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

8. ADDRESSING SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF LAND OWNERSHIP AND RIGHTS

Background

Common good is a form of land ownership that has a long history in Scotland and often plays an important part in the historic, cultural and economic heritage of communities where such property exists. However, there is widespread agreement that the legal framework around common good needs to be modernised to meet modern circumstances and the expectations of communities.

Provisions already being proposed in the current Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill seek to improve transparency by placing duties on local authorities to: a) establish and maintain common good property registers; and b) consult with community councils and others over any planned disposal of common good property. There are, however, a number of outstanding issues to be addressed around the definition of common good and the use and alienation of common good property.

Proposal 8: Common good

Question 27: Do you agree that the need for court approval for disposals or changes of use of common good property, where this currently exists, should be removed?

8.1 626 respondents (54% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (65%) disagreeing that the need for court approval for disposals or changes of use of common good property should be removed (see Table 8.1).

8.2 Common Weal respondents and participants at the Birnam Land Reform Workshop shared the view that protection over disposals should be strengthened rather than removed.

Table 8.1: Views on whether the need for court approval for disposals or changes to the use of common good property should be removed (Question 27)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	4	31	9	69	13
Private landowner organisations	3	20	12	80	15
Private sector and professional bodies	7	58	5	42	12
Community organisations and representative bodies	9	56	7	44	16
Government and NDPBs	1	n/a	4	n/a	5
Local non-government organisations	1	n/a	4	n/a	5
Local Government	3	n/a	2	n/a	5
Academic	0	n/a	1	n/a	1
Total organisations	28	41	40	59	68
Individuals	193	35	365	65	558
Grand total	221	35	405	65	626

Question 28: If removed, what should take the place of court approval?

8.3 198 respondents (17% of all those who responded to the consultation) provided a view on an alternative to court approval. Many others addressed this question by urging that court approval be retained.

8.4 The most frequently identified replacement for court approval was community approval, via voting, referenda or similar (47 respondents). One respondent remarked:

"Common Good land is held in trust for the people. If court approval were to be removed, the only just replacement would be a participatory decision-making process in which the people themselves are asked for consent" (Ind).

8.5 Another common view was that SLRCapproval should replace court approval, supported with recourse to legal review (45 respondents).

8.6 36 respondents identified local authorities as having potential for involvement in agreeing disposals or changes of use of common good property, through vehicles such as their planning system, Reporter in planning appeals and full council meetings.

8.7 A recurring view (27 respondents) was that local panels/committees/forums could replace court approval, particularly if they involved community councils and democratically elected members. One respondent called for:

"Locally based independent representative bodies, made up of diverse interests, and without conflict of interest" (Ind).

8.8 13 respondents recommended the deployment of independent arbitrators to approve disposal or change of use decisions.

8.9 12 respondents considered that a land court/tribunal or new, local land courts could have a role in approving disposals or changes in use.

8.10 Common Weal respondents were of the view that if court approval for disposals or changes of use of common good property is removed, then the SLRC could take on this role, with recourse to legal review. Birnam Land Reform Workshop participants did not provide a view.

Question 29: Should there be a new legal definition of common good?

8.11 559 respondents (48% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (71%) agreeing that there should be a new, legal definition of common good (see Table 8.2). Of all the respondent sectors, private landowner organisations and one academic were alone in opposing the proposal overall.

8.12 Common Weal respondents considered that the issue of a new, legal definition of common good should be decided on further consultation. The Berwickshire Common Weal view was there should be a new definition as the issues are complex and clarification is required. Participants at the Birnam Land Reform Workshop recommended a new, legal definition.

Table 8.2: Views on whether there should be a new, legal definition of common good (Question 29)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	11	73	4	27	15
Private landowner organisations	5	31	11	69	16
Private sector and professional bodies	9	64	5	36	14
Community organisations and representative bodies	16	94	1	6	17
Government and NDPBs	2	n/a	1	n/a	3
Local non-government organisations	4	n/a	0	n/a	4
Local Government	4	n/a	1	n/a	5
Academic	0	n/a	1	n/a	1
Total organisations	51	68	24	32	75
Individuals	348	72	136	28	484
Grand total	399	71	160	29	559

Question 30: What might any new legal definition of common good look like?
Question 31: Do you have any other comments?

8.13 The responses to questions 30 and 31 overlapped significantly and have been analysed together to reflect this. 392 respondents (34% of all those who responded to the consultation) provided a response to one or both of these questions. Many other respondents remarked that they had very little or no knowledge of the issues under consideration and were therefore unable to comment.

8.14 Responses to these questions were particularly difficult to analyse due to lack of consistency and clarity over terminology. A recurring theme was that "common good land" and "common good" meant different things, and that there were formal and informal meanings of "common good" which some felt that not all respondents would appreciate. Various respondents used phrases such as land "held by", "owned by" or "managed by" interchangeably, and without precision on what was meant. Taking into consideration these challenges, key themes and recurring views did emerge and have been summarised below, along with substantive minor themes and views.

Views on the content of any new, legal definition

8.15 It was commonly thought (71 respondents) that any new definition should refer explicitly to common good as of benefit to everyone in the local population in terms of their well-being. Some of these respondents specified "economic, social and environmental well-being" in this regard. The notion of benefitting local communities economically was not universally shared, with a small number of respondents emphasising that common good should not be used for economic gain.

8.16 13 respondents considered that the definition should encompass the well-being of future generations in addition to current local communities; 16 respondents urged that well-being should include the sustainability of the environment.

8.17 Whilst 33 respondents recommended that any new, legal definition refers to common good property as belonging to the local community, nine respondents advocated reference to common good property as held on behalf of local people, perhaps by locally elected representatives, or the local authority.

8.18 Some respondents alluded to management of common good property, with 18 recommending that the definition sets out that any change in use should be subject to local community review. Others (11 respondents) simply requested that an outline of how the property will be managed should be included, along with details of how the local community will be involved in this.

General comments on content of the new, legal definition

8.19 A common view (36 respondents) was that any new, legal definition should be subject to further consultation. This was also the view of Common Weal respondents. It was felt that the definition should be precise in setting out clearly the scope of the common good property including maps where appropriate (17 respondents). Calls were made for the definition to be drafted in simple terms (12 respondents).

8.20 A recurring theme (28 respondents) was that the inconsistent terminology around common good and the lack of clarity on what falls within its remit in local communities contribute to considerable difficulties in establishing a common definition. Views included:

"We fully support the principle of the Common Good but strongly suspect our interpretation of the meaning of Common Good would differ from others" (Ben Shieldaig Estate).

"To avoid confusion the term "common good" should only be used when referring to "common good land" and should not be used as a synonym for public interest" (Scottish Wildlife Trust).

8.21 One view was that:

"....rather than seeking to reform the workings of Common Good, the Government would be better placed to abolish the legal standing of Common Good, with Common Good assets thereafter treated as all other local authority assets. In this way the assets could be managed effectively and efficiently in the public interest by the democratically accountable body. By abolishing what is largely an anachronistic system, the RICS considers that this would meet the general aims of land reform as espoused in the Land Reform Review Group report" (RICS).

8.22 22 respondents argued for the retention of the status quo instead of introducing a new, legal definition of common good. Views included:

"Many LAs have done extensive work on establishing a register of CG assets and any radical change to the definition of CG assets would undermine this work" (Perth and Kinross Council).

"The existing definition has been built up over years of experience. I think that it is rather arrogant that we feel that we may be able to improve on the historically developed definition" (Ind).

Other comments

8.23 Many comments (95 respondents) revolved around what respondents felt was the need to protect common good property from being taken for other purposes, and to retrieve property back into common good which they perceived had been wrongly sold over previous years. Some felt that common good property required greater protection to keep it for benefit of all local people. One respondent remarked:

"The current protections don't seem good enough. Recently I noticed some garden extensions happening into local common good land. Contacted the council and found they had been approved. I don't live close enough to have been consulted but make use of the land. I don't think councils should be able to sell off common good land by salami slicing when financial times are hard" (Ind).

8.24 A common theme (33 respondents and also the view of Berwickshire Common Weal and Birnam Land Reform Workshop participants) was for common good to be added to with more property taken into its ambit. A typical view was:

"Should be expanded to include not just the historical lands but include community space in new towns and suburban areas. Also community woodlands, gardens and allotments" (Ind).

8.25 33 respondents called for greater transparency in what constitutes common good. A recurring view (71 respondents) was for a searchable register of all common good property in local areas, readily accessible to local communities, for example on-line and in their local library.

8.26 Several respondents (14) recommended that the register and the existence of local common good should be publicised and promoted. One respondent remarked:

"I had no idea of its existence until recently. There should be a massive publicity campaign to tell people exactly what common good and common land exists in their local areas, and taught in schools too. Every citizen should know the situation in their community and it should be guarded as precious knowledge" (Ind).

8.27 17 respondents urged that local groups and/or trusts are put in charge of managing common good property. It was felt by some that local authority management constituted a conflict of interests.

8.28 For some (14 respondents), the current meaning of common good remains in the past, a historical legacy which is in need of modernising:

"I think that the definition needs to be updated for the 21st century as the current definition appears be a a historic hangover from medieval burghs" (Ind).

8.29 22 respondents called for a comprehensive review of the issues by an independent body or by researchers. Some advocated a new statutory framework covering management, ownership and the involvement of communities. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill was cited as a point of reference regarding relevant issues relating to common good.

8.30 Additional views emerging in the Berwickshire Common Weal responses and amongst Birnam Land Reform Workshop participants were that it is everyone's responsibility to manage land and rights in land for the common good.

Proposal 9: Agricultural holdings

Background

The Scottish Government considers that the legislative framework governing the tenant farming sector needs to be modernised. The Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group has worked to develop a range of recommendations designed to address current concerns and promote a vibrant tenanted sector. Following consultation with stakeholders and the public, the Group published an interim report in July 2014 and a final report with recommendations in late January 2015 (towards the end of the Future of Land Reform consultation period).

The aims of the recommendations are to re-build confidence and improve relationships between tenants and landowners, facilitate retirement and encourage new entrants and provide modern, flexible letting vehicles. It is proposed that a number of the recommendations, where legislative change is needed, can be taken forward in the Land Reform Bill.

Some respondents to the consultation submitted their responses before the publication of the Group's final report, with others having sight of it prior to responding.

Question 32: Do you agree that the Scottish Government should take forward some of the recommendations of the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group within the proposed Land Reform Bill?

8.31 634 respondents (54% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (64%) agreeing that the Scottish Government should take forward some of the recommendations of the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group (the Group) within the proposed Land Reform Bill (see Table 8.3). However, the proportion of respondents in agreement was very much weighted by individual views, as two-thirds (65%) of organisations opposed the proposal. Opposition was the strongest amongst private landowner organisations, 88% of whom disagreed.

8.32 Common Weal campaign respondents remarked that as the public had not yet been made aware of the precise recommendations of the Group^[15], they did not feel comfortable with the proposal yet. The Berwickshire Common Weal agreed with the proposal. Participants at the Birnam Land Reform Workshop commented that they had not yet had sight of the Group's recommendations, and therefore could not endorse them, but in principle agreed that agricultural holdings legislation should form part of the Land Reform Bill.

Table 8.3: Views on whether the Scottish Government should take forward some of the recommendations of the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group within the proposed Land Reform Bill (Question 32)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	10	50	10	50	20
Private landowner organisations	5	12	38	88	43
Private sector and professional bodies	5	36	9	64	14
Community organisations and representative bodies	5	n/a	0	n/a	5
Government and NDPBs	1	n/a	2	n/a	3
Local non-government organisations	3	n/a	0	n/a	3
Local Government	4	n/a	0	n/a	4
Academic	0	n/a	1	n/a	1
Total organisations	33	35	60	65	93
Individuals	370	68	171	32	541
Grand total	403	64	231	36	634

Question 33: What do you think the advantages would be?

8.33 Many respondents stated that they did not know enough about the issues to comment. Some remarked that as they had not yet seen the Group's recommendations they were not in a position to comment^[16]. The responses contained a mix of views related to the question posed, in addition to more specific views on issues under consideration by the Group, some informed by the Group's report and some views provided without this information. A few respondents requested guidance on which of the recommendations would be identified for inclusion in the proposed Land Reform Bill. One remarked:

"Paragraph 73 of the Final Report of the Agricultural Holdings Review Group states that the recommendations are made as an integrated package" (Thorntons Law LLP).

8.34 Five substantive rationales were provided by supporters of the proposal. These were:

• Importance of issues: The issues are crucial and have significant positive implications which are too important to leave to later legislation. (26 respondents)
• Coherence: The proposal will result in more coherent, integrated land legislation, a comprehensive package of measures which will foster greater public awareness of the issues. (22 respondents)

"Bringing forward agricultural holdings reform within the Land Reform Bill will facilitate a coordinated and integrated approach to these complex and closely interrelated matter" (Highlands and Islands Enterprise).

"Tenancy reform is inextricably part of the land reform debate and the structure of land tenure in Scotland and should be considered as part of the wider land reform agenda" (Scottish Tenant Farmers Association).

• Timing: Opportunity to push forward various issues and get these onto the statute in a timely fashion. (18 respondents)
• Broader Support: Will enable wider support of the proposals if contained in the context of the Land Reform Bill, as opposed to a separate Bill which could attract stronger vested interests and lobbying by opponents. (13 respondents and also the view from the Birnam Land Reform Workshop and Common Weal respondents)

8.35 As stated above, many respondents focused on aspects of the issues considered by the Group and identified benefits which they perceived would be generated by taking forward the Group's proposals. Whilst not directly relevant to the consultation question posed, the benefits which recurred in responses were largely associated with more security for tenant farmers, better use of land and the encouragement of more people into farming.

Question 34: What do you think the disadvantages would be?

8.36 Amongst the responses to this question, 162 were identified as containing one or more disadvantages to the proposal that the Scottish Government take forward some of the recommendations of the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group within the proposed Land Reform Bill. Other responses contained general commentary on aspects of the topics contained in the Group's report or stated that they were unsure.

8.37 Two perceived disadvantages dominated the responses. These were:

• Consideration of the complexities of the issues associated with agricultural holdings should not be rushed as this will not do justice to the complex and important topics involved, will undermine the significant body of work already done by the Group and will lead to insufficient scrutiny and poor legislation (81 respondents, exactly half of all those who provided a valid response). Comments included:

"There has been a tremendous amount of time and effort put into the Agricultural Holdings Review process by the group itself, tenants and landowners. It would be a disservice to that collective effort - whichever side of the argument one is on - for the various recommendations to be distilled into a convenient addendum to a Land Reform Bill" (Scottish Land & Estates).

"We consider that the Land Reform debate should be kept separate from the Agricultural Holdings Review. Agricultural Holdings Legislation forms an extremely important part of the makeup of the rural economy and deserves its own debate and legislation, which it already has. If rolled into the Land Reform Debate, we run the risk of losing sight of its overall importance" (Millden Estate).

• Issues associated with agricultural holdings are distinct from those being considered for the proposed Land Reform Bill, and therefore should be packaged together in a cohesive framework rather than scattered across different legislative vehicles (49 respondents). One respondent remarked:

"We feel, in the strongest terms, that agricultural holdings requires and deserves its own bill bringing forward a coherent package of measures (preferably in a consolidation act) not a piecemeal approach based on short term political expediency" (Moray Estates Development Company Ltd).

8.38 22 respondents held the view that spreading the agricultural holdings proposals across different Bills created the potential for confusion; seven respondents also perceived the proposal to create unnecessary bureaucracy and officialdom.

8.39 The theme of state interference emerged across a several responses, with 23 respondents concerned that the proposal paved the way for Scottish Government control over which of the agricultural holdings proposals should progress as a priority and which can be left for later legislation. Some felt that this amounted to state "cherry-picking" and may be politically motivated.

8.40 Ten respondents commented that the proposal could result in undermining confidence in letting farms. Views included:

"Including legislation with the stated aim of rejuvenating the let sector in a land reform bill that has heavy connotations of redistribution will undermine this opportunity to breathe new confidence into let farming, being interpreted as a threat to the very people who let land now and may wish to in the future" (Syre and North Loch Naver Estates).

"Some NFUS members are worried about the implications of Agricultural Holdings being embroiled with the wider land reform debate, and the ramifications on the confidence of those who own land to let it. The aim of any new legislation should be to have a healthy and vibrant tenanted sector, and one in which all parties can have confidence. A potential disadvantage of containing Agricultural Holdings within the Land Reform Bill could be an undermining of that confidence" (National Farmers Union Scotland).

Proposal 10: Wild deer

Background

Wild deer in Scotland need to be managed to control their adverse impacts on the environment and on land use objectives. The right to take or kill deer rests with the owner or occupier of land. Whilst there is no legal obligation on them to manage deer, there is a Code of Practice on Deer Management that sets out the responsibilities of landowners. This voluntary approach to deer management has been criticised for failing to address over-population of deer in some areas of Scotland. The Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 contains powers for SNH to intervene and impose management measures where they consider deer management is detrimental to the public interest.

The Scottish Parliament's Rural Affairs and Climate Change (RACCE) Committee undertook an enquiry into deer management in 2014 and concluded that Deer Management Groups (DMGs) need to make progress on development and implementing deer management plans. RACCE recommended that progress should be reviewed at the end of 2016. The Minister for Environment and Climate Change agreed that this would be a suitable juncture at which to consider progress.

It is proposed that the Land Reform Bill contains provisions to give further powers to SNH to act in areas of the country where they judge that insufficient progress is being made to protect the public interest. The powers would build on those already available in the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. The new powers will be a backstop to be brought into play where the voluntary system is deemed not to be delivering in the public interest. If Scottish Ministers decided on the basis of the 2016 review that there is a requirement to replace the voluntary arrangements with a statutory system, then this would be developed at that point.

Question 35: Do you agree that further deer management regulation measures should be introduced to be available in the event that the present arrangements are assessed as not protecting the public interest?

8.41 883 respondents (76% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (69%) agreeing that further deer management regulation measures should be introduced to be available in the event that the present arrangements are assessed as not protecting the public interest (see Table 8.4). However, the proportion of respondents in agreement was very much weighted by individual views (72% in favour), as a slight majority of organisations (52%) opposed the proposal. Opposition was the strongest amongst private landowner organisations and private sector and professional bodies, with 93% and 64% in opposition respectively. Common Weal respondents and Birnam Land Reform Workshop participants supported the proposal.

Table 8.4: Views on whether further deer management regulation measures should be introduced to be available in the event that the present arrangements are assessed as not protecting the public interest (Question 35)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	24	71	10	29	34
Private landowner organisations	3	7	42	93	45
Private sector and professional bodies	5	36	9	64	14
Community organisations and representative bodies	13	93	1	7	14
Government and NDPBs	6	n/a	1	n/a	7
Local non-government organisations	5	n/a	1	n/a	6
Local Government	5	n/a	0	n/a	5
Academic	0	n/a	1	n/a	1
Total organisations	61	48	65	52	126
Individuals	544	72	213	28	757
Grand total	605	69	278	31	883

Question 36: What do you think the advantages would be?

8.42 484 respondents (42% of all those who responded to the consultation) provided a response of relevance. Amongst the comments were those advocating using further deer management regulation measures only as a last resort. Emerging across many responses, largely as a secondary theme, was the view that introducing predators such as wolves into rural areas of Scotland would serve to reduce deer numbers in an alternative way.

8.43 The advantage to the proposal most commonly highlighted (302 respondents) was that it would ensure greater protection of the environment and a return to more natural local ecosystems due to a reduction in over-grazing by deer populations which some considered were kept at artificially high numbers. Views included:

"....would allow local ecosystems to make a substantial recovery from decades of severe overgrazing. Most noticeably it would enable natural regeneration of woodland to take place, a habitat that has all but disappeared from the Scottish natural landscape. Let Scotland's future generations benefit from native woodlands again" (Ind).

"Deer numbers need desperately to be reduced if native and natural ecosystems are to return to Scotland" (Ind).

"Overgrazing by deer is now perhaps the single largest factor preventing widespread forest regeneration in Scotland" (Ind).

8.44 Another benefit of the proposal which was identified repeatedly (159 respondents) was that deer management would become cohesive and organised, with measures part of a strategic, coherent framework, contributing to consistency and transparency of approach with all working towards the same goals. Successful strategic frameworks in other countries were referred to, with some respondents commenting that the proposal would bring Scotland in line with others. Remarks included:

"A cohesive, area based management plan where land owners are required to work with neighbours on agreed aims" (Ind).

"....would lead to greater consistency - at present deer management appears to very arbitrary: some landowners are diligent some less so" (Coigach Community Development Company).

"Deer management measures should be transparent, scrutinised and governed like all other activities in the countryside" (Ind).

8.45 Other advantages identified were:

• Healthier, better maintained deer which produce higher quality venison. (45 respondents)

"Adequately controlling deer populations would enhance deer welfare due to increased resources being available per individual deer, rather than permitting overgrazing and consequent malnutrition of wild deer herds" (Ind).

• In the public interest. (44 respondents)

"To allow proper management from the public point of view and not private landowners" (Ind).

• Improved local economy due to more employment opportunities, increased tourism and higher sales of venison. (41 respondents)
• Fewer road and rail accidents. (35 respondents)

8.46 Common Weal respondents also highlighted positive impacts on the environment as a major benefit of the proposal with the deer management frameworks in other European countries referenced as effective. Birnam Land Reform Workshop participants identified improvements to biodiversity as an advantage and also considered that managers of some sporting estates may be forced to re-evaluate their economic activities leading most likely to more socially beneficial uses of land.

Question 37: What do you think the disadvantages would be?

8.47 389 respondents (33% of all those who responded to the consultation) provided a response of relevance. One theme running through many responses was to question the meaning of "protecting the public interest" in relation to wild deer. Another overarching view was that issues of management of wild deer should not be considered within the context of the proposed Land Reform Bill, but instead merit separate focus in their own right. One respondent remarked:

"Wild deer in Scotland are by law not property and therefore it is entirely inappropriate to include deer management regulation measures within a consultation on land reform" (Scottish Association for Country Sports).

No demonstrated need

8.48 Many respondents felt that there was no need to introduce further deer management regulation measures without a demonstrated need for such action. A common view (110 respondents) was that the current system works well. Remarks included:

"RICS feels that the position of deer is already strictly regulated and administered" (RICS).

"Existing legislation already deals with the issue of deer management, as does the Deer Commission (SNH)" (Ind).

8.49 Some respondents recommended that consultation with stakeholders most closely involved in the issues should precede any development of further regulation.

8.50 A recurring view (48 respondents) was that any decision to introduce further measures was tantamount to pre-empting the review planned for 2016. Comments included:

"To draft legislation in advance would undermine the current reorganisation of deer management on a voluntary basis. It would indicate that SG had made judgement on the outcome of the present reorganisation and had already condemned it. Further, legislation drafted and enacted now, will very likely have to be redrafted to reflect a different situation in 2-3 years time" (Ballogie Estate Enterprises).

"We question the motives of including the subject of further deer management regulation in this consultation on land reform as this is currently a work in progress moving towards governmental review, with a timetable for conclusion in late 2016" (Scottish Gamekeepers' Association).

8.51 29 respondents suggested that rather than developing more regulation, other approaches may be as effective. Incentivising sustainable deer management through carrots (largely support) rather than sticks was suggested. Another common suggestion was for the re-introduction of wolves as natural predators to keep deer numbers down.

8.52 A prevalent theme (22 respondents) was that the status quo should remain, with landowners continuing to manage deer as they see fit and without interference from centralised officials who do not have hands-on experience. Remarks included:

"Deer managers should be afforded the flexibility to manage their populations as best they see fit. This is not a glamorous occupation, or a particularly well remunerated one, and it's rare to find a deer manager who doesn't have the welfare of the deer and surrounding ecology at heart. Further red tape won't help this" (Ind).

"The decisions would be made by those sitting behind a desk in the city not those on the ground who understand their local area" (Ind).

Operational issues

8.53 Many respondents expressed concern about operational aspects of the proposal. A common view (40 respondents) was that the proposal would be costly to instigate and operate.

8.54 31 respondents perceived that any benefits of the proposal would be outweighed by the additional bureaucracy which would be generated by additional regulation.

8.55 Some respondents (14) envisaged difficulties with achieving "buy in" from the various parties involved, due to tensions between perspectives and ongoing conflicts. One remarked:

"As with any 'large group' activity this would be very difficult to gain consensus and to get differing sizes of land owners to all play their part" (Ind).

Negative perceptions

8.56 It was commonly felt (48 respondents) that there may be negative public reaction to the notion of greater culling of deer. Some felt that this could be perceived as treating deer like vermin and other pests. One respondent remarked:

"We could end up with a situation where under-informed public could block deer management due to a foolish disney-bambi idea of deer and their behaviour" (Ind).

8.57 22 respondents identified negative reactions from estates as a disadvantage, causing them to drag their heels and refuse to accept their responsibilities under the regulations.

Too broad a brush

8.58 Some respondents (10) expressed caution that overarching regulation measures may not be appropriate for all circumstances, for example, urban and rural contexts may demand different approaches.

Other perceived disadvantages

8.59 A number of other perceived disadvantages were identified by respondents and are summarised below.

• Separates deer management from biodiversity; will lead to damaging the environment. (18 respondents)

"There is a need to ensure that measures taken by the Scottish Government do not inhibit the ability of forestry managers to manage deer populations as one means of protecting growth of trees" (Ind).

"From a forestry perspective we have concerns over any legislation that limited the ability of land and forest managers to control the numbers of Deer impacting on crops" (Aitchesse Ltd).

• Increase in unemployment (e.g. gamekeepers). (17 respondents)
• Negative impact on local economy/tourism. (16 respondents)

"Over many years I have met visitors from overseas and have yet to find one that came to Scotland to see trees but the thrill of sighting a stag or a herd of deer on our hills excited them" (Ind).

• Closure of estates; abandonment due to loss of income. (12 respondents)

8.60 None of the campaign responses identified any disadvantages to the proposal.

Proposal 11: Public access: clarifying core paths planning process

Background

Part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 formalised rights of public access in a statutory framework. The Review Group considered that the statutory framework in Part 1 should be judged a considerable success but that aspects of the core path planning process (sections 18 - 20 of the Act) need clarification.

Question 38: At present, section 18 of the Land Reform (Scotland) 2003 Act is silent on the issue of resolving objections to a core path plan consultation. Do you agree that access authorities should be required, in the interests of transparency, to conduct a further limited consultation about proposed changes arising from objections?

8.61 752 respondents (65% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (81%) agreeing that access authorities should be required, in the interests of transparency, to conduct a further limited consultation about proposed changes arising from objections. Majority or universal agreement with the proposal emerged across all respondent sectors except for private landowner organisations, where the majority of respondents (61%) opposed the proposal (see Table 8.5). Campaign respondents did not provide a response to this question.

Table 8.5: Views on whether access authorities should be required to conduct a further limited consultation about proposed changes arising from objections (Question 38)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	24	86	4	14	28
Private landowner organisations	16	39	25	61	41
Private sector and professional bodies	14	82	3	18	17
Community organisations and representative bodies	12	100	0	0	12
Government and NDPBs	5	n/a	2	n/a	7
Local non-government organisations	6	n/a	0	n/a	6
Local Government	8	n/a	0	n/a	8
Academic	2	n/a	0	n/a	2
Total organisations	87	72	34	28	121
Individuals	520	82	111	18	631
Grand total	607	81	145	19	752

Question 39: Do you agree that section 20 of the 2003 Act should be clarified so that Ministerial direction is not required when an access authority initiates a core path plan review?

8.62 702 respondents (60% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (85%) agreeing that section 20 of the 2003 Act should be clarified so that Ministerial direction is not required when an access authority initiates a core path plan review. This was the majority view or the consensus across all respondent sectors (see Table 8.6).

8.63 The view of the Birnam Land Reform Workshop participants was that there is no need for ministerial involvement. Common Weal respondents did not comment on this proposal.

Table 8.6: Views on whether section 20 of the 2003 Act should be clarified so that Ministerial direction is not required when an access authority initiates a core path plan review (Question 39)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	25	100	0	0	25
Private landowner organisations	35	81	8	19	43
Private sector and professional bodies	18	95	1	5	19
Community organisations and representative bodies	11	92	1	8	12
Government and NDPBs	5	n/a	0	n/a	5
Local non-government organisations	6	n/a	0	n/a	6
Local Government	9	n/a	0	n/a	9
Academic	2	n/a	0	n/a	2
Total organisations	111	92	10	8	121
Individuals	484	83	97	17	581
Grand total	595	85	107	15	702

Question 40: Do you think that the process for a minor amendment to core path plan (as set out in section 20 of the 2003 Act) should be simplified to make it less onerous than that for a full review of a core path plan?

8.64 707 respondents (61% of all respondents) addressed this question with the majority (78%) agreeing that the process for a minor amendment to core path plan (as set out in section 20 of the 2003 Act) should be simplified to make it less onerous than that for a full review of a core path plan. Majority or universal agreement with the proposal emerged across all respondent sectors except for private landowner organisations, where the majority of respondents (63%) opposed the proposal (see Table 8.7). Campaign respondents did not provide a response to this question.

Table 8.7: Views on whether the process for a minor amendment to core path plan (as set out in section 20 of the 2003 Act) should be simplified to make it less onerous than that for a full review of a core path plan

(Question 40)

Respondent category	Agree		Disagree		Total no. of respondents
	No. of respondents	%	No. of respondents	%
National non-government organisations	20	83	4	17	24
Private landowner organisations	14	37	24	63	38
Private sector and professional bodies	13	68	6	32	19
Community organisations and representative bodies	12	100	0	0	12
Government and NDPBs	6	n/a	0	n/a	6
Local non-government organisations	6	n/a	0	n/a	6
Local Government	9	n/a	0	n/a	9
Academic	2	n/a	0	n/a	2
Total organisations	82	70	35	30	117
Individuals	471	80	119	20	590
Grand total	553	78	154	22	707