Land reform proposals raise concerns for Society
Questions whether proposed restrictions on landownership in Scotland can be made to work have been raised by the Law Society of Scotland in its response to the Scottish Government consultation on land reform.
Among other measures, ministers propose to improve the transparency and accountability of landownership by limiting those who can own or take a long lease over land to legal entities registered in an EU member state.
The Society believes that restrictions such as these could be easily bypassed by non-EU companies setting up shell companies in the EU. It is also concerned that it could be a deterrent to investment in office premises in say Edinburgh or Glasgow. Paul Connolly, convener of the Society’s property and land law committee, noted: "This would not necessarily fulfil the Scottish Government’s policy objectives of achieving greater transparency regarding the real landowner. It could also affect not only commercial land, but residential and agricultural land as well, thus having a potentially serious impact on business, and reducing investment.”
Regarding the proposed new Scottish Land Reform Commission, the Society responds that it seems an appropriate way forward for progressing land reform in Scotland, but is unclear at this stage what the remit or structure of the Commission would be.
"As a general comment we would suggest that one advantage may be to de-politicise some of the issues which surround landownership and use in Scotland and demonstrate an independent examination of these", the response states. "On the other hand, care must be taken to ensure that the Scottish Land Reform Commission would not see itself as a platform to continually ‘tinker’ with any major land law reforms introduced. Perhaps consideration should be given to dropping ‘Reform’ from the Commissions title?"
Mr Connolly observed: "We would suggest that if this proposal were to move forward, there should be further engagement with stakeholders. Any such Commission must also ensure that it remains independent from executive influence and represents the interest of all stakeholders, such as agricultural tenants, crofters and charities.”
Further obligations could be imposed on charities that own land, such as a duty to consult with the local community before taking a decision on the management, use or transfer of land under their control.
Stephen Phillips, convener of the Society’s charity law committee, commented: “There are already a number of regulatory obligations that are imposed on charities, and we see no reason why further obligations should be imposed on them. Under the proposals, a high street charity shop, for example, may be under an obligation to consult with the local community before it undertakes everyday repairs, such as roof repairs. This just seems wholly unnecessary and cumbersome in practice, and potentially expensive for charities without proportionate benefit to local communities.”
The Society also questions what would be achieved by proposed powers to direct private landowners to take action to overcome barriers to sustainable development, given the ability for anyone to apply for planning permission under current legislation.
Mr Connolly added: “Any land law reform needs to be coherent, clear and workable, and careful consideration must be given to ensure pre-existing legislation is taken into account."