Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 19 Dec 2002

19 Dec 2002 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Hamilton, Mr Duncan SNP Highlands and Islands Watch on SPTV

As the first member to speak in this debate who is not a member of the Rural Development Committee, I commend the committee for its report. The report was honest in seeking agreement where that was possible and in reflecting some of the difficulties in what is a complex area.

As other members have said, vast parts of the bill have attracted cross-party agreement. There is crucial agreement about the problems surrounding tenancies and the need for diversity of ownership and land use. There is agreement about some of the bill's measures that will apply to new tenancies; those measures will allow the right balance between flexibility and the possibility of long-term investment, which is exactly what we want.

I want to draw attention to a couple of areas on which more work will definitely be required during the bill's future stages. The first area is the rental assessment. The Rural Development Committee's report makes the point that evidence was received that rent levels were driven more by the subsidy-attracting capacity of the land than by its overall profitability or farm income. That is a very interesting point from which to start. If we are now saying that it is in the nature of public subsidies that they potentially push private rents higher, that is an odd way of reflecting the public interest. I do not see who will benefit from such a system. If subsidies are the primary driver of rents, I suggest that more research and work is needed. Perhaps some of the stage 2 amendments and innovative ideas about forums can be acted on.

There is also the question of how to encourage the diversification that we are all keen to see. The Rural Development Committee was clear that substantial barriers to diversification exist. The phrase "non-agricultural use" and the threat of resumption of land on the back of that is something that the committee and the minister will want to tackle. Some sensible diversification is being unnecessarily blocked, which cannot be to the benefit of the rural economy.

How do we allow tenants to diversify? I note that a number of suggestions have been made, one of which is to use a prescribed list of allowable diversification—a mouthful at any time. I suggest that that is far too rigid a procedure. It seeks to dot all the i's and cross all the t's and to give to diversification an exact nature that is probably not appropriate. As I understand the procedure that is outlined in the bill, we will have a system whereby notification of any planned diversification can be given and there will be a right to object and appeal to the Scottish Land Court. That suggests that all the various players have an opportunity to have their say and to test what is the best way forward. That is a fair balance and the bill is right in that regard.

There were controversial areas about which there was no agreement, particularly with regard to the right to buy. I support firmly the pre-emptive right to buy, which will impose a fair balance once a property is on the market. We should reflect on the fact that in the National Farmers Union of Scotland's survey of opinion—although some members doubted the result—82 per cent of NFUS members supported the pre-emptive right to buy including, importantly, 75 per cent of the landowners they asked. That is a useful statistic to have on public record because it shows that it is possible to build consensus on the issue. As Rhoda Grant suggested, in many cases all the bill will do is give a statutory basis to good practice, which is to be encouraged.

With regard to the absolute right to buy, the committee has acknowledged that however sympathetic many members might be to that right, the case for it is probably not proven. Substantial issues remain to be resolved about the reduction in confidence in letting land. There are questions about the ECHR and about public interest and there are questions about investment in land. That is not to say that the Rural Development Committee might not come to a consensus at a later stage in the bill's progress and resolve to support the absolute right to buy. As matters stand, we can support the principles at stage 1, but it is an absolute requirement at stage 2 that the committee come back to the Parliament with some answers to those very important questions.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 19 Dec 2002

In the same item of business