SLC opens a can of worms with radical proposals
Few people reacted when the Scottish Land Commission was established three years ago and those that did concentrated on the fact that it might help to resolve the constant bickering and battling between landowners and farm tenants.
That particular target appears to have been largely achieved through the appointment of Dr Bob Mcintosh as tenant farming commissioner, backed by measures designed to take the heat out of these disagreements.
As an agricultural reporter, I might bemoan the loss of these battles as they always provided a generous stream of news, but I welcome this outbreak of peace.
However, last week it was a potentially more important piece of work by the SLC that grabbed the headlines, with its report criticising the concentration of land ownership in a small number of hands. This report could, if supported by politicians, be the basis for a transformational approach to land ownership.
SLC chief executive Hamish Trench stated that the evidence showed the concentration of power associated with land ownership rather than the scale of land holding was having a significant impact on the public interest. This was particularly important with issues such as community development, housing and economic opportunities. Significantly he stressed that the report was but the first step in changing the landscape of owning land in Scotland.
The current Scottish Government has always been very cautious and centralist and few moves are made that might lose votes. Until now its approach to land reform has been timid compared with its radical views while in opposition, such as when the previous government, or coalition, was pushing through the Land Reform Act of 2003.
In creating the SLC and giving it a remit to look at the pattern of land ownership, the Scottish Government has created an arm’s-length body away from the politicians so that any negative reaction or flak can be avoided. So the SLC can bring forward more radical ideas which, if they come under attack, can then be shelved. But if the ideas create no more than a ripple, they can be transformed into regulation and law; a gently, gently approach to change.
However, when the report was debated in the Scottish Parliament last
week, it quickly opened up long established seams of division and pent-up memories of injustices.
Several Conservative MSPS, after declaring their interests as landowners, supported the view of Scottish Land and Estates, which represents most of the landowners in Scotland. They saw the SLC report as an attack on them or their system of land management. They criticised the report as still seeing landownership rather than land use as the prime route to dealing with issues faced by communities.
Opposition MSPS were soon on their feet, dragging out anecdotes of past misdeeds and calling for change.
What were the SLC proposals that caused a fluttering in the lairds’ doocots? The Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, which, after remarking that there were still areas where local people were “feart o’ the laird” in their response, welcomed the recommendation that locals should be allowed a greater role in influencing the planning and decision-making process.
The STFA also supported a proposal suggesting that owners of large estates draw up management plans that involved local people as well as a suggestion that there should be powers to investigate cases where landowners abuse their power, possibly leading to compulsory purchase or community buyouts.
The report opens up pathways to doing so but it did not provide specific answers on many issues such as who defines “abuse of power” and how people can influence the planning and decision-making process.
The report does not even define the scale of landowning that falls within its remit. An irresponsible landowner with 100 acres could blight the lives of neighbours just as much as one with ten or 100 times the scale of ownership.
From the other side, a vocal and opinionated local community could stifle good initiatives proposed by a landlord purely on the grounds that it did not want them. There are a large number of “not in my backyard” people living in the countryside.
These are just a few of the myriad defining questions that will have to be faced with any change in the law. This report could transform land ownership but it has also opened up a can of worms.
The key question is: have the politicians the determination and stamina to see a radical change in landownership in Scotland?