Proposed changes to Sark’s ancient laws could see land being released for sale, with purchasers being given the right to borrow money against it.

SARK has taken its first and very tentative steps towards reforming its ancient land laws and the comforting thought for some is that if its residents don’t want to do it, they needn’t.

At present, only a relatively small proportion of the island’s 250 or so homes are what would be described elsewhere as owner-occupied – the majority are subject to leases of varying terms and conditions, with the freeholds of those homes being part of the 40 ancient tenements.

The letters patent of 1565 and 1611, issued by Elizabeth I and James I respectively, stipulated that the 40 tenements must remain whole and entire (the rule of indivisibility) and that no charge or encumbrance be laid on the land – in other words, land, and the dwellings on them, cannot be mortgaged – and this is the current position.

If these two conditions were to change, it could mean landowning tenants could sell off parts of their land and purchasers could borrow money against the land and/or dwelling they had bought in order to make the purchase, in precisely the same way as happens in most other parts of the British Isles.

All this was explained by HM Procureur Richard McMahon and his colleague from the Law Officers department, Laura de Lisle, at a well-attended public meeting earlier this week – a meeting at which Mr McMahon was at pains to stress that, unlike the Human Rights Convention issue, which in 2008 led to landowning tenants losing their automatic right to a seat in the legislature, was not being forced upon Sark and its residents.

As Mr McMahon explained, the issue of what is broadly called land reform is not a simple one and his advice to take one step at a time was pertinent, for although there was much talk during the discussion about leasehold enfranchisement – a phrase I took to mean giving property occupiers the right to purchase the freehold of their homes, regardless of the wishes of their landlords – land reform does not necessarily mean that and nothing else.

I was also particularly impressed by the advice offered by his colleague Ms de Lisle, who urged those present to listen to the views of others with an open mind – something that might be difficult for those who pay more attention to who is saying what rather than what is being said.

The idea of holding workshops similar to those organised by then Sark resident Mary Collins in the build-up to the introduction of the Reform Law was also touched upon by both Mr McMahon and meeting chairman Adrian Guille, both of whom were closely involved in the introduction of that legislation.

As an aside, it was an appropriate reference to former Chief Pleas member Miss Collins, who in recent times has been celebrating a notable birthday at her home in her native South Africa.

Those who occupy the middle ground to which Peter Cunneen referred in this column while I was away on holiday will no doubt be hoping that the discussions on land reform will be held in a better and less acrimonious atmosphere than that which has bedevilled this small community for far too long.

No doubt I will be in the firing line for daring to express such a view, just as Peter was a week or so ago when he had the temerity to express an opinion.

Perhaps it was the fear of being rounded upon and bullied – sadly, that culture of bullying is not restricted to the young in Sark – that made the majority of those attending the public meeting reluctant to ask questions or express views.

It would be nice to think that everyone here will discuss this important issue in a civilised manner. You never know, it could lead to an outbreak of peace.

* The email address for comment is fallesark@sark.net.