Meeting of the Parliament 16 March 2016
I lodged amendment 117 in response to a set of circumstances that was brought to my attention only at the end of our stage 2 proceedings. That was unfortunate, to say the least, because I believe that those circumstances would attract the sympathies of most members as, in effect, they lead to the accidental creation of a secure 1991 act tenancy without the landowner’s consent and often even without their knowledge.
We are not talking about big landowners, but rather about somebody who has a few acres around their house or a smallholding from which they have not sought to make a living. As a perfect example, I will read an email that I received that highlights the circumstances that I am referring to. I think that other members will have received the same email.
“To whom it may concern ... Our family is in a situation where we own a small area of land, approximately 24.26 ha.
Through circumstances, we rented 20.46 ha of this land on a seasonal basis in the mid 1980’s.
No formal agreement was ever put in place, it was a verbal agreement. There was no ingoing valuation, but the tenant did state that he would only be interested in proceeding if he had a reassurance that he would be allowed to continue to farm that portion of the farm for 10 years. We (the family) thought that this was a fairly reasonable request as there would be a requirement for him to upgrade machinery. All was done on what we assumed was a trust basis, and was sealed with a handshake.
The person who rented this land engineered a situation, through growing winter crops, where a secure tenancy was created. Two internal fences were completely removed without any consultation and the remaining fences have been allowed to deteriorate to such a stage that the majority of the farm is not suitable for livestock farming. The initial arrangement was purely for bare acres, no buildings were included.
Again through naivete we allowed use of some of the buildings. Now each year about 60 cattle are wintered in our steading, and grain and machinery are stored. Minor damage has occurred but never repaired. No contribution is given for use of electricity, and when I asked for a contribution to the water bill, it fell on deaf ears ... In December of 2013 I offered to sell 11.7ha to the ‘tenant’ and resume 8.76ha to support my flocks of pedigree sheep. Again there was no response to this offer, not even an attempt to negotiate.”
The person writing the email is now of an age where they
“would like to give up full time work and semi retire to my small farm.”
In order to accommodate their small flock of sheep, they have to rent
“seasonal grazing leases ... The ‘tenant’ has used public money in the form of the Single Farm Payment since its inception and has done nothing to enhance the value of the property or improve it ... We are just a very ordinary family with no desire to be landlords. We feel in our semi retirement that it would only be right, just and proper if we were allowed to farm our small parcel of land.”
My amendment 117 seeks to deal with such unjust situations. It provides that, when a landowner owns land that is subject to a secure tenancy that was created without the consent of the owner, that owner can apply to the Scottish Land Court for an order that would convert the secure tenancy to a modern limited duration tenancy, the term of which should be left to regulations. I believe that the involvement of the Land Court is absolutely essential, because there would undoubtedly be differing views on whether consent had been given.
I accept that amendment 117 focuses on an issue that was not considered at stage 1 or stage 2, but it focuses on a set of circumstances that really needs to be addressed. I also accept that there might well be other options for how best to address it. If amendment 117 goes the way of all my other amendments and is not accepted by ministers, I ask that the Government commits—at the very least—to consulting on the issue and addressing it in the next session of Parliament.
I move amendment 117.