Rural Development Committee, 19 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Official Report 349KB pdf

---

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am keen to kick off punctually, because we have an enormous agenda. I welcome everyone who is here; I am sure that more people will arrive. I have received apologies from Irene Oldfather, Elaine Smith and Alasdair Morrison. I issue my usual reminder about switching off mobile phones.

Agenda item 1 is further consideration of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill. Fans will know that this is the fourth day of evidence taking on the bill. We will hear soon from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, and later from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. After the witnesses have given their opening statements, members will have the opportunity to ask questions.

Before we begin, I will declare an interest. I have a registered landholding that is subject to a partnership agreement, which I understand will not be affected by the bill. I must ask Jamie McGrigor to declare an interest, because he has not previously attended a meeting of the committee at which we have considered the bill.

I am the owner of a farm with no tenants. Therefore, I have no tenancies.

Within the next 10 days, I will acquire a field that is let for sheep. I expect to derive no income from doing so.

I am sure that that comes as a great disappointment to you.

Perhaps I should add that I am a grazing tenant of some fields.

Thank you. I think that I am right in saying that no other members have interests to declare, unless there has been more field acquisition in the past week.

I am delighted to welcome Alex Hogg and Davey Thomson, who have come to give evidence. They have appeared before the committee on a previous occasion, so they know our procedures. I invite them to make a brief opening statement, which will be followed by members' questions. I intend to close the session at 2.30 prompt.

Thank you for inviting us to give evidence today. Traditionally, farmers and gamekeepers have worked on the same ground, lived in the same communities and shared life's ups and downs. Our families and lives are interlinked.

The sporting sector, which makes an enormous financial contribution to the rural economy, particularly in the most fragile and remote areas, has not been considered in the drafting of the bill, even though a holistic and informed approach is vital if the bill is to succeed in its aims.

Although we can understand that some people are frustrated by the pattern of land ownership in Scotland, we have much to be grateful to it for. The integrated approach to farming and sporting management by estates allows different land uses to co-exist. Game management brings millions of pounds directly and indirectly into the rural economy through tourism. It also nurtures and protects the habitats and wildlife for which Scotland is famous. In a recent magazine article, Mike Watson, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, said:

"According to VisitScotland estimates, some 100,000 trips to Scotland are generated through this sport with these visitors generating some £23 million for the rural economy."

Lord Watson went on to reflect on a visit that he had made, at the SGA's invitation, to an Aberdeenshire estate and on the importance of field sports to an integrated rural environment.

We have heard over the past three weeks that some people are seeking to extend the pre-emptive right to buy to an absolute right. We believe that, in a democratic society, it is totally wrong to force people to sell something against their will. The breaking up of single-ownership properties could do great harm to our members, to local economies and to the environment. The committee may choose to ignore our concern; it may decide to go down the route of allowing an absolute right to buy and resolve to separate the sporting rights from the land ownership. I ask members please to be aware that you are committed to protecting Scotland's biodiversity. Rural communities support not only farmers but the SGA's members' jobs as well, and a decision to allow an absolute right to buy would be difficult to reconcile with that commitment.

In evidence on the bill, much has been said about separating the sporting right from the ownership of the land. Councillor Stuart Black of the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group said:

"Currently, there is joint use and there are no problems. We know where we are. The lease is our legal agreement. It lays down what we can do or cannot do."

The convener pointed out that, with a farmer becoming an owner, no such agreement would exist, and Councillor Black responded:

"A similar agreement would have to be put in place on the rights and responsibilities of both owners of that piece of land."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 5 November 2002; c 3720.]

Agreements exist between the people who enter into them, but not their successors, and can therefore come to an end.

Fergus Ewing said:

"None of us on the committee would want gamekeepers to be impacted on by the bill. Therefore, we want to protect them".—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 29 October 2002; c 3668.]

We are heartened by that statement. Members will no doubt understand that there would have to be permanent rights that are ancillary to the right of shooting in order to protect our members' interests; that might well be cumbersome. Legislation concerning owner-occupier rights to shoot deer will also have to be changed if the people whose livelihoods depend on sustainable management of Scotland's red deer are to be protected. We have a list of conditions that we consider would be necessary, which we would be happy to discuss with the committee.

The SGA represents professional wildlife managers and we are committed to defending our members' jobs and protecting Scotland's unique and varied countryside. Because of the points that we have highlighted, we urge the committee in the strongest possible terms not to introduce an absolute right to buy.

Thank you very much, Mr Hogg. Do you have anything to add, Mr Thomson?

No.

In that case, we shall move straight to members' questions.

Welcome, gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be asking for your evidence on a topic other than Lord Watson's Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.

All the evidence that we have heard so far, in particular from people who advocate a right to buy, whether absolute or pre-emptive, has acknowledged the importance of gamekeeping and gamekeepers. We have heard no evidence that I can recall from anyone who does not support your being able to continue to do in the future what you have done in the past. Do you agree?

Yes.

So we all want to move in the same direction. Two weeks ago, we heard evidence from Sir Crispin Agnew, who is a legal expert. He made two comments that are relevant to your evidence. First, he said that if Parliament so wishes, it can separate the sporting rights from the land, just as mineral rights and salmon fishing rights can be separated from it. He also said:

"there would have to be statutory provision for sporting rights to be separately owned. Management rules would then have to be provided to regulate the use of the rights."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 5 November 2002; c 3732.]

I think that management rights should exist. You have set out a list of practical points that would need to be taken into account, but do you accept in principle that if Parliament could produce a comprehensive management agreement that would be imported into the contract, that would deal substantially with your objections to a right to buy?

I agree, but would that agreement carry on to the next seller?

Such an agreement would have to be binding on singular successors—future owners of the farms—because all the tenant farmers from whom we have heard have said that they want to continue to work with gamekeepers, as you said in your opening statement. No conflict exists; rather, the opposite—co-operation—exists. If such a management agreement could encapsulate provisions on shooting deer, access, stalking ratios and road and bridge maintenance—matters that title deeds would be expected to cover, but which Parliament could require them to cover—would that go quite a long way towards meeting the concerns that you have expressed in your written submission and today?

Yes. Working that out could be difficult in some cases, but I see where you are heading.

I appreciate that such matters are not easy to deal with when drafting legislation, but perhaps we could work together with the SGA on that when we consider the bill at stage 2—if it reaches stage 2, which one imagines it will.

Provided that there were no detrimental effects on our membership—gamekeepers—or on the wildlife that we protect and look after, we would basically agree with that proposal.

I do not share my colleague Fergus Ewing's benign view of some of the evidence that we have received. I will quote some evidence and ask for your response to it. At our meeting on 5 November, I asked:

"Does Andy Wightman think that the Scottish Executive's view is that it is public policy to ensure a greater diversity of land ownership in Scotland, and that a proposal for the compulsory purchase of private property in order to transfer it to another private individual is a worthwhile public benefit per se?"

Andy Wightman's reply was "Yes." I followed that question with an important statement to him. I said:

"Your line of argument is that, basically, it does not matter if there are a few injustices to individuals, and that the greater good should prevail."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 5 November 2002; c 3738-39.]

His reply was "Yes"—it was as simple as that.

The Scottish Gamekeepers Association has provided us with useful written evidence that says that a compulsory right to buy would have a major impact on gamekeepers' jobs and livelihoods throughout Scotland. I am interested in putting a question to you because I am following the logic of what Fergus Ewing said. He implied that if we stay with the bill and support the compulsory right to purchase, everything will be okay, because we can change the law. I do not take that view. If committee members went down the route of compulsory purchase, gamekeepers' jobs would be on the line. Do you still believe that?

Definitely.

I wanted to make that clear, because what Fergus Ewing said led us down a different path. Do you confirm what is said in your written evidence to the effect that the compulsory right to purchase would be a direct threat to your members' jobs and livelihoods?

Yes.

I will follow Mike Rumbles's comments about the threat to livelihoods should tenant farmers be given the right to buy. Am I correct to say that owner-occupiers are on estates at the moment?

Yes.

Do the current owner-occupiers present any obstacle to your earning your livelihoods?

Not really. If they do, the obstacle is limited.

So, to counter Mike Rumbles's point, is it a fair assumption that, if the number of owner-occupiers on any estate were to increase through exercise of the absolute right to buy, that would not really impact on your livelihoods?

That is perhaps a dangerous assertion. The number of owner-occupiers on an estate could easily affect us, depending on their views on sport and sporting interests.

Each case is different. If a farmer in the centre of an estate had the absolute right to buy, that would devalue the land when it came up for sale. Any prospective buyer would see that he would have no control over the middle of the estate. That could also create difficulties in management of the land. It would all depend on whether good relations existed with the farmer.

At the moment, a way is found in which the gamekeepers and those who organise field sports can work alongside owner-occupiers. Could a way be found that would ensure that, even if the number of owner-occupiers on an estate were increased, satisfactory arrangements could exist?

Do you think that it is right that an owner-occupier has sporting rights at the minute? He is not part of the estate if he is an owner-occupier: he owns a farm that is adjacent to the estate.

Mike Rumbles is putting it to the committee that increasing the number of owner-occupiers on estates will destroy the livelihoods of gamekeepers. I am asking you whether there is a way round that, so that that would not be the case.

If such a way is going to be found, the committee has a major task ahead of it. Provided that our livelihoods were not affected, we could not disagree that a solution could be found, but I foresee problems in getting all the farmers to agree to our sporting activities.

I am trying to draw a distinction between owner-occupiers in the future and existing owner-occupiers. If existing owner-occupiers do not present a problem, why should increasing the number of owner-occupiers present a problem in the future?

At the moment, an owner-occupier is outside the circle, adjacent to the estate.

There must be estates with owner-occupiers on whose land field sports are carried out because an arrangement has been reached.

Such farms do not tend to be in the centre of the estates. If someone owned an estate and wanted to extend their shoot, they would approach a farmer—an owner-occupier—and ask him whether they could have the shooting rights to shoot on his grounds. The farms are not in the main framework of the estates; they are on the outside, at the minute. Our fear is that, if owner-occupiers farm the land at the centre of the land that we are trying to manage, there could be difficulties unless it becomes law that an agreement—such as Fergus Ewing was on about—is drawn up, stating that A, B, C and D have to be done before the sale can go ahead.

So, there is a way in which the change could be managed.

It would be difficult to manage.

Do you agree with Mike Rumbles's assertion that increasing the number of owner-occupiers on an estate will automatically destroy gamekeepers' livelihoods?

There is definitely a danger that that could happen.

It is not my assertion that Richard Lochhead is citing. I received today—as, I hope, did other members—a copy of "The Scottish Gamekeeper". On page 21, under the heading "Wake up Time", it states:

"It is time for everyone who shoots, stalks, fishes or has a business interest in rural Scotland to wake up to the threats surrounding them".

It continues:

"The Agricultural Holdings Bill could fragment rural Scotland – (if the Absolute Right to Buy is incorporated into the Bill as it threatens to be), gamekeepers will lose their jobs and their homes!"

Is that your belief? Do you stand by that statement?

Yes.

What would be the effect on farmers if there were no gamekeepers around to manage pest control, deer numbers, and so on?

There would be a host of effects. In the north, where Davey Thomson works, red deer maraud on to turnip or barley fields and need to be controlled. If a farm has sheep and lambs, but there is no gamekeeper, the farmer is likely to lose a lot of lambs. When farmers try to establish barley or other crops, crows can do a horrendous amount of damage. Those are the main effects.

So, given that most farmers are not experts in pest control, a reduction in the number of gamekeepers who manage pest control would not be in farmers' interests.

That is correct. In my area, we supply a free service to the farmer whose land marches with ours because we kill foxes as a matter of course to create a bigger buffer zone.

So it would be in farmers' interests to come to an agreement with estates on the use of gamekeepers to ensure that pests are controlled or that shooting continues, if that is a lucrative part of the tourism industry in the area.

Yes—provided that the farmer agrees that pests should be controlled. If the farmer is a hunting person he might not want the foxes to be controlled, which could lead to confrontation. The gamekeeper might require foxes to be controlled, but if the hunting fraternity wants to hunt, it might prefer to leave the foxes. Of course, that is illegal now.

We have heard from various witnesses—we were advised last week by a legal expert—that the sporting rights on land do not always fall to the farm. I am inclined to accept that statement, which was put forcefully. As the witnesses will know, many estates up and down the country contain several farms. If the right to buy is included in the bill and if the farms on an estate exercise that right, the sporting right over the territory would not change and would be retained by the estate proprietor. I do not understand your argument that if a farmer buys part of an estate, your job would be diminished and you might lose your home on the estate. I cannot see how you justify that statement.

I can think of a scenario in which a tenant farmer who rents half a grouse moor buys the farm. In that situation, his objectives might change. For example, he might increase the numbers of sheep or do other things to the grouse moor that would cause the grouse to leave or to die. Therefore, the gamekeeper's job would be in jeopardy.

I do not anticipate that farmers who buy their farm will, all of a sudden, increase greatly their stock or their activities. As a consequence, the activities of the estate or the proprietor would remain as they were before the farm was bought. There might be an existing arrangement between the farmer and the proprietor about culling deer when there is a complaint about deer, or pest control might be carried out jointly between the estate and the farmers. I do not understand why you are afraid that farmers buying their farms will affect your situation adversely.

I know of cases in which two land uses conflict because the farmer wants sheep or cows and the gamekeeper wants grouse. If the farmer buys half of the estate, he might burn great stretches of heather in a oner and he will not manage the land in the interests of wildlife.

Several witnesses have said that good landlords have nothing to fear either from the bill as introduced or from the absolute right to buy. Where the relationship between landlord and tenant is good and productive—as it is in many instances—it is unlikely that the right to buy, be it pre-emptive or absolute, will be used. Where an absolute right to buy is taken up, it can then be assumed that the existing relationship between tenant and landlord is not very good, or certainly could be much better.

For example, a tenant who buys his farm must sign up to full right of access at all times, presumably to the ex-landlord. The tenant must also agree to stocking ratios for hill-grazings and to maintain roads, tracks and bridges, even if they are not required for the farming operation. Tree planting is another issue. Shelter belts might be very productive for farming, but they could affect the make-up and balance of the shoot. Where the relationship between landlord and tenant is not very good in the first place, is that arrangement likely to work?

No.

That answer was much shorter than the question.

Far be it from me to disagree with my friend and colleague John Farquhar Munro, but Sir Crispin Agnew said in evidence:

"The problem is that shooting rights are not separate legal tenements. Minerals can be separated from the land and salmon fishings can be separated from the land, but sporting rights cannot be separated from the land under the current law."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 5 November 2002; c 3732.]

The issue, according to Sir Crispin Agnew, is that sporting rights cannot be separated from the land. If we recommend a change to the compulsory right to buy under current law, would your association and members be seriously disadvantaged?

Yes.

In the interests of accuracy, Mike Rumbles is quite right to say that the current law does not provide for separate sporting rights. He also said that there would have to be statutory provision for sporting rights to be separately owned, which would require management agreement. Currently, there is no absolute or pre-emptive right to buy; that is the law. We are making statutory provision for a right to buy, and we have the power to make statutory provision that sporting rights should not apply to that right to buy.

Is it correct that the bill makes no mention of any compulsory right to buy? Mr Rumbles used that phrase on three or four occasions. The right to buy is not compulsory, nor is anyone suggesting that it be made compulsory. That would be a total nonsense. Can that be clarified?

We will discuss future legislation and whether the wording needs to be altered when the committee goes into private session shortly to agree the terms of the report.

I am obviously extremely worried about the loss of gamekeepers' jobs. An experiment at Langholm removed gamekeepers from an area of ground that had been a very productive grouse moor. Did that result in an immediate decrease in the grouse population?

Five gamekeepers lost their jobs through the experiment at Langholm. When they tried to reintroduce harriers there, they asked the head gamekeeper, Brian Mitchell, what he thought the ground could stand. He said that the ground could possibly take another pair of harriers on top of the two pairs that were already on the ground. The grouse moor was viable. At the end of the five-year experiment, there were 28 pairs of harriers and no grouse, and the five gamekeepers lost their jobs. There are now two pairs of harriers again, but there is no wildlife left in the area because crows and foxes have eaten it all.

On that note, thank you for giving evidence. I am sorry that the session was slightly truncated because of our large agenda. You are welcome to observe the rest of the afternoon's proceedings.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—