Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: business and regulatory impact assessment

Consultation

3.1 Within Government

3.1.1 Two working groups were established early in the policy development process – one to discuss the strengthening of the LRRS principles (which became the land management plan and community engagement provisions) and the other to discuss pre-notification requirements and the transfer test. The working groups were designed to inform the development of and test the proposals, and consider how they could best support the delivery of a range of outcomes, and met fortnightly over a period of several months. Individual policy areas were also consulted on a bilateral basis as part of the development of the proposals, to consider interaction of the measures with other policies and how they could support delivery of aims and outcomes. Together the working groups and bilateral meetings comprised of officials representing a range of policy interests, including:

• Peatland Restoration
• Biodiversity
• Wildlife Management
• Natural Capital Investment
• Forestry
• Islands
• Agricultural Holdings
• Crofting
• Rural Communities
• Community Right to Buy
• Community Wealth Building
• Community Empowerment
• Civil Justice
• Planning
• Housing
• Property
• Climate Change Adaptation
• Land Use Transformation Board
• Food and Drink

3.1.2 Public bodies and teams within the Scottish Government who manage land on behalf of Scottish Ministers were consulted on the impact of the proposals, including the cost and resource implications of compliance with the measures.

3.1.3 The Scottish Courts and Tribunals were consulted on the potential impacts on the court service of the appeal mechanisms proposed in the Bill for the Land Court, Lands Tribunal and Court of Session. The Scottish Legal Aid Board were also consulted as part of the Legal Aid Impact Test, the results of which are set out further on in this document.

3.2 Public Consultation

3.2.1 The development of the measures in the Bill and evaluation of their impacts were informed by the Land Reform in a Net Zero Nation consultation.

3.2.2 Drawing on the recommendations of the Commission, consultation on the land reform components of this Bill opened on 4 July 2022 and closed on 30 October 2022. Land Reform in a Net Zero Nation^[19] set out a number of proposals for inclusion in the Land Reform Bill and sought views through 51 separate questions. It also invited respondents to give their views on other ideas and proposals, which it was noted, might not necessarily form part of this current Bill but could be suitable to take forward in future legislation, or in other ways. In total, 537 responses were received, of which 162 were from groups or organisations and 375 from individual members of the public. Six in-person consultation events were also held across Scotland with a further event online.

3.2.3 Large-scale landholdings: the consultation sought views on three criteria for determining a large-scale landholding. Respondents were relatively evenly divided on the criteria, with a small majority (55% of those answering) disagreeing with the use of a fixed threshold of 3,000 hectares. Most respondents who suggested an alternative threshold called for a lower figure, with comments including that the proposed hectarage would affect a relatively small number of landowners and so have limited impact.

3.2.4 Other respondents commented on the general direction of the proposals, with the most-frequently raised concern that there is little or no evidence that land ownership at scale has negative outcomes for communities or the environment.

3.2.5 Respondents were split evenly on a fixed percentage of a data zone or local authority ward(s) and a small majority (57% of those answering) supporting a specified minimum proportion of a permanently inhabited island.

3.2.6 Strengthening the Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement (LRRS): There was support (75% of those answering) for placing a duty on large-scale landowners to comply with the LRRS and its associated protocols. A majority (69% of those answering) also thought this would benefit local communities. Some respondents argued that there is evidence to suggest that a voluntary, guidance-led approach is working for both landowners and communities.

3.2.7 Compulsory Land Management Plans: A majority (77% of those answering) agreed that there should be a duty on large-scale landowners to publish Management Plans. In terms of how often Management Plans should be published, the most frequent suggestion was every 5 years.

3.2.8 A new public interest test: A majority of respondents (72% of those answering) agreed with the application of a public interest test to transactions involving large-scale landholdings. Some were of the view that the proposed threshold for large-scale landholdings is too high and would apply to very few land transactions each year. Other respondents saw a range of potential disadvantages associated with public interest test proposals, including the risk of interference with landowner rights.

3.2.9 A majority (63% of those answering) agreed that if a public interest test concluded there was a strong public interest in reducing scale/concentration of ownership, then the conditions placed on the sale of the land could include that the land in question should be split into lots. A slightly larger majority (68% of those answering) agreed that the land should be offered to constituted community bodies in the area. The most commonly raised issue was that lotting has the potential to have an impact on the viability and market value of landholdings.

3.3 Business

3.3.1 A number of landowners, land agents and representative organisations of land-based businesses were consulted on the proposals and involved in ongoing engagement. Their views helped inform the development of the proposals and understanding of the potential impacts on landowners and related businesses, including financial impacts.