Introduction

One of the Smith Commission agreements was that responsibility for the management and revenues of the Crown Estate in Scotland should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. (1)

This Agreement reflected the widespread consensus in Scotland that the management of  the Crown Estate should be devolved. There have been several inquiries into this topic over the last ten years, from the Crown Estate Review Working Group (2007) to Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee (2012), which also recommended the devolution of the Crown Estate in Scotland. (2)

The Smith Commission also agreed, like the Scottish Affairs Committee before it, that devolution should be followed by further decentralisation to local authorities, communities and others, of responsibilities for the various Crown property, rights and interests that make up the Crown Estate in Scotland. Both the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Smith Commission were clear, however, that this decentralisation was to take place after the devolution of the management of the Crown Estate to the Scottish Parliament. (3)

The Scotland Bill was published on the 28th May by the UK Government and is now on its hurried passage through the UK Parliament. (4) It is intended to implement the Smith Commission agreements.  Clause 31 of the Bill that deals with the Crown Estate, however, completely fails to do this and needs to be re-drafted.

But, first, some background.

The Crown Estate

The Crown Estate is the name given in the Crown Estate Act 1961 to the various Crown property, rights and interests that are managed by the Crown Estate Commissioners (CEC).  The CEC is a statutory corporation first constituted by the Crown Estate Act 1956 and now operating under the 1961 Act.  The CEC transfers its net surplus revenue or ‘profit’ each year to the UK Government’s Consolidated Fund for use in public expenditure. (5)

The CEC is thus the manager of property rights that belong to the Crown. However, there can often be confusion between the manager and the property, because the CEC has branded itself for its corporate identity as ‘The Crown Estate’.  The Treasury Committee also felt it necessary to emphasise in its report on the Crown Estate, that “the CEC are a public body charged with managing public resources for public benefit”. (6)

The Crown property, rights and interests that make up the Crown Estate in Scotland are legally and constitutionally distinct from those in the rest of the UK, because they are owned by the Crown in Scotland and defined in Scots law.  Scotland’s Crown property rights are of ancient origin and continued to be administered with their revenues in Scotland following the Union of Crowns in 1603 and the Treaty of Union in 1707.  Some of these Crown rights continue to be managed in Scotland by the Scottish Government and Crown Office. However, the administration and revenues of many of Scotland’s Crown property rights were transferred from Edinburgh to a government department in London in the 1830s.  That department and its successors, were the predecessors of the current CEC.

The Crown property rights managed by the CEC in Scotland include Scotland’s territorial seabed and Crown rights over the Scotland’s continental shelf zone (see map above), around half of Scotland’s foreshore, the right to mine gold, salmon fishings, four rural estates and two urban properties.  The Crown Estate in Scotland only accounts for around 3-4% of the value attributed to the UK wide Crown Estate and revenue produced by it. The CEC’s annual ‘profit’ from its operations in Scotland, has been around £5m in recent years. (7)

The Scotland Act 1998 devolved legislative competence over Scots property law, including Crown property rights, to the Scottish Parliament.  The first Scottish Parliament, for example, used this legislative authority to abolish the Crown’s ultimate ownership of land in Scotland under feudal tenure.  However, the reservation of the management of the Crown Estate in the Scotland Act, precludes the Scottish Parliament from being able to legislate over the rights managed by the CEC and also means that the CEC is not accountable to either the Scottish Parliament and Government for its operations in Scotland. Implementing the Smith Agreement would complete the devolution process started in 1999 and bring the rights and the management together under the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

The Scotland Bill

The Smith Agreement to devolve the management and revenues of the Crown’s property rights should be straightforward to implement in legislation.

The two main requirements are to amend the Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5 Part 1 by;

1. removing clause 2(3) that reserves the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland and,

2. removing clause 3(3)(a) that reserves the revenue from the Crown Estate in Scotland.

Removing these two reservations would mean that responsibility for managing the Crown property rights that currently make up the Crown Estate in Scotland, automatically falls to the Scottish Parliament.

Appropriate legislation also needs to cover some consequential amendments to other legislation, in particular to the Crown Estate Act 1961 to reflect that it would no longer apply in Scotland.  In addition, the legislation requires some procedural provisions dealing with the transfer date and process.

Unfortunately, clause 31 in the Scotland Bill manifestly does not implement the Smith Agreement.  The clause does not devolve the responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament. Instead, the clause delegates existing functions of the CEC as a statutory corporation to Scottish Ministers or others transferees through a Treasury ‘scheme’.

The current clause 31 attempts to enable the CEC to continue to operate in Scotland and to bind those to whom functions are transferred to the restrictive terms of the Crown Estate Act 1961 under which the CEC operates.  The clause’s provisions to try to achieve this are, as others have commented, complex and unclear. (8) They are a recipe for confusion and legal anomalies.  They do not devolve legislative responsibility over the Crown property rights and revenues involved in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament and will frustrate the widespread consensus for the further decentralisation of these within Scotland. (9)

Re-framing Clause 31

The Smith Agreement to devolve responsibility over the Crown Estate in Scotland reflects the longstanding agreement in Scotland over this matter and it should be straightforward to implement through the Scotland Bill.  Why then does the existing clause 31 fail to do this?

This blog argues that this current state of affairs has arisen because of the degree of influence that the CEC has had on the nature of clause 31. The sequence of Committee inquiries and reports into the operations of the CEC show how CEC corporate policies have been aimed at maintaining it as a UK organisation.  IN 1998, the CEC declined to participate in the devolution process in the way that the Forestry Commissioners did (and have continued to do).  The starkest example, however, was in 2001/02 when, against the flow of devolution, the CEC ended its management of the Crown Estate in Scotland as a separate management unit with its own manager and financial accounts, so that the CEC could assimilate its operations in Scotland into those in the rest of the UK. (10) The current clause 31 with its stretching and twisting of the Crown Estate Act 1961, can be seen as the CEC’s latest move to try to retain the Crown Estate as a UK wide estate.

Furthermore, it is distressing to note the continuing mis-understanding of what exactly the Smith Commission agreed. For example, a briefing issued by the Scottish Parliament, claims that it is the “powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners [which are set out in the 1961 Act] which would be transferred to Scottish Ministers.” (11)

This is wrong.

The Smith Agreement patently does not say this. It says that responsibility for management will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is an entirely different matter from a mere delegation of functions to be exercised within the framework of continuing reserved powers.

The Scottish Government’s initial response to the Scotland Bill recognises the need to re-frame clause 31, so that the clause removes the reservations in the Scotland Act 1998 over the management and revenues of the Crown property rights in Scotland forming part of the Crown Estate. (12) The terms of the Scottish Government’s proposed alternative clause 31 still suffers from some other weaknesses. However, it is to be hoped that all the parties involved in the Smith Commission will recognise that the issues over clause 31 are not party political.

Solving this problem is a simple matter of re-framing the clause in a competent was so as to implement the Smith Agreement in as straightforward a manner as possible.

  1. Smith Commission page 16
  2. See Crown Estate Review Working Group Report and Scottish Affairs Committee Report.
  3. See, for example, Lord Smith’s evidence to Scottish Affairs Committee 3 December 2014. Q137-Q140
  4. Scotland Bill
  5. Section 1(2) Civil List Act 1952
  6. House of Commons Treasury Committee Report, 2010 para 10
  7. Scottish Affairs Committee Report para 39
  8. See Devolution (Further Powers) Committee report
  9. For example, the Bill amends the Civil List Act 1952 to obligate the payment of all Crown revenues to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. Decentralisation to, for example, to harbour trusts will be constrained by a continuing legal constraint to hand over all revenues to the Scottish Government.
  10. Scottish Affairs Committee Report para 21
  11. See SPICE/Clerks/Legal Briefing page 15 “Provision has been made to amend the Crown Estate Act 1961 to reflect the new role for Scottish Ministers (SMs), but to retain the requirement to manage and improve etc the property, rights and interests being transferred subject to the remaining provisions of the Crown Estate Act 1961. This reflects the Smith Commission recommendation that it would be the powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners [which are set out in the 1961 Act] which would be transferred to Scottish Ministers.”
  12. See Scottish Government alternative clause, pages 12-13 and 43

OTHER DOCUMENTS

House of Commons Library Briefing on Scotland Bill

 

Image: Aileen McLeod MSP speaking at conference on Scottish Land and Estates.

This month, the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Aileen McLeod MSP gave two significant speeches. The first was on 19th May to the Annual Meeting of Scottish Land and Estates, a representative body of 1,351 landowners who own 2.27 million hectares of Scotland. The second was on 22 May 2015 to Community Land Scotland, a representative body of over 40 community landowners who own around 200,000 hectares of land across Scotland.

The two speeches are available below. They mark an important development in Scottish Government thinking on land reform policy. Notable among the topics covered was a focus on wealth inequality and human rights. Expect to hear more about these two topics in relation to land policy across urban, rural and marines Scotland in the years to come.

Speech to SLE 19 May 2015 (pdf)

Speech to CLS 22 May 2015 (pdf)

Image: Commission on Local Tax Reform. Oral Evidence Session 2

Today, the Commission on Local Tax Reform held its second oral evidence session. I am  member of the Commission representing the Scottish Green Party. The event was streamed live and you can view the whole proceedings here together with the slides used by Stuart Adam of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In addition to Stuart’s evidence, we heard from Professor John Baillie – a member of the Local Government Finance Review Committee (chaired by Sir Peter Burt), and  the immediate past Chair of the Audit Commission and of Audit Scotland. We also heard evidence from Ken McKay who was Head of Local Government Finance in the Scottish Office between 1989 and 1997 and was the advisor to the Burt Committee.

The Committee was established in 2004. Its remit was:

To review the different forms of local taxation, including reform of the Council Tax, against criteria set by the Executive, to identify the pros and cons of implementing any changes to the local taxation system in Scotland, including the practicalities and the implications for the rest of the local government finance system and any wider economic impact, and to make recommendations.”

The Committee published its final report on 9 November 2006 (news report here).

The current Commission is keen to learn from the experience of Sir Peter Burt’s Committee and so invited Professor Baillie and Ken Mackay. You can watch the whole session and download the slide presentation here.

I relate the following exchange in order to highlight the potential political difficulties that might lie ahead and to alert interested parties to the vital need to achieve a degree of political consensus on the findings of the Commission. The exchange speaks for itself as to the challenges of making progress in this area of public policy.

After the Chair had opened question of the witnesses , I asked why Burt had died a death before it was even published. Here is the exchange at 52 minutes and 10 seconds into the session.

Andy Wightman

I’ve got quite a few questions on the technical detail of all of this  but first of all, Ken and John, perhaps on the politics of all of this because this appears to be where Burt stumbled and where possibly the biggest challenges facing this Commission are. Why did Burt die a death before it was even published?

John Baillie

We submitted our report and we actually gave an advance copy as you would expect out of courtesy to the First Minister among others. And we heard the day before we were publishing and having our press conference that it had been dismissed. I to this day do not know why and I think the easiest way to find out the justification for that wholesale rejection is possibly to invite those who rejected it. I can speculate but it’s worthless.”

Ken Mackay

I have no …. I was inside the Scottish Office at one time and I have no idea .. and I have tried .. I have seen Jack McConnell on the golf course and I’ve often wanted to ask him .. because the Burt Committee  .. well I’d better be .. I better bite my tongue a bit because there’s politics in this especially now but they were treated appallingly. They did a very, very good piece of work and it was rubbished the day before it was published.”

The Commission is currently undertaking a public consultation. Further details here.

On Thursday this week, the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee will take evidence on the Smith Commission proposals to devolve responsibility for the administration and management of the property, rights and interests that comprise the Crown Estate in Scotland (paras 32-25 of the Smith Commission report). (1) With the property rights of the Crown already devolved under the Scotland Act 1998 and with other Crown property rights already administered by the Crown Office in Edinburgh, this should complete the full devolution of the Crown’s property, rights and interests in Scotland. (2)

Unfortunately, the Command Paper (Scotland in the UK: an enduring settlement) published in January, recommends a complex “transfer scheme” whereby the functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners (CEC) will be devolved. It also recommends that the CEC be able to continue to acquire property in Scotland – a proposal that is a recipe for confusion and chaos.

All that is required to implement the Smith Commission proposals is a series of simple legislative amendments to the Scotland Acts of 1998 and 2012 and the Crown Estate Act 1961 – all to the effect that the CEC no longer operate in Scotland, that the Scottish Parliament has full legislative competence over Crown land in Scotland and that statutory responsibility for exercising the function of the CEC is henceforth vested in Scottish Ministers. A discussion and debate can then take place in Scotland as to how to implement a programme of decentralisation – a recommendation endorsed by all the political parties represented on the Smith Commission as reflected in paragraph 33 of its final report.

I have outlined my full views in written evidence if you are interested in further detail. Meanwhile, I look forward to giving evidence to the Committee on Thursday.

NOTES

(1) Papers for the meeting are here and here.

(2) The Crown’s property rights are devolved under Section 3(1) of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. The Crown’s property rights that are already administered in Scotland are those under the control of the Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer whose revenues have been paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund since devolution in 1999.

Guest Blog by Fred Harrison, Land Research Trust.

Austerity has caused deep anguish for people across Europe. They did not cause the depression that followed the financial crisis of 2008, but they are paying the price. Scotland’s government has announced its determination to cushion the austerity effect by spending more money on low-income people. But where is the money to come from?

Governments from Ireland to Greece think that, by selectively raising some taxes, they can increase welfare spending. In reality, that strategy compounds the trauma. Tax increases, whether on high-end properties or top incomes, inflict yet more costs on everyone. Those governments claim to be democratic. And yet, when it comes to taxation, they ignore the principles of transparency and accountability. They refuse to disclose the scale of the damage they inflict on people at large.

That damage can be audited. Taxes on wages, and on the profits of enterprises, destroy jobs and reduce national income. Governments try to disguise these effects by spreading the burden widely, hoping that people do not notice. But people are not stupid, which is why distortions have measurable effects on the economy.

In the US, for example, Prof. Martin Feldstein at Harvard estimated what would happen if marginal taxes were raised by 10%. Government would receive extra revenue of $21 billion, but the loss to society as a whole would amount to $43 billion. A bad trade-off! (1)

But there is an anti-austerity strategy that can fund itself. That is the outcome from switching to raising the same amount of revenue with a different composition of revenue-raisers. By raising the revenue from pure economic rent, which is the value of the services provided by nature and by society.

The net gain to national income stem from the “better than neutral” effect, in the phrase of Nicolaus Tideman, an American professor of economics. By reducing revenue from taxes on wages and/or profits, the damage done by these taxes is reduced. And by replacing that revenue with income from rent, no distortions are imposed on the economy.

Tideman and his colleagues calculated this effect for the US. They wanted to know what would happen if government raised $1 from land taxes instead of the same dollar from existing taxes on wages and business profits. The  extra gains from that switch ranged from about $1.25 (substituting land taxes for Social Security taxes) to about $2.25 (substituting land taxes for property taxes levied on the value of buildings). (2)

So it turns out that we can have our cake and eat it! We can run a revenue-neutral budget while expanding the aggregate income available to be shared between the public and private sectors. In Scotland, that would result in more jobs while providing government with extra resources to help the vulnerable sectors of society.

How to construct such a strategy will be explored at a conference in Glasgow next Wednesday, which is open to the public. Evidence from two professors of economics – one from Strathclyde, the other from California – will reveal the enormous gains that the people of Scotland would enjoy if Holyrood embarked on a real anti-austerity programme. In fact, it’s the only anti-austerity plan in town.

 NOTES

(1) Martin Feldstein (1995), “The effects of Marginal tax Rates on Taxable Income: a panel study of the 1986 Tax Reform Act,” Journal of Political Economy 103 (3).

(2) Nicolaus Tideman et al (2002), “The Avoidable Excess Burden of Broad-Based U.S. Taxes,” Public Finance Review 30 (5).

Guest Blog by Fred Harrison, Land Research Trust.

Scotland’s First Minister has created an awkward rod for her political back. Her attack on the Coalition Government’s “austerity” policies renders the SNP vulnerable to its enemies in Westminster. Speaking in London on Wednesday (video above, text here), Nicola Sturgeon trashed the UK Government’s policies on three counts. She condemned the economic policies pursued by David Cameron for failing to deliver long-term growth, increased productivity and fairness. Her own government in Holyrood will now be judged on those tests.

Fortunately for the SNP, the new powers on taxation that are being devolved to Scotland will enable her to undertake reforms that can shift Scotland in the direction of an alternative economic path. But this will require a major change to the way Scotland funds its public services. The taxes employed by the London government certainly fail the first test: long-term growth. Tax policies are rigged against people who earn their incomes by working and saving. The revenue system is biased to favour land as an investment asset. And the pages of history leave us in no doubt that those fiscal policies drive the boom/bust business cycle that terminates long-term growth.

The productivity test is an awkward one. How inefficient is the current tax regime? I will explore that issue at a public conference in Glasgow on 25th February. But there is no doubt that performance of the Scottish economy could be dramatically enhanced if the Sturgeon government decides to rebalance the tax regime. It will need to shift the emphasis away from Income Tax and onto a re-based property tax.

There is no ambiguity about the third test: fairness. At present, the tax regime discriminates against families that rent their homes, and favours the owners of residential property. So the SNP’s commitment to land reform will challenge Ms Sturgeon to find a way of shifting the structure of taxation so that people are treated as equals.

In her London speech, Ms Sturgeon pointed out that the austerity programme was being forcefully opposed throughout Europe. But she is now in a unique position. Unlike the newly elected Greek government, the SNP administration does not have to secure the permission of others to change course. It has the political mandate to launch the reforms that would shift Scotland onto the high productivity growth path. Those reforms would be fair to everyone willing to work by adding to the sum total of Scotland’s wealth and welfare.

Ironically, the SNP government’s enemies within Scotland will not invoke Nicola’s three tests. Already, the opponents of land reform are mobilising their ammunition to try and defend the status quo. The last thing they want is a shift in the direction of efficiency and fairness! The tax regime, after all, was created by those who sought privileged treatment, and to hell with the unfair impact on others. So it will be up to Nicola’s friends to hold her to account, by invoking the three tests to measure the performance of the SNP government.

“I’m deeply dismayed that this issue has been re-opened again. I can understand that there are always going to be some people who object to large-scale landownership but we felt that that was dealt with at the time of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.

What is being done challenges the nature of the society we live in and property rights. It also, in practical terms creates deep uncertainty in planning for the future and I think that’s going to be the disadvantage of the rural economy……..”

A briefing by Andy Wightman on the Scottish Government’s proposals for a Land Reform Bill has been published. It is available from the Land Reform 2014-16 page on this website (menu item Hot Topics/Land Reform 2014-16). Further briefings and blogs on this subject will be published and collated on that page.

The consultation closes on 10 February 2015. Please make your views known to the Scottish Government.

Yesterday’s Scottish Edition of the Mail on Sunday carried a front page splash claiming that Nicola Sturgeon was refusing to contribute to the costs of running the Royal Family. An editorial then provided further condemnation of the First Minister’s “plan to stop funding the Royal Family’s Sovereign Grant”. The piece was written by Hamish MacDonell, a journalist whose standards of journalism I questioned in March 2013 over another piece written for the Daily Mail.

I described Sunday’s story on twitter as  “a dung heap of unadulterated, fabricated crap”.

Today, Macdonell recycles the same rubbish in an article on the Spectator’s Coffee House blog claiming that Nicola Sturgeon is “picking a fight with the Queen”. Every paragraph of this article is strewn with errors, smears and downright untruths.

Historically the costs of the Royal Family was met from the Civil List – a sum of money voted by Parliament. In 2011, this arrangement was replaced by the Sovereign Grant under the terms of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (see previous blogs here and here in which I criticise this act and predict the problems it will cause). The Act provides that an annual grant be made to the Queen from the Treasury [s.1(1)] with funds provided by Parliament [s.1(6)]. Section 6 provides that the annual amount be calculated with reference to the annual net surplus of the Crown Estate beginning with a sum equivalent to 15%. The latest report from the Royal Trustees on the Sovereign Grant was published last week.

The Smith Commission recommended that responsibility for the Crown Estate be devolved and that the Crown Estate Commissioners no longer have any jurisdiction in Scotland. It also noted (para. 35) that the “responsibility for financing the Sovereign grant will need to reflect this revised settlement for the Crown Estate.”

Here are the facts that any competent journalist who is not engaged in a smear campaign should be able to establish.

1. The Crown Estate revenues do not finance the Royal Household. They merely provide a benchmark against which the Sovereign grant is calculated. The grant is paid out of funds voted by Parliament. (1)

2. The financing of the Royal Household is a reserved matter and neither Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament have any responsibility whatsoever for it. There are no proposals in the Smith Commission or anywhere else to change this.

3. The Smith Commission notes the issue in relation to the Sovereign Grant because once the Crown Estate is devolved, the revenues of the Crown Estate that are remitted to HM Treasury will suffer a one-off reduction by the amount of the revenues generated from Scotland. Such an adjustment will presumably be made by altering the 15% figure to a slightly higher figure and the Sovereign Grant will continue to be paid by the Treasury from funds voted by the UK Parliament as it is now.

None of this has got anything to do with the Scottish Government. There is no snub and no refusal to do anything for the simple reason that the financing of the Royal Household is and continues to be a reserved matter.

I understand the Daily Mail publishing this rubbish – very little of that it reports bears much relation to reality.

I am more disappointed that the Spectator magazine allowed such a dung heap of unadulterated, fabricated crap be published in what is a high quality current affairs magazine.

NOTES

(1)  George Osborne himself noted in Parliament that the Crown Estate revenues are merely “not a bad proxy for how the economy and the economy are doing”. See blog in which I argue that one might as well link the Sovereign Grant to the profits of the stilton cheese industry.

 

 

 

Nicola Sturgeon today announced the Scottish Government’s legislative programme for the remainder of this Parliament. It contains a proposal for a new Land Reform Bill as well as a Succession Bill and a review of the Council Tax. Announcements of further proposals are expected in the consultation paper to be published next week.

After a decade of absence, it’s great to see the land question back on the political agenda. This is an important, substantial and meaningful set of proposals. Taken as a whole, they will hopefully shift the baseline of the debate – that is to say the set of assumptions and norms that have too often been taken for granted and in which politicians have too often been reluctant to tackle.

In the Scottish Government’s Programme for Government, Scottish Ministers argue that,

The relationship between the people living in Scotland and the land of Scotland is of fundamental importance. Our aim is to move the debate on land reform from one focused on historic injustices to a modern debate about the current balance of land rights in Scotland and how this can be managed to best deliver for the people of Scotland.”

Amen to that.

Scotland comprises its territory and its people.

How land is owned, used and governed is vitally important to the wellbeing and prosperity of all who live in this country – in particular to those who, because of inflated land values, cannot afford the basic human right of a home. For far too long, the ownership and control of Scotland’s natural resources have been in the hands of a small elite. Their political influence has been such that reforms that would, in any other European country, be regarded as normal, have been dismissed as extreme or an unjustifiable attack on property rights.

As for the proposals themselves, they represent a suite of important reforms.

Topics to be included in the Land Reform Bill include:-

Withdrawing the non-domestic rates exemptions for sporting estates

Sporting rates were abolished by the Conservative Government in 1994 and the non-domestic rates (NDR) on over 90% of Scotland were abolished back in the 1950s. It is clearly inequitable that, whilst the corner shop, the pub and the hairdresser all pay NDR, the multi-million pound assets outside the villages and towns of Scotland pay virtually none with all “agricultural” land (including sporting estates and woodland) removed from the valuation roll altogether.

One of the bizarre consequences of this is that there are Danish landowners who own large areas of land in Scotland who pay land taxes to their home municipalities in Denmark to pay for nice kindergartens for their children. They are asked to contribute no such levies to Scottish local authorities for equivalent services for their employee’s children here.

Powers for Scottish Ministers to intervene where the scale of land ownership and land management decisions are a barrier to local sustainable development

With such a concentrated pattern of private landownership (432 landowners own half of the privately-owned rural land in Scotland) and such an open and unregulated market, it is inevitable that there will be situations where the public interest should intervene. This can be because of local monopolies (where one owner owns most or all of the land in or around a settlement) or where there is a history of neglect and bad practice affecting tenants and others in the community.

A new duty on charity trustees to consult with local communities where decisions on the management and use of land may affect a local community

There are large estates in Scotland that are currently owned through charitable companies (such as Mount Stuart Trust on Bute and the Applecross Trust in Wester Ross) that were set up decades ago to avoid tax. Often they are run by the same family that once owned them and who appoint their friends as Trustees. The local community has no right to join as members and has no legal right to have any stake in the governance or management of the land despite receiving substantial tax benefits through charitable status and non-domestic rates exemptions.

A new Land Reform Commission to develop the the evidence base for future reform, to support public debate and to hold this and future Governments to account

Land reform is a topic that has been neglected for some time. It is also a topic that cuts across many areas of public policy such as housing, fiscal policy, regeneration, community development, agriculture, forestry etc. it is to be welcomed that the Scottish Government is willing to appoint a Commission to “hold this and future governments to account”!

A land information system to provide transparent, comprehensive and freely available data and information on the ownership, occupation, value and use of land

Scotland has a wealth of data on many aspects of land but they are disparate, costly to get hold of and difficult to interpret. Explore the Cadastral portal for the state of Montana to see what a modern land information system should look like.

Other reforms include:-

A review of the land and property tax that affects most people – the highly regressive council tax

The announcement of the long awaited reform of the council tax is welcome. To many people this might seem a totally separate topic but houses sit on land and how that land and property is taxed has a significant impact on perhaps the most important land market to most people – the housing market.

This regressive tax should be replaced by a far more progressive and equitable framework based on the findings of the Mirrlees Review Chapter 16 chaired by Sir James Mirrlees – one of the Scottish Government’s own economic advisers. Whilst no legislation is envisaged this session – a cross-party review will examine alternatives and report by Autumn by 2015.

The modernisation of succession law so that all children are treated equally when it comes to inheriting land

This reform has been resisted by the landed class throughout the whole of the 20th century. Read Chapter 28 in my book, The Poor Had No Lawyers and today’s blog by Lallands Peat Worrier In 1964, when Scotland finally got rid of primogeniture, Lord Haddington and other railed against reform arguing in the House of Lords that

By assimilating heritable property, which from time immemorial has passed under the law of primogeniture, with moveable property and dividing it equally among the intestate’s next of kin, you are striking at the very roots of Scottish traditions and undermining the whole fabric of Scottish family life.”

Of course it only undermined the traditions of the lives of the aristocracy – particularly by discriminating against women. That Scotland should only now be catching up with the reforms that swept Europe in the aftermath of the French Revolution over 200 years ago says much about why we need such reform!

A Harbours Bill to provide a revised legislative framework from one of Scotland’s oldest forms of social enterprise – Trust Ports

Increasing the Scottish Land Fund to £10 million from 2016-20 to meet demand

Implementation of the recommendations of the Agricultural Holdings Review Group which is due to publish it’s final report in January 2015

A full consultation will be published next week and it is expected to propose additional reforms that require further work before they can be framed as legislation.

This is a very substantial package of measures. A lot of work lies ahead to bring them all to fruition and they will be opposed every bit of the way by powerful vested interests

Much more information will be published next week when the Scottish Government publishes its full consultation together with an important statement on Land Rights Policy.

Meanwhile everyone who believes that the land of Scotland should be owned and used in the public interest and for the common good should take the time to understand the issues at stake, participate in the consultation and make Scotland a country where land is owned and used for the many and not the few.