leading to poverty, socio-economic disadvantage & social injustice" (Ind).

  • Increased local employment opportunities; greater economic development in local areas.
  • Greater opportunities for diversification of land use and community and individual ownership of land; increase in affordable local housing. Many viewed the introduction of a land tax as essential to underpin these impacts.
  • Community empowerment opportunities; greater engagement of local people in the management of land; local voices being heard.
  • Greater access to land with potential positive impacts on health and well-being resulting.

9.14 Potential negative impacts were identified by many respondents:

  • Implementation of the proposals will incur costs which could be better spent on higher national priorities of employment and healthcare.
  • Reduction in inward investment coupled with costs which local communities will have to bear, will impact particularly on areas of deprivation.
  • Potential loss of local employment; redundancies associated with closure of game/sporting enterprises with knock-on effect on local trades and tourism.
  • Longer-term negative consequences of communities failing to maintain assets owned by them.

"I don't think that the 'community' in many cases is well placed to take on the management of large areas of land on a long term basis. There are many examples where the community has taken on the responsibility for running local nature reserves for instance and the local wildlife trust or Authority has to go back into to 'rescue' the site. There are good examples but there needs to be a safeguard as there is the potential to waste a huge amount of public money if not overseen properly" (Ind).

  • Negative impact on landowners who may have built up their land over time and are managing it well, running successful land-based enterprises which are generating local income and employment.
  • Lack of confidence in using land (e.g. for tenancies) if there is a risk of estates winding up or going bankrupt.
  • Risk of local engagement being dominated by loudest voices which may not be representative of those most deprived or disadvantaged.

Views on making sure all individuals and communities can access the benefits of the proposals

9.15 Respondents addressed this aspect of question 42 in a variety of ways, some re-iterating views made previously in relation to specific proposals, but others interpreting this more broadly as relating to publicity of the proposal, on-going information provision and sustaining community engagement. The themes which emerged most commonly were as follows:

  • Publicise the proposals locally and nationally in a variety of formats; educate through public awareness campaigns. (77 specific mentions)
  • Ensure start up and ongoing information is made accessible, is simple and clear. (44 specific mentions) This should be online and available in accessible outlets such as libraries.
    "More could be done to make complex legalistic terminology more accessible to ordinary citizens" (Ind).
    "Make this issue make sense to people, translate it into terms that people can make sense of" (Ind).
  • Support local communities to engage with land reform issues, for example, by ensuring they have access to impartial, free advice, and by ongoing community development activities. (36 specific mentions)
    "....putting in place access to support, resources and funds necessary for the least advantaged communities to take advantage of the opportunities which are in theory unlocked by the passing of land reform legislation" (Ind).
    "Where community capacity is lacking, it needs to be nurtured through sustainable community development" (Ind).
  • Broadening the provisions to apply clearly to urban as well as rural contexts. (31 specific mentions)
  • Ensuring meaningful local consultation and decision-making using approaches such as participatory activities. (29 specific mentions)
  • Producing a high quality, clearly drafted Bill containing powers which will provide teeth to the provisions. (23 specific mentions)
    "...properly prepared legislation which will last for generations to come" (Ind).
  • Promoting transparency and openness in all decision-making on land reform. (10 specific mentions)

9.16 A small minority of respondents gave their view that it is impossible to make sure that all individuals and communities can access the benefits of these proposals as it is up to individuals if and how they wish to respond to the opportunities that the land reform proposals will provide.

9.17 Common Weal respondents provided general comments relating to equality impact and these can be viewed in their response in Annex 2.

Business and regulation

Background

A full Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment will be carried out to analyse whether any of the proposed policies are likely to increase or reduce the costs and burdens placed on businesses, the public sector and voluntary and community organisations.

Question 43: Please tell us about any potential costs or savings that may occur as a result of the proposals for the Bill and any increase or reduction in the burden of regulation for any sector. Please be as specific as possible.

9.18 348 respondents (30% of all those who responded to the consultation) provided relevant commentary in response to this question. Responses ranged from very general views that costs and/or savings would most likely result as a result of the proposals, to more specific identification of the nature of the costs and savings anticipated. Several respondents called for in-depth cost and savings analysis of the proposals by experts.

9.19 Amongst those identifying likely costs were many who stated that these may be incurred initially, but over time would be balanced by the benefits from the proposals. Some considered that increased costs should not be a concern in view of the expected advantages which the proposals would bring. Comments included:

"If it's real and meaningful change and for genuine greater good then we go for it even if it incurs initial cost/inconvenience" (Ind).

"Any costs occurred short term will be recouped in the long term. Cost should not be too important an issue in reforms of such magnitude and significance" (Ind).

"....it is readily justifiable to incur costs to bring about necessary change toward greater fairness and social justice" (Community Land Scotland).

9.20 A recurring view was that the introduction of a land tax would impact positively on the cost-benefit balance of the proposals.

9.21 A considered view of a few respondents was that inevitably the proposals will increase regulation for landowners but this can be restricted by skilful legislative drafting, with some commenting that greater regulation of land management is urgently required.

Costs identified

9.22 Potential costs were identified by respondents (although some considered this to be a wise investment, rather than something to be regarded as negative). These are summarised in Table 9.1 below.

Table 9.1 Potential costs identified by respondents

Nature of cost

Number of respondents identifying this cost

Monitoring, enforcing and complying with new regulations.

91

Establishing and operating the SLRC.

68

Loss of rural employment; negative impact on rural economy.

48

Public sector costs in completing and operating the land register.

40

Landowner costs in registering land.

37

Legal advice and other costs associated with the new provisions.

31

Deer management if no longer undertaken by sporting estates; re-evaluation of strategies.

27

Management and future funding of land obtained through community buy-outs.

16

Loss of inward investment into rural areas.

15

Start-up costs.

14

Engagement with communities (e.g. by charities).

13

Establishing the new business rates for deerstalking and shooting.

10

Savings identified

9.23 Potential savings were identified by respondents. These are summarised in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2 Potential savings identified by respondents

Nature of savings

Number of respondents identifying this saving

Increased tax revenue due to removal of business rates exemption on deerstalking and shooting.

44

Greater tax income due to closing loopholes in tax system and transparency in ownership of land.

29

Clear regulation and rationalisation of databases leading to ease of use, clarity over ownership, less bureaucracy and time involved in tracing ownership. "Savings in simplifying the collection of information on land ownership and land use, currently in multiple databases - both for those collecting data, and for those sourcing it" (Friends of the Earth Tayside).

24

Physical and mental health improvements amongst local people.

20

Better use of land.

17

Boosted rural economy.

13

Lower land costs.

13

Reduction in burden on public sector due to community ownership of land.

11

Privacy

Background

A full Privacy Impact Assessment will be conducted to ascertain whether any of the proposed policies will have an impact on the privacy of individuals.

Question 44: Please tell us about any potential impacts upon the privacy of individuals that may arise as a result of any of the proposals contained in this consultation. Please be as specific as possible.

9.24 318 respondents (27% of all those who responded to the consultation) provided commentary relevant to the question. An overarching theme emerging in many responses was that a balance should be struck between the need for freedom of information and transparency in information, and individual rights to privacy. For example:

"There is always a balance to be struck between privacy and the public interest. It has always been thus" (Ind).

"As a farmer one's responsibilities to one's neighbours are important but there is a point when the impact of the public's demands and managing the communications certainly impacts upon ones privacy and private lawful enjoyment of one's property rights" (Ind).

9.25 A recurring comment was that that consideration of human rights should provide a backcloth to developing the reforms. One respondent remarked:

"A right to quiet enjoyment and privacy is a fundamental principle and human right both within the UN Charter and European Convention of Human Rights. Many of these proposals may lead to a risk of dispute between public and private interests; therefore, it is absolutely vital that all matters are properly consulted and all legislative clauses carefully examined and well defined. Failure to do this will inevitably lead to disputes and conflict which will lead to expense and friction, and a failure to deliver the land reform objectives" (RICS).

9.26 67 respondents provided their view that the proposals would have negligible impact on the privacy of individuals, several pointing out that in other countries such reform has not led to curtailment of individual privacy.

9.27 The view of ten respondents was that private landowners should be treated in the same manner as others in terms of transparency of information. Comments included:

"If the owner of a house can easily be identified then the owner of a large estate should be identifiable too. One law for all" (Ind).

"I can't think of any infringements on privacy that would actually matter. Why would some people need more privacy than others?" (Ind).

9.28 Many respondents identified implications for individual privacy as a result of the proposals. 22 respondents simply stated that this was inevitable but did not provide further detail.

9.29 The two impacts on individual privacy most frequently identified by those who provided detail were:

  • Removal of property rights/state interference in running of private estates. (22 respondents)

"If the Government takes upon itself the power to direct business how they should run, they inevitably will impinge on that business's privacy. The same would be true were the Government to require details of property transactions to go onto a public database" (Spital Tower Property).

"At the moment land owners do not have the power to do much without some sort of governmental approval. They can however choose to do nothing without much interference. The new proposals will mean that they cannot choose this course of action. They will be reduced to paying for everything without being able to enjoy their ownership fully" (Ind).

  • Exposure of private details of estates/publication of details which could be open to abuse and/or misinterpretation. (21 respondents)

"The availability of information about ownership, securities and property value etc could be abused by companies / lenders undertaking targeted marketing" (East Ayrshire Council).

"You may open up private individuals to hate tactics based upon jealousy or differing political views" (Glenprosen Estate).

9.30 13 respondents identified increased access across privately owned land as potentially encroaching on the privacy of individuals. Some private landowner organisations identified increases in litter, dog fouling, dogs loose amongst cattle and so on, as resulting from previous right to roam legislation.

9.31 A common theme (42 respondents) was that inevitably there would be a reduction in privacy for some individuals, but this was outweighed by the need for transparency and potential social, economic and environmental benefits. Some respondents commented that private individuals with nothing to hide should have nothing to fear by greater openness brought about by the reforms. Comments included:

"Privacy should be secondary to the greater public good" (Ind).

"Privacy is not a right when it impedes social justice" (Ind).

9.32 Many respondents (42) argued that impacts on individual privacy can be minimised by careful management of individual data, particularly the information contained on the proposed land register. Recommendations were made for data protection considerations to be paramount, with disclosure implications to be thought through before information requests are met. Some felt that restrictions on access to land registry data should be applied. It was seen as imperative that data is kept up-to-date and is accurate, with means of correcting inaccuracies readily available. A few respondents urged that the operation of the land register is underpinned by appropriate funding to ensure privacy of individuals is respected. Comments included:

"The valuation information used to produce and maintain Valuation Rolls may be commercially sensitive, private or be perceived to be private. Similarly, Council Tax data such as the physical attributes of dwellings may be covered by the Data Protection Act. Any data sharing initiatives would therefore require clear guidance or legislation on issues which are potentially affected by commercial sensitivity, privacy and Data Protection law" (Scottish Assessors Association).

"The level of detail available to the public is a concern, however we do believe that there is necessity for greater transparency in Land ownership information. .......The Land Register will hold a significant amount of details regarding land ownership and this should be used as the basis for the information gathering. It would be useful to know how the Government would intend to use the information held" (Millden Estate).

"I have particular concerns over the commercial sensitivity attaching to commercial transactions. Any proposals require to be considered in line with the current Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation" (Glendoune Estate)

"Private property rights must be observed although as I have said I am quite happy to disclose my land ownership extent as are many land owners but only the basis that the information is held accurately and that the Land Registry is properly resourced accordingly" (Dinnet&Kinord Estate).

"Additional information gathering on property ownership is in principle not a bad thing - but serious consideration needs to be given to what level of information is held and how it is used. There is potential for huge infringements on privacy" (Ind).

Environmental

Background

The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 ensures those public plans that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment are assessed and measures to prevent or reduce adverse effects are sought, where possible, prior to the main consultation and implementation of the plan.

At this early stage in the plan's preparation it is difficult to determine whether significant environmental effects are likely to arise and the aim of the Scottish Government is to use this consultation process as a means to fully explore the likely environmental effects. Once completed they intend to determine, using the consultation process, what their statutory obligations under the 2005 Act are and how these can best be met.

Question 45: Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, you feel any of the proposals contained in this consultation may have on the environment. Please be as specific as possible.

9.33 387 respondents (33% of all those who responded to the consultation) provided commentary of relevance to this question. This excludes several respondents who felt that the proposals were not developed enough for them to provide a considered response. A few respondents recommended that a strategic environmental assessment be undertaken; others expressed concern that the consultation appeared to them to focus too much on maximising the economic development of land as opposed to other developments.

Views on positive impacts on the environment

9.34 51 respondents provided their general view that the proposals would most likely result in positive impacts on the environment. Other respondents were more specific about the potentially positive impacts they envisaged:

  • Greater diversification of land use /more sustainable land use. (62 respondents)
  • Better management of the deer population/lower deer population resulting in increased bio-diversity of land. (59 respondents).
  • Greater community ownership/community responsibility/community views taken into account, resulting in increased care taken over local environment. (56 respondents)
    "I believe that communities taking ownership of the land around them will have large environmental benefits. It is far easier to ensure that small groups of people who are elected by the community and responsible to them will act in the best interests of the local environment than it is to convince large landowners to change their ways" (Ind).
  • Increased natural regeneration of forest and increasing tree cover which will help to reduce soil erosion and reduce carbon omissions. (33 respondents)

Views on negative impacts on the environment

9.35 22 respondents provided their general view that the proposals would most likely result in negative impacts on the environment. Other respondents were more specific about the potentially negative impacts they envisaged:

  • Reduced spend on land management by private landowners, for example due to the abolition of business rate exemption on shooting and stalking, will result in deterioration of land and environment. Many respondents highlighted that the current landscape has been created and is managed largely by active land management, and plays a significant part in the tourist industry in Scotland. (95 respondents)
    "Damage to the environment, particularly on heather moorland, resulting from reductions in land management for shooting and stalking as a result of sporting rates changes; this in turn will have a negative impact on tourism, not only from a reduction in sporting tourists coming to shoot/stalk in Scotland, but also possibly from other tourists who come to see the "iconic" landscape as it is. There could potentially follow a reduction in inward investment by landowners from earnings outside Scotland with a consequent reduction in rural employment. The gradual transfer of land use from grouse moor to commercial forestry may in all probability be inevitable, although many grouse moors incorporate areas of deep peat, which are likely to be no-go areas for forestry and so abandonment of land would result" (Scottish Land & Estates).
  • Damage to visual environment due to increased use of land for poor quality housing, hydro-power turbines, fish farms, and so on. (19 respondents)
  • Reduction in the management of deer leading to increased environmental damage. (14 respondents)
  • Increase in fragmentation in ownership of land risking over-intense working of land, owners with little knowledge and experience, lack of longer-term finance to underpin land management. (14 respondents)
    "The full-time commitment, expertise, co-ordination and substantial investment required appear to be beyond the scope of many community schemes" (Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust).

Contact

Email: Liz Hawkins

Back to top