Official Report 422KB pdf
Item 4 is on the mediation and compensation process under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 Remedial Order 2014.
As members are aware, we have revised the agenda for today’s meeting to include an opportunity for the committee to consider the latest information on mediation in the case of tenant farmer Andrew Stoddart.
We received a letter on 7 November from Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment. In the letter, which is on the committee’s website, he points out that, as part of the consideration of the matter and
“in response to the recent representations from stakeholders, we have hosted a number of discussions with a range of interested parties”—
which include Scottish Tenant Farmers Association—
“to discuss ways to assist Mr Stoddart and we are exploring these with urgency.
Options under consideration include extending the current lease at Colstoun Mains Farm, the possibility of finding alternative farm land for Mr Stoddart and facilitating renewed negotiations around his waygo compensation. The Committee will be aware that this is a complicated situation, and that discussions between Mr Stoddart and his landlords have been on hold for some time.”
That extract from the letter gives a fair idea of the cabinet secretary’s involvement. Do members wish to make any comments, which we can convey to him?
This is a very complex case, which affects not only Mr Stoddart, his family and two staff members, but seven other tenant farmers who fall within the group in the remedial order.
I am relieved that the cabinet secretary has had a great deal of communication with the committee. The committee expected regular updates on Mr Stoddart’s extremely complex case, and it is important that we have received them.
I happen to be a list MSP for the region and have spent a great deal of time looking at the case. I do not propose to go into any detail about it today, except to say that I understand that there was an error on the part of the Scottish Parliament and that, whatever the legal niceties and complexities, responsibility for that is being recognised by the Scottish Government, although it is for the Scottish Government to say that.
It is very urgent now to ensure that, if Mr Stoddard cannot stay on his farm—I very much hope that he will be able to—the Scottish Government’s mediation process goes forward. However, this is not just about Mr Stoddart; it is also about the other seven tenant farmers concerned.
It would not be helpful for me to say any more, because the situation is very complex. The negotiations are now at a very forward-moving stage, if I can put it like that.
12:00
For clarity’s sake, I note that the cabinet secretary says in the last paragraph of his letter:
“supporting the mediation between landlords and tenants is my main priority and I am pleased to report that the mediators Core Solutions, representatives of tenants and landlords, along with Government officials, are due to meet early next week”—
which is now this week—
“to agree the remit and timetable for mediation.”
There is no time bar on that. As far as I know, that involves the seven farmers to whom you referred, but not Mr Stoddart, and it is Mr Stoddard whom we are talking about now.
That approach is very helpful in relation to any situation where there are two parties who wish to get involved in the mediation process, but where one party or the other is unable or unwilling to do that, the situation becomes more complex. I think that the Scottish Government’s role is very significant here. I am very pleased that the cabinet secretary is taking the matter forward.
The matter is clearly at a crucial and difficult stage, and it is important that the committee does not do or say anything to affect it. It is also important for the committee not only to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done but to ask whether this case, and the wider cases involving the difficulties faced by the other seven tenant farmers, tell us anything about changes that are needed in tenancy.
At some stage, the committee needs to consider two things. The first relates to the system that allows such things to happen. Do we wish that system to continue, or do we want to alter it? Secondly, I am conscious of the ping-pong that has been going on, which we have all been witnesses to, between Mr Stoddart and land agents and spokespeople for a trust—but not between Mr Stoddart and whoever the beneficial owner of that trust is. That says something about the nature of the process that we are engaged in. Perhaps we should reflect on those issues and on the fact that there has been great debate in the committee about beneficial ownership and knowing who is involved. The case is between Mr Stoddart and a trust and agents speaking on behalf of a trust. I do not think that, in the modern Scotland, we should be comfortable about that.
Indeed.
I will follow on in precisely that vein. The committee has been raising the issues for a matter of months now. The timescale is very tight for the tenant farmer involved and his family. The case concentrates our minds on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which we have been debating, and on getting the balance right on rights.
When we look at the detail of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, the crucial question is whether it does what it says on the tin—and whether we know that it does, particularly in light of previous legislation, which has been problematic. It is quite a big test for us, as a committee, to do everything that we can to get the new legislation right.
Indeed.
If I may say so, Claudia Beamish précised the situation extremely well and accurately. I am pleased that the work that has been done in the committee, since we first raised the matter during the summer recess, has led to the actions that have now been taken—better late than never, as we have discussed previously.
I do not think that it is helpful to go into the details of the individual case at this point, but it is worth putting it on record that, as we all know, people are moving heaven and earth to try and bring that individual case and others to a conclusion.
I understand the point about transparency of ownership, but it is worth also putting it on record that the beneficial owners of the trust are well known. It is not as if they are hidden in any way, although I accept the other points that Mike Russell made. The case does not concern somebody hiding in an offshore situation for example.
The situation is incredibly difficult and people are working as hard as they can to bring about a settlement, although, frankly, there is not a hope that it will please everybody at the end of the day. However, a settlement needs to be achieved for everybody’s sake. I hope that the efforts that are being made lead to a settlement in the very near future.
A large number of people showed their concern by gathering outside Parliament yesterday and presenting a petition with more than 19,000 signatures on it, emphasising that the case is of wide public concern. However, the public do not know enough about the details, and the details that we have been able to elicit should inform some of the public comment. I hope that people can understand that the committee has been trying to speed up the solutions that are being found, while informing people about the processes. The public should understand that the Parliament is totally engaged in the process.
Are we all agreed on that?
Members indicated agreement.
Will we continue to keep an eye on and support the actions that are being taken by the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government to resolve Mr Stoddart’s issue in a suitable, humane and sensible way?
We most certainly should. We hope for another update from the cabinet secretary in a few days’ time—I think that the updates are coming quicker than we expected—after which only a few more days are left to deal with the matter.
I thank members for that discussion. I am glad that we have been able to bring people up to date on the matter.
The committee’s next meeting will be on Wednesday 18 November, when we will consider the first draft of our stage 1 report on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. That meeting will take place in private, starting at 9.30.
As agreed earlier, we will take our final item of business in private.
12:07 Meeting continued in private until 12:20.