Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 28 March 2012

28 Mar 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Dey, Graeme SNP Angus South Watch on SPTV

One issue that came through loud and clear in the committee’s inquires on the bill was that of land agents and their practices. In his evidence, NFUS chief executive Scott Walker summed up the situation when he said that

“it is extremely rare for the land agent to be breaking the law ... but we tend to find that some of their practices might leave a little to be desired”.

He called for the introduction of

“a strongly enforced code of practice”

that would be signed up to and—more important—adhered to by all sides of the industry.

Andrew Wood of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors advised the committee that the RICS already has rigorous guidance in place for chartered surveyors, but suggested that the problem is that

“not all agents are chartered surveyors.”

He also pointed out that sharp practice does not happen solely among landlords, but that tenants’ agents can be equally guilty of it. Mr Wood undertook to work up and present a code of conduct to the TFF, with consideration being given to what he termed

“the wider range of people who are involved in advising landlords and tenants and how they might deal with issues.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 18 January 2012; c 538, 539.]

It was the unanimous view of the committee that greater consistency in practice and behaviour among people who provide land-agency services—whether they act on behalf of landlords or agents, and irrespective of whether or not they hold membership of the RICS—is desirable; that the code must have teeth; and that the Scottish Government should monitor development of the code to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The commitment from the Government to work in partnership with the TFF during the development phase and then to assess the need for further strengthening once it is being utilised is therefore welcome.

It is also positive that Scottish Land & Estates has indicated a willingness to explore proposals to improve relations between tenants, agents and landlords. However, it should be said that that commitment might sit better were it not for the organisation’s other recent pronouncement on the subject. According to its chief executive officer, there is little evidence to support the recent claims regarding the behaviour of landlords and agents. In the organisation’s in-house magazine, he said:

“It is clear to us that there is a determined campaign by those with a land reform agenda to hijack the current constructive discussions around the tenanted sector. The reality is the vast majority of tenants and landlords enjoy healthy working relationships. It is therefore apparent that those generating this propaganda simply want to see the break-up of Scotland’s estates.”

Of course, not all landlords, or those who act for them, behave poorly, but it is to be regretted that SLE appears to adopt that view on such an important issue. The majority of landlord-tenant relationships might function adequately or even well, so to claim that things are almost entirely hunky-dory is somewhat wide of the mark.

The negative influence that individuals or organisations acting as land agents can have on landlord-tenant relationships should not be underestimated. I am aware of one situation in the north-east of Scotland in which a tenant family and their landlord enjoyed a first-class and problem-free relationship for many years. The landlord then changed land agents, after which plans by the tenants to install a wind turbine on their land were met by a demand from the new agent for a cut of the profits from the turbine, which created resentment and mistrust where none had existed. Perhaps more concerning for the wider rural community was that a halt was then called to plans for further diversification that had the potential to create new jobs in the community.

Better regulation of land agents is a must, as is consideration of dispute resolution, which the TFF identified as a priority. The Scottish Government’s commitment to consider the outcome of the work that is being undertaken by TFF member the Scottish Agricultural Arbiters and Valuers Association on developing a short-form rent arbitration system, is also welcome. As the stage 1 report makes clear, there is a need for an appropriate, fast and cost-effective dispute resolution mechanism.

The changes that were brought in by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 were widely supported at the time on the grounds that the existing set-up was too costly and overly bureaucratic. However, the situation today is that the Scottish Land Court is the only body that can rule on disputes, which is not a viable state of affairs, particularly for people in the tenanted sector. I understand that the Scottish Land Court has settled just one rent-review case since the act came into existence, which is proof—were it needed—that the present arrangements are not fit for purpose.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 28 March 2012

In the same item of business