Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Opinion: Land reform proposal is dividing farming sector

P&J farming editor Gemma Mackenzie
P&J farming editor Gemma Mackenzie

 

A new clause within the upcoming Land Reform Bill is at risk of causing more harm than good.

The proposal, which will essentially allow secure tenancies to be sold [on for value], has sent ripples of unrest through the agricultural industry and re-ignited tensions between landlords and tenants.

Government had originally proposed allowing secure tenants to convert their tenancy into a long-term limited duration tenancy, which they could then sell on.

This was widely accepted by industry as a means of giving retiring tenant farmers an “exit option” from their farms.

However the proposal has been beefed up, in line with calls for a more radical bill, and government is now proposing that secure tenancies could be sold on as secure tenancies to “a new entrant or to a farmer progressing in the industry”.

The strength of feeling that has emerged, both for and against this proposal, has been staggering.

Landowners are wholly against it, warning of legal action saying it would be a breach of property rights.

They say it will prevent landowners from letting out land in future for fear of never getting it back.

Some tenant farmers on the other hand have welcomed the news (see Angus McCall’s column on page 9) and said it will bring confidence to the sector.

In his column, Mr McCall says the plans will “allow the next generation of farmers to move up the farming ladder and gain access to security of tenure and a proper footing on which to grow the farming business”.

And it’s not just landlords and tenant farmers who have voiced their opinion on the issue – owner-occupier farmers have warned it could put them off letting out farms until their children want to come back and farm.

At an NFU Scotland meeting in Thainstone this week, a heated debate erupted over the proposals where farmers were asked whether they thought they would result in more tenanted land coming to the market or less.

The general consensus was that it would result in less.

Whether or not the proposals are good or bad is not for me to comment on, however I do see the effect they are having on relations in the sector which up until now had come on in leaps and bounds.

In the past 18 months, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, Scottish Land and Estates and NFU Scotland have worked together and agreed codes for limited partnerships, rent reviews, tenants’ improvements and landlord and tenant farmer obligations.

Why on earth is the Scottish Government so hell-bent on reversing this good work by introducing such a divisive proposal?

Sticking to the original plan of converting secure tenancies to limited duration tenancies and then selling them on for value would have been sufficient.