Hansard

I am pleased to be speaking in this afternoon’s debate. As an MSP who is not on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I thank the committee for an informative, well-argued and interesting report. I thank all the stakeholders who responded to the consultation and improved and challenged our understanding of the issues. I particularly thank the tenant farming forum. Its work on improving agricultural holdings legislation to encourage the release of land to rent has been invaluable, and the bill responds to its concerns.

The bill is a narrow piece of legislation that discusses only three areas, yet it has highlighted the wider arrangements in Scotland and the need to improve the system for current farmers and future generations. This slim bill is recognised as a move in the right direction. Although no one is denying that there is more to be done, it is fair that we use this focused bill to bring the measures into law as quickly as possible. Labour will support the bill at stage 1.

At the heart of the debate around tenant farming is how we secure a sustainable future. We must question why we have seen a fall in the total number of holdings with tenancy agreements while, at the same time, there seems to be a rise in contract farming. The landmark land reform programme produced the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and, among other measures, introduced limited duration tenancies and short limited duration tenancies. There has been an increase in both of those, although there are perhaps still not as many as we would like there to be. However, the number of 1991 act tenancies and limited partnerships has declined and overall, as Rob Gibson pointed out, there has been a reduction of 10 per cent in the number of tenancy agreements.

By contrast, England’s tenanted sector has developed differently, with the decline in rented land being halted and even reversed. However, that is a complex comparison. In England, there is little security of tenure, and there is little evidence that any increase is due to new entrants. In Scotland, our tenanted sector must encourage long-term investment from the tenant and the landlord and ensure that they feel confident that their investment will be recognised. It must also support new entrants not just through the availability of land but through investment and other support.

The answer is not simple. We should recognise, as the cabinet secretary pointed out, that there is a lot of good practice in the sector and that there are good relationships. However, there is also an ageing population in farming, and we must make new opportunities easier to find.

The better the evidence, the easier it is to provide the correct policy response and, as the committee identified in its report, there are concerns about the lack of reliable data. We can assume that a number of the tenancies under the 1991 act are historical but, as the Government identified, we do not really know what happens when such a tenancy comes to an end. That gap is contributing to falling numbers, so the Scottish Government must take measures to improve data collection.

The bill looks to expand the options that are available when a 1991 tenancy comes to an end by extending the meaning of “near relative”, where the person concerned is a successor, to include grandchildren. In principle, we very much agree with extending the definition of who qualifies as a near relative, but I expect that it is an issue that will be returned to at stage 2. The Scottish Tenant Farmers Association and NFU Scotland question the difference in the interpretation of a near relative, depending on whether an assignation or a succession is involved, and the STFA, in particular, would like to include nephews and nieces. Others have expressed concerns about getting the right balance between landlords and tenants, and I agree with the committee that the Scottish Government needs to look at the issue again. Consensus is a good thing and events are moving along, albeit slowly, but we are continuing to see a decrease in tenant farming. If a further extension of the definition of a “near relative” would play a part in addressing that decline, we should consider that.

In relation to transitional provisions, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has responded to the committee and has indicated that it will lodge an amendment at stage 2. That is a sensible move that will capture those people who are in the middle of the process at the time of the bill’s passing.

Section 2 addresses rent reviews and prevents upward-only and landlord-only initiated rent reviews in a limited duration tenancy. I welcome the widespread support for that sensible measure, which I believe will be a positive move for future contracts.

The committee helpfully considered wider tenancy issues. The progress that has been made through devolution should be recognised, but we can make further improvements. The Government has an opportunity in this session of Parliament to make progress on tenant farming through legislation, if necessary, but also through policy direction. We can improve conditions for new entrants. Although starter units, a new entrants register and the introduction of mentoring are all positive, the common agricultural policy subsidy system does not support new entrants, whose needs must be central to discussions. I would like to see a more level playing field for new entrants when it comes to accessing subsidy support.

The RSPB proposal for conservation tenancies is worth further consideration. The RSPB argues that such tenancies could solve the current limitations that it and other non-governmental organisations face in letting land.

The committee identified another area that can act as a barrier to successful tenancies: the lack of clarity on investment in holdings and waygo payments. If a tenant does not feel secure in their current farming interests or in what will happen to their investment in the future, they will be reluctant to invest, while the landlord may not be convinced that investment will give them a return. It would be good to hear more from the Government on what it thinks the extent of the problem might be and how it could improve the present system.

From my discussions with the tenant farming forum and other stakeholders, I am aware of the work that they are doing on a code of practice for land agents and on proposals for dispute resolution. The recent decision by the Court of Session in the Moonzie case must raise questions about the effectiveness of the current legislation. I understand that 18 applications for rent review are still in the process, and the outcome of the Moonzie case will have an impact on those. Although the cabinet secretary has indicated that he does not intend to use the bill to address that issue, I welcome his announcement that a summit is to be held and his recognition of the significance of the decision to how we make progress.

This Parliament has been ambitious in addressing the historic legacy of Scotland’s land. That reflects the importance of access to our land in our culture and in our identity, and of modernising our relationship—working and leisure—with this great Scottish resource. The bill is narrow, but it goes to the heart of concerns about ownership and fairness, and although it will receive support today, I am sure that the bigger debate will continue.

14:59