It is perhaps no surprise that the findings of the Agricultural Holdings Review Group (AHLRG) has provoked plenty of comment.
Here are responses from three of the leading representative groups.
All broadly welcome the review findings, but there are clearly significant points of difference. Here’s hoping they don’t become barriers to progress.
SL&E
Scottish Land & Estates chairman David Johnstone said: “It was important for the sector that the review group rejects the clamour for an absolute right to buy that is so damaging to Scottish agriculture, and we welcome the fact the group unequivocally ruled it out.
“The proposals for compensation at waygo were something we recommended, and we are supportive of the appointment of a Scottish tenant farming commissioner.
“We do, however, deeply regret that the Scottish Government seems set on a course that could leave it open to very substantial compensation claims because of the damage to a landowner’s property rights through the conversion of secure tenancies and the substantive widening of succession rights.
“The proposal to allow tenants with no successor to convert secure tenancies to limited duration tenancies of a minimum of 35 years effectively denies for a lifetime the landlord the opportunity to farm the land or to re-let.
“We also believe the proposals to widen succession rights are now far too wide-ranging.
“We recognise the Scottish Government is trying to create churn in the sector, and this objective would be better realised if agricultural legislation changes were taken forward as a complete and separate package rather than as part of a Land Reform Bill.”
STFA
Scottish Tenant Farmers Association chairman Christopher Nicholson said: “This report was never going to please everyone, but it has made a significant effort to respond to the concerns raised during the consultation process, and its conclusions will be received warmly by most tenant farmers.
“However, the report will not give much comfort to the 400 or so tenants who are still involved in limited partnership tenancies. Most of these tenants remain farming on a year-to-year basis, which is no way to run a business, and STFA will continue to lobby for solutions.
The creation of a tenant farming commissioner with powers to establish and regulate codes of practice is a welcome initiative, and its statutory basis will be key to the success of many of the review group’s proposals.
“Numbers of secure tenants and the area of land under secure tenure has been declining rapidly over the last few years, and the proposal to widen succession and family assignation rights will ensure that family tenancies are not lost to succeeding generations.
“Continuation of family succession is very much in the public interest, and will be seen as a very positive step forward for the 80% of tenant farmers who hold secure tenancies and do not currently have direct heirs to inherit the family farm.
“However, many tenants will be disappointed that the report has chosen to propose powers to force the sale of a tenanted farm to escape the clutches of bad landlords rather than introduce a more general right to buy.
“Although this proposal deals with the problem of bad landlords it does not address the difficulties faced by tenant farming businesses whose progress is inhibited by their tenancy.
“There is no doubt that on becoming owner-occupiers, tenanted businesses invariably grow and prosper. We consider that the group has made a grave error in not taking this into account in its research.
“There is a real fear in the tenant farming community that there will be pressure to deal with agricultural holdings legislation as a stand-alone bill. This will inevitably lead to the bill being postponed to the next parliamentary session, and many of its proposals kicked into the long grass.
“This is too important a bill to be delayed or become a political football.”
NFUS
NFU Scotland president Nigel Miller said: “It’s worth remembering that the review process was born out of conflict, and laying out the groundwork for a new beginning was always going to be a challenge.
“It is, however, vital that we grasp this agricultural holdings package and properly tackle the problems in the tenanted sector.
“The hard lessons learned from legislation brought in in 2003 underline the need for clear and robust drafting that closes down any legal uncertainty.
“Within the package there is a core of work that deserves to gain widespread support. Other aspects will inevitably either disappoint or cause concern to some stakeholders.
“It was unrealistic, given the depth of feeling, that all aspirations would be met.
“That said, these recommendations can meet the ambitious targets set and create the foundations of a more collaborative sector.
“Rent reviews remain the most common area of conflict, and here significant progress can be made.
“The role of both a new land commission, as outlined in the land reform consultation, and a tenancy adjudicator, as mapped out by the union to the AHLRG, will be crucial in taking on dispute resolution and addressing dysfunctional land tenure relationships without costly or long-running recourse to the Land Court.
“There are clear signals that both landlords and indeed tenants must fulfil basic obligations and responsibilities around a tenancy agreement if they are to maintain control over that land.”