Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 14 March 2012

14 Mar 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Harvie, Patrick Green Glasgow Watch on SPTV

I strongly commend Rob Gibson for much of what he said. In addition, I thank everyone who contributed to the committee’s work, in whatever capacity.

My fellow members of the committee will not be astonished to learn that, in much of my speech, I will refer to the evidence of one particular witness but, before I come to Mr Wightman, I want to welcome the bill’s overall purpose—the completion of the land register of Scotland.

However, like some other members, such as John Wilson, I wonder how the completion of the register can be compatible with a bill that does not set out a timescale for its completion. We should be asking, and the minister should be able to say, how complete the register can be expected to become and how quickly, and whether it will be possible for it to be completed without greater use of keeper-induced registrations. There is currently a presumption against the use of keeper-induced registrations. For how long can that go on? Do we expect to achieve 50, 60, 80 or 90 per cent completion of the register? Will the final 5 or 10 per cent of the register be completed without the use of induced registrations? There is a role for targets, as the committee recommended in its report.

Andy Wightman’s contribution to the debate began with the observation that the bill has been presented as a largely technical bill, yet it represents the first opportunity that a democratically elected Scottish Parliament has had to consider the legal basis of land registration in Scotland. His position is that opportunities might have been missed to engage with wider issues of public policy and public interest, some of which have been mentioned. How should we deal with abandoned land? Should we simply continue—albeit with slight restrictions—the prescriptive acquisition process, or do we need a more public process to ensure that other parties who may have a legitimate interest can express it and have it considered? It may well be that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and that different means of disposing of land that has not had an identified owner will be appropriate in different circumstances. I would like to hear the Government’s view on that.

Several members, including Rhoda Grant, have mentioned common land. I am glad that the committee supported the in-principle objective that Andy Wightman has sought to achieve, and the objective on access, because we are not doing as well as England and Wales at providing easy and affordable access to land register information.

The most significant issue that I want to address is beneficial ownership. Andy Wightman’s view is that registration should be conducted by a European Union-registered body. There are other views. Andy Wightman cited Andrew Edwards’s mentioning of the need for disclosure of the true or beneficial owners of registered properties in cases in which they differ from the nominal owners.

With the bill, we have a real opportunity. I recognise that, at the moment, neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Scottish Government has the power to deal with issues such as tax avoidance, but the land registration scheme can act to close such loopholes. Tax avoidance and the use of tax havens have been fundamental mechanisms for the accumulation of wealth by the few against the interests of the many. We have the opportunity, through the bill and through public leadership from the Scottish Government, to say that that is not acceptable and that action will be taken to close those loopholes. The committee’s report asks the Government to consider the options, and I look forward to hearing some detail on the minister’s consideration.

14:44

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 14 March 2012

In the same item of business