Consider (among other issues) the philosophical and legal basis of the UK property rights regime and the constitutional issues and political implications surrounding any alteration to it.

The judicial theory that defines property was developed from the social theories of property, so it is wise to begin here to understand the significance of a high concentration of land ownership by individuals. Perhaps the earliest writings on this matter come from Aristotle who observed that whatever “is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed on it.” His reflection had echoed throughout history, and is understood (after Hardin) 1969 as the “tragedy of the commons” i.e. where resource depletion and pollution problems occur due to the incentives created by open access regimes. The property-based solution to this problem is just one of the reasons why property rights must be established over a more equitable solution of open-access. To live in a world of common ownership is not only impractical but goes against the avarice of man. English history shows how the Churches held the view that “Private property is a convention of man in the circumstances of sin and must be upheld against the expropriating monarchs.” This greed also follows the notion of natural order as defined by social philosophers such as Samuel Pufendorf- “Men win their own actions to titles to private property from a natural order in common.” This has driven the political doctrine of Britain with democratic and capitalistic ideals central to the concept of freedom of private property rights. The denial of private property could restrain human personality by blocking the freedoms of expression by individuals.

It is also the drive of capitalism in England, which means that land is being put into best utility, with the notion of equality being of lesser importance. The works of Jeremy Bentham supports this, and how property rights are needed so that “Men are encouraged so to use property as to produce wealth for themselves and for their neighbours.” Although more applicable during the time of industrial development and revolution perhaps this philosophical idea is justified by the economic fact that large landowners in England today are regarded by many as stewards of the land, and without their presence, their care and their diligence, the British countryside would not be as well preserved as it is. Perhaps “through farming, forestry, tourism and conservation, [they] contribute significantly to the vitality of the local economy.” Yet this biased source is perhaps a weak argument to defend big landowners, especially when considering the empirical evidence that demonstrates the economic problems of unequal land distribution being the chronic housing shortage and high property prices meaning millions cannot afford housing. This is worsened by the fact that big landowners receive vast subsidies, financed by British taxpayers through the EU for possessing designated agricultural land that is frequently unproductive. Subsidy allows landowners to retain extremely expensive assets, while ensuring that not enough land reaches the market. Perhaps a more significant justification for the ownership of large estates comes from the legal defence of property rights in the UK.

English lawyers view of property is defined as “a power relationship of social and legal legitimacy existing between a person and a valued resource.” The great landowners owe their legal justification in the fact that they own English Freehold Fee Simple estates, the highest form of land ownership. Having its origins in feudalism, one who has a fee simple interest has complete dominion over the real property. Any attempt to tranfer the land a more equitable solution would be unconstitutional and the courts must adhere to the common law, despite the fact that many landowners have often inherited their land from ancestors who themselves had a dubious claim to it. Despite recent legislation on the ‘right to raom,’ in the countryside, the land owners still confer absoulte property power (subject to genral laws) and this has also meant they confer political stregth, so alterations to land distribution seems difficult to achive due to political implications. Landowners have never relinquished their grip on government and their domination in the House of Lords makes constitutional change challenging. But it is in the rural district and county councils that their power is most effective where they have time and money to devote to local politics, and rely upon the countryside’s culture of deference. Landowners also chair some of Britain’s most powerful quangos, such as the Countryside Commission – charged with defending us from their excesses. This evidence proves that not only do large landowners have the legal justification in the UK constitution, but also the political will and influence to preserve their status, even though it may be morally unjust.

It could be argued that such a severe monopoly of wealth is clearly in opposition to natural law, thus overriding the philosophical, legal and obviously economic defence for big landowners in Britain. No man made the land, and ancient right and custom should not permanently alienate it from the nation at large. ‘As a monopoly, held in trust for the people, land must be made to bear its fair obligations to the public weal.’ Land nationalisation seems too radical a solution to this and perhaps land value or development taxation seems more suitable approach. This should lead to an immediate return of revenues to the community and bring land prices in cities down to accessible levels, affording both communities and councils the means of reclaiming some control over their surroundings. Such taxation, however, can only ever be part of a solution. The pursuit of land rights in Britain will be difficult and extensive. But if we neglect it, we can scarcely claim to be the custodians of our own existence.

Bibliography:

Pollution and Property, Daniel H. Cole, Cambridge University press 2002

The Place of Property, D.R.Denman, Geographical Publicatios, Hemel Hempstead 1978

A Revolutionary who won over Victorian Liberals, Tristram Hunt, www.newstatesman.co.uk

Property Scandal, Jason Cowley, www.newstatesman.co.uk

Land Law, Gray K, and Gray S, Butterworths, London 1999