David Ross
Finally we may be nearing the end of the Pairc saga, and consequently the
prospect of the first hostile community buyout is fading.
But this rather long chapter in the story of land ownership in
Scotland has raised more questions about the effectiveness of the land
reform legislation, than it has answered.
The absentee landowner of the Pairc Estate on Lewis had claimed the
Scottish Government was forcing him to sell his island in revenge for the
Highland Clearances. But he is now willing to strike a deal over the sale
of his family’s estate to his crofting tenants.
Next Thursday the community in the south east of Lewis will decide whether
they want to accept the offer made by Barry Lomas, the Warwickshire-based
accountant who owns the 26,800 acre Pairc Estate.
It would see the crofter-led Pairc Trust take over most of the estate and
have a share in the lease of wind energy developments on the land. But they
would not get a site in Gravir earmarked for an electricity subsea cable
converter station, if SSE ever stops increasing its multi million pound
estimates for cost of the interconnector.
It is quite a turnaround given that last year Mr Lomas of Royal Leamington
Spa was in the Court of Session arguing that his human rights were being
infringed by the Scottish Government.
This was because ministers had decided to support the crofting community in
its bid to buy the land under the land reform legislation, introduced by
the previous Labour/LibDem Scottish Executive.
Under section three of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act this meant the
crofters, with ministerial approval, could move to buy the land at a price
set by an independent valuer, whether the owner wanted to sell or not.
This provision was once famously compared by a Tory MSP, to the land grabs
in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. So it had been a matter of time before there
was a legal challenge on the grounds of human rights. Not everybody in the
Scottish Government machine was always totally confident of victory.
But a year ago three judges, headed by the Lord President, Lord Gill,
dismissed the appeal from Mr Lomas.
They ruled that ministers had to balance the harm or damage to the
landowner against the benefit of the buyout to the wider public and
crofting economy. The weight given to the landowner’s interest was
“pre-eminently a matter for them”, the ministers.
“On that point, the landowner’s entitlement to compensation may be a
material consideration,” Lord Gill had added.
Although there was scope for resumed legal wrangling at Stornoway Sheriff
Court, the road was opening up for the Scottish Government to proceed to an
enforced purchase, in what would have been the first “hostile” buyout.
Now it looks as though that can be avoided if the purchase is agreed on a
voluntary, if hardly amicable basis.
It has been a long road. Almost 400 people currently live on the estate
which covers a similar land area as Edinburgh and embraces 11 townships and
208 crofts.
In 2004 the community, whose population had fallen from 4,000 to 400 in the
last 100 years, voted in favour of a buyout from Mr Lomas, who was
reluctant to sell. He then set up a 75-year lease with a subsidiary company
which signed a deal with Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) to erect a
£200m wind farm. Ministers went to the Scottish Land Court, but it ruled
such “interposed leases” were legal so they then had to legislate to close
the loophole.
This all took several years. In the middle of this SSE sold the energy
rights to International Power which plans a smaller renewable energy scheme.
Now it is up to the local community to decide. Do they accept the
negotiated terms for a voluntary transfer, and takeover the estate, at a
price which is likely to higher than that set by an independent valuer? Or
do they refuse and ask the government to proceed with the hostile buyout?
Whatever they decide, it is clear that after nine years section three of
the land reform act has not exactly worked effectively. That is something
that the Scottish Government’s working group, and indeed the Scottish
Affairs Committee in Westminster, should now address in their consideration
of land reform.
0 Comments