Anxiously anticipating details of the eagerly awaited review of the agricultural holdings Act announced by Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead earlier in the year, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association is urging all tenants to make the most of this “once in a lifetime opportunity”.
In Perth, at one in a series of meetings to garner members’ views on issues likely to be raised in the review, STFA chairman Christopher Nicholson encouraged all tenants to respond to a survey he said was set to be released by the Scottish Government.
Saying the review was likely to be evidence-led, he stressed that providing as much information as possible was paramount.
“The Government will only take our concerns on board if they have a lot of facts and figures before them,” said Mr Nicholson.
“On an individual basis we all need to do our bit to feed information into the review, and make sure that the compelling evidence to justify change is produced.”
Topping the association’s wish-list was securing a move away from the current interpretation of the legislation, which sees precedence given to the use of comparables in rent reviews.
Prioritising comparables rental levels on similar units had been ruled to be the correct approach under the 2003 holdings Act by Law Lord Brian Gill in spring last year.
Despite a recent review of the issue by the Tenant Farming Forum concluding no change was required to the system, Mr Nicholson said hopes were high that the latest review would highlight a need for a fairer system.
“The significant difference between this and the review carried out by TFF Rent Review Working Group is that this is a ministerial review and is likely to be much more thorough.”
This prompted a reply from Perthshire farmer and member of the working group Ian Duncan Miller.
“The review was both wide and thorough. We listened to a wide range of evidence from a large selection of organisations and individuals,” he said.
“Our conclusion was firmly based on the evidence which had been gathered.To make any recommendation for change we felt we had to be able to offer an alternative but on the basis of the evidence brought forward, nothing offered any major improvement over the existing system.”
He said the group had looked closely at the system used under the English 1986 Act, which put considerable emphasis on the land’s ability to generate returns, but found that claims that this offered a better means of dispute resolution could not be substantiated.