Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-03153, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Now that everyone is in place and the cabinet secretary is ready, I am happy to give him a generous 10 minutes to speak to the motion.
15:40
Thank you, Presiding Officer—I will speak very slowly. I welcome you back from your visit yesterday to Scotsheep; indeed, it is good to see you back in the chamber, chairing a debate on another very important agricultural sector.
I begin with a formality. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of standing orders, I wish to advise Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
The bill represents another chapter in the development of legislation on farm tenancies in Scotland, which, of course, form a crucial part of Scottish agriculture. Modernisation of farming tenancies was central to the agrarian reforms in the agricultural revolution of the 18th century, and those changes led to the modern Scottish farming landscape that we all see and love today.
However, as we know, this is a very complex—and sensitive—area with regard to legislation, regulation and management because of the balance that needs to be struck between the interests of tenants and landlords. Indeed, the tenant farming forum, comprising leaders from all sectors of the industry, was established some years ago to provide advice on how tenant farming arrangements can be improved for all concerned. The bill is the latest step in that process. Although it is not, as I will make clear later, the end of the story, it represents the culmination of one important phase of work.
In 2009, the TFF made a set of recommendations on addressing certain obstacles to new entrants into agriculture. Although most were implemented, two recommendations could be introduced only through primary legislation. The bill implements both of those recommendations, plus a later recommendation on the technical treatment of VAT.
The bill has six sections. Section 1 amends schedule 2 in part 3 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, extending the definition of “near relative” to include grandchildren in cases where a deceased farmer’s tenancy is passed by succession. The purpose of that amendment, which was sought by the sector, is to preserve family farming traditions and, of course, to help younger entrants to get a start on the farming ladder.
Section 2 amends section 9 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003. At present, it is possible to say in a limited duration tenancy that only the landlord can initiate a rent review or that the rent can only ever go up. Such clauses tip the balance too much in favour of the landlord and, understandably, many people in agriculture wanted the situation to be addressed. The TFF considered the matter and, as it recommended, the bill will stop such practices in the future, putting tenant farmers on a much more level footing with landlords. I am sure that such a move will be welcomed by the chamber.
In response, again, to concerns that were expressed by the industry, section 3 amends section 13 of the 1991 act, which relates to VAT. As members know, the 1991 act says that a rent dispute can be referred to the Scottish Land Court for determination, but only once every three years, and the industry was worried that if, for example, the treatment of VAT in a lease were to be changed that could shut off the option of going to the Land Court for rent review for the subsequent three years. The bill clarifies that that is not the case.
At stage 2, I lodged a Government amendment to section 4(1), which is on the timing of the changes. The amendment means that the new definition of “near relative” will also apply when a tenant farmer has died before the bill comes into force, provided that a notice has not already been served.
Section 5 sets out the timing of the commencement of the act and section 6 states the short title.
Nobody should underestimate how much effort has been made to get to where we are today. Without mutual respect and co-operation across the sectors, we would not have the level of stakeholder support that the bill, which addresses some sensitive and difficult issues, now carries. A great deal of work has been done within the TFF and between the TFF and the Government, and it is thanks to that hard work and constructive dialogue that areas of consensus have been developed.
However, we cannot be complacent. Scotland needs a sustainable and vibrant tenant farming sector, not least because a tenancy is the first step on the ladder for new entrants to farming. I think that we all accept that we want to attract many more young people into farming, and indeed new entrants of all social backgrounds and ages. As I am sure many members are aware, the lack of new blood coming into agriculture is an issue throughout Europe. At an event in Brussels two or three weeks ago, I heard the commissioner say that only 17 per cent of farmers in Europe are under 35, and there are many similar statistics.
The Government has introduced a number of initiatives to help tenant farmers and new entrants. We have supported industry-led initiatives such as the monitor farms programme and new entrant workshops. We were the first Administration to introduce a dedicated scheme for new entrants, which is delivered through the Scotland rural development programme, and the scheme now provides the maximum support that is allowed under European Union rules. To date, the scheme has given new entrants access to more than £1.1 million of funding. As the Parliament will recall, we offered to make up to £10 million available for that budget heading within the SRDP in the period of six or seven years for which the programme has been in place. The fact that, although some farmers have clearly benefited, the full £10 million has not been taken up perhaps illustrates that barriers to new entrants exist elsewhere in agriculture.
Such initiatives are important, but they must be surrounded by the right support framework under the future common agricultural policy. The position of tenant farmers must be protected and new entrants must be properly catered for from day one. We have committed to setting up a new entrant panel to look at how the new CAP can encourage new entrants. Discussions in Europe are moving in the right direction, but it is fair to say that they have gone nowhere near far enough. We need to broaden the national reserve to cover all new entrants and not just those under 40. We need the ability to keep on using the national reserve throughout the life of the next CAP and not just at the beginning. We also need to ensure that the eligibility criteria for the new system meet the interests of tenant farmers as well as those of new entrants and active farmers who do not hold any current entitlements. I hope that members will join the Government’s efforts to influence the European Commission and the European Parliament in those areas.
However well designed the policy framework is, tenant farming can thrive only if there is access to land, so we must have more landowners bringing forward land for rent. Some progress has been made on that front in recent months. The Forestry Commission Scotland, which is under the remit of the Scottish Government, has stepped up to the challenge and put land on the rental markets, as have the Crown Estate and some private landlords. I welcome those recent announcements, but we need many other people to follow suit in the coming months.
In the same period, we need to continue to work on improvements to tenant farming arrangements, and a crucial aspect is the way in which rent reviews are carried out. Many members have expressed concern about that, as have many people in Scottish agriculture. Some members of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee were in Bute last week, where they heard at first hand about the difficulties that tenant farmers can face in undertaking rent reviews. I am sure that those members will refer to that visit when they speak in the debate. The issue is complex, especially given the range of situations in Scotland, so it needs expert consideration.
The cabinet secretary said that there is a need for a lot more land to come on to the rental market in the coming months. Can he reassure me on that? I do not believe that the matter can be addressed in a few months. Does he agree that this is a longer-term thing? As he says, progress is being made, and we need to encourage that progress so that, in the coming months and indeed years, more land comes on to the market.
I accept that it is a long-term process, but the debate has been taking place in the Parliament and throughout Scotland for the past few years and, although I welcome the progress that has been made, many landowners and other people and organisations with a lot of influence in the debate could perhaps devote a little more effort to the issue. I welcome the fact that the issue has a higher profile than ever before, and that minds are being concentrated across the many sectors that are involved in the debate. I hope that we can get more effort in the very near future, although I recognise that there will not be an overnight solution.
I am particularly delighted that the TFF has announced today the launch of its rent review working group, which is a panel of independent experts that will look at rent review arrangements and report its findings to the TFF and the Scottish Government later this year. The Government plans to offer financial support to the group, as we are very keen to see it succeed.
The four members of the group have been chosen for their skills and knowledge, and not because of any particular organisational affiliation. The group will be chaired by Henry Graham, a farmer of 30 years, who has also been an agribusiness adviser for the Clydesdale Bank. The other members are Ian Duncan Millar MBE, John Ross CBE, and John Mitchell, a senior partner at Anderson Strathern LLP. I hope that the Parliament will agree that that is an upstanding and much-respected group of individuals with a huge amount of experience and knowledge of the issues, who are the right people for the job. The group will report in November 2012, which will enable the TFF to make recommendations to the Government by, I hope, May 2013. I urge members to support the group and allow its members the time to do their work and bring forward their conclusions.
In parallel with the rent review working group, the TFF plans to address other areas of conflict between tenants and their landlords. Those workstreams will be on issues such as equipment repair and renewal, investment in hoardings, waygo compensation, diversification, and assignation and succession. As part of the assignation and succession workstream, the TFF will explore further with the parliamentary committee its suggestion that the definition of “near relative” in section 1 should be extended to include nieces and nephews.
The TFF identified the need for a workstream to look at plugging gaps in the data on tenant farming. There was much discussion of that at stage 1 and stage 2. Accordingly, the Government will take the lead on a data workstream, with assistance and input from TFF members. Delivery of all the workstreams will be no mean feat, and no one here should underestimate the effort that will be required by the TFF to enable the completion of the work before the end of 2013.
The outputs from those workstreams will feed into a review of agricultural holdings legislation. We committed, through our manifesto, to undertake a review within 18 months of the bill becoming an act. I will provide further information to the Parliament on the scope of that review once the outputs of the workstreams and the TFF’s recommendations are to hand.
There is still much to do for the future. In the meantime, we have an important step to take today to implement the last pieces of the previous set of TFF recommendations through the bill and to welcome the plan of work for the future. I hope that we can all join together to support the bill, to help move forward our tenant farming sector in Scotland.
It gives me pleasure to move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
15:53
The Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill makes a modest contribution to clarifying and rationalising the relationships between landlord and tenant in the sector and, as such, Scottish Labour supports its passage today.
In relation to succession, the cabinet secretary stated at stage 2 that the broadening of the definition of “near relative” to include grandchildren would
“help to meet our objective of widening the class of people entitled to that degree of protection”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 9 May 2012; c 922.]
In our keenness to encourage opportunities for new entrants, we argue, as we did at stage 1, that further consideration should also be given in the future to the extension of the definition to include nephews and nieces, despite the tenant farming forum’s previous consensus on that issue. That would further broaden the opportunities for new entrants to the sector. I note the cabinet secretary’s remarks about the TFF’s workstream in that regard.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s initiatives for new entrants, including the new entry panel, and I note the remarks about the national reserve. Certainly, Scottish Labour members on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, my colleague Claire Baker and I, and others will be working hard to help move forward the CAP in that regard, to give a broader opportunity for new entrants, amongst other issues.
Will the cabinet secretary, in his closing remarks, comment on progress on the development of conservation tenancies, as mooted by RSPB Scotland and others, in addition to the organisations that he has highlighted today, which are working to broaden the tenancies that they offer?
As many have acknowledged during the passage of the bill, many wider issues must still be resolved, from the perspective of both landlords and tenants, to enable the sector to move forward in a confident and secure way.
The TFF reached consensus on a number of challenging issues at the start of the process and has continued to do so during the bill’s progress. However, in our view, it has been an uneasy consensus on some of the challenging issues. I have seen much good practice when I have visited estates and met landlords and tenants over the past few months, especially in south Scotland. I have seen examples of major investment, such as a new state-of-the-art milking parlour and a large range of sheds for free-range chickens, to highlight but two.
However, concerns about tenancy matters were expressed to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee during its visit to Bute; Margaret McDougall and, I am sure, other members will highlight that. Oral and written evidence to the committee has made me keenly aware of the need to reach the stage at which, more generally, the individual who owns is confident to let and the individual who rents is confident to invest. There are those who say that the sector should be left in peace to get on with things. Others say that there has been enough chipping away at landlords’ rights, but others again say that their rights as tenants are unclear and do not offer enough security.
In the TFF, as I highlighted, there has been an apparent consensus, which has led to the introduction of the bill. However, the consensus has been uneasy on a number of matters and, in my view, it has not always been a consensus between equal partners. In that context, the future work plan of the TFF is to be welcomed as it is working towards a tenanted sector in which there is fairness and certainty.
Douglas McAdam, of Scottish Land & Estates, said that
“Agricultural Holdings legislation is complex and emotive. However, it is important that everyone with an interest, particularly politicians and decision-makers have clear, hard facts at their disposal. The industry as a whole will benefit from a more evidence-led approach.”
I am sure that all those on the TFF agree with that approach, which must lead to a settled and fair outcome for all.
I believe that there is consensus in the chamber that the rent review section of the bill is a step forward. Today’s announcement by the cabinet secretary that an independent rent review group for secure tenancies will be set up is welcome, as is the offer of technical and secretarial support and the clear reporting timeline. How regularly should rent be reviewed, even if it is not always changed? Will rent be determined by the market alone or by some additional measure? Analysis of the current process and scrutiny of section 13 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 and of the English system will enable the sector to work towards a model that I hope will bring confidence to both sides. Those who have been named as members of the group will inspire confidence in the process, as there is respect for their independence, their experience and their expertise—in particular, the group includes the necessary legal representation.
The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee suggested that the Scottish Government and the TFF should
“re-examine the issue of investment in holdings, to ... clarify who is responsible”
and find
“the most appropriate balance ... for the creation of a vibrant and healthy tenant farming sector.”
The inclusion of the issue in the TFF’s work programme will focus the different perspectives. Investment protocols may well be a useful possible way forward, and the group’s consideration of diversification is also welcome. It is essential for clarity to be brought on waygo compensation.
A clear timeline for working to resolve those issues is imperative, as is reporting to the Scottish Government. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, of which I am, of course, a member, will take a keen interest in those issues.
The aim must be to bring certainty to the sector and to help to restore trust where it has been broken. We support the bill as part of that process, but in doing so we hope that it is another step forward and not an end in itself.
15:59
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, in which it will be seen that I own land that is tenanted—I am delighted to say that I have a very good relationship with my two tenants.
I echo the cabinet secretary’s comments to the other Deputy Presiding Officer in welcoming him back to the chamber from Scotsheep. If we are truly serious about parliamentary reform, in two years’ time our sitting hours will revolve around us all having the ability to go to Scotsheep—I was very sad not to be able to do so for the first time in a very long time.
I am delighted to take part in the debate, particularly as we had no stage 3 amendments to discuss and only one stage 2 amendment, to which I will return a little later. I am greatly heartened that no attempts were made to amend the bill substantially from the bill that was introduced. The potential for that existed, and rumours abounded that amendments might be lodged to widen the definition of a “near relative” to include the nephews and nieces of existing tenants, in addition to their grandchildren, as was always proposed in the bill. I will continue the excellent example that my colleague Jamie McGrigor set this morning by quoting himself. In the stage 1 debate, I said:
“I heartily commend the cabinet secretary’s efforts to resist those possibilities.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2012; c 7787.]
I am happy to repeat that endorsement now, just as I am happy to commend those who might have wanted to lodge amendments for not doing so. Lodging amendments would have been a great mistake, and I will explain why.
As has been said, we all know that the situation between landlords and tenants is at a delicate stage. It would take little by way of an uninformed intervention by politicians to upset it. I say that in the full knowledge that a time might well come when someone feels that the situation must be upset or that they need to intervene, but that time is most assuredly not now.
Members might well ask why I say that. I say it simply because I agree with the cabinet secretary that progress is being made. It is better progress than I have ever witnessed in the Parliament’s lifetime. As responsible politicians, we must do everything in our power to support, encourage and sustain that progress if we are to bring about what we all want in our country’s national agricultural framework—a genuinely vibrant tenanted sector in which trust is restored and in which both sides can have confidence in each other.
Perhaps the member might agree that the possible amendments on nephews and nieces—they certainly were not rumours—that some members considered lodging at stage 2 were not ill informed, but that they were not lodged because of respect for and sensitivities in relation to the tenant farming forum. Those amendments were not considered not to be appropriate provisions that might go forward in the future to give new entrants more opportunity.
I hope that the member accepts that I was being as gentle as I always try to be in debates in the chamber. I was very aware of the possibility that amendments would be lodged and I hope that she accepts that I commended her and others indirectly for not lodging amendments, for the reasons that I just gave.
Trust and confidence already exist in much of the tenanted sector. I was really pleased to hear the cabinet secretary acknowledge that in reply to Rob Gibson’s question this morning. It is a fact—even if some seek to deny it—that most landlords and tenants in the agricultural sector get on quite well and have a mutually beneficial relationship.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will give way if I can have some time, Presiding Officer.
I see the train of the member’s argument about good relations, which I welcome. Does he agree that good relations occur more often in smaller estates than in larger ones?
I will answer that better when we as the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee have seen a number of those relationships across Scotland—the member was right to call for that this morning and I commend him for that. If he will forgive me, I will not answer his question at the moment, but I will bear it in the open mind that I always have on such issues, as I am sure that he would concede.
The problems of which we are all made aware all too often on the pages of the farming press—almost weekly at the moment—are largely at the extremes of the debate. It is absolutely right to address them, which is why I am pleased to note the great progress that is being made in the tenant farming forum. I have said before that my party will support any measures that are agreed through that forum, because we believe—in the words of the great and one and only Winston Churchill—that
“To jaw-jaw is ... better than to war-war.”
Talking through the issues, negotiating the way forward and agreeing the outcome might take longer than imposing legislation, but it must be the best way forward if we are to maintain the progress that has been made. I hope that we all agree on that, for the time being at least.
The legislation that is before us today is essentially, as other members have said, to tidy up the previous legislation, and it will of course have our support at decision time. The sections that relate to VAT and rent reviews are to be welcomed, and I am happy to join other members in warmly welcoming NFU Scotland’s announcement this very morning that it has established a short-life working group to consider specific aspects of rent review procedures in Scotland. It is worth noting publicly that that announcement was made on behalf of the tenant farming forum.
That is yet more progress, which I am sure that we all applaud. I endorse the comments that have been made about the four individual members of the short-life working group, who are hugely respected throughout the agricultural world.
I have one reservation that concerns the issue of retrospective legislation. At stage 2, I had a discussion with the cabinet secretary about what I believe is a retrospective element of the bill. The cabinet secretary said:
“Therefore, section 1 will now also cover circumstances in which the death of the tenant farmer occurs before the bill comes into force but the process of acquisition by the successor is not complete.”
We then, if I may say so, added a touch of pantomime to the proceedings, if the Official Report is to be believed—and of course it should be—along the lines that I said that the bill is retrospective, the cabinet secretary said that it is not; I said that it is, and he said that it is not.
My final comment was:
“So there is a retrospective element to it”.
The cabinet secretary responded:
“In respect of the circumstances that lead to the notice to quit, but not in respect of the actual notice to quit.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 9 May 2012; c 922, 924.]
In anybody’s language, I think that that is a yes.
I raise that issue not because I intend to oppose the bill, as I do not, but because I think that the bill has a retrospective element to it that has the potential to damage the confidence that is slowly but surely being rebuilt through the TFF’s efforts. It would be a pity if that happened.
Time does not allow me to expand at this stage—I am sure that the Presiding Officer is about to remind me of that—but I may return to that topic in my closing speech.
I finish simply by stating that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill, and that we welcome it and look forward to its passage later on today.
We come to the open debate. Although the debate is short, I can give members speeches of up to five minutes.
16:07
I am pleased to speak in the stage 3 debate on the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. As the deputy convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I am pleased to have been involved, along with my fellow committee members, in scrutinising and debating the bill as it has gone through the legislative process.
The bill sets forth just three short provisions. However, as members have said, those provisions are important not just in themselves but because they are a signal that all the key players in the sector are prepared to work together via the tenant farming forum and in partnership with the Scottish Government, which is a point that was well made by my committee colleague Alex Fergusson. It is a tribute to the work of the tenant farming forum in particular that we have reached this point. The work of the forum has focused on making progress on a number of issues that are addressed in the bill and will facilitate a greater degree of legislative protection for tenant farmers. We will therefore, it is hoped, have a more vibrant tenant farming sector as a result.
The bill extends the definition of “near relative” to include grandchildren of the tenant. In practice, that will mean that there is a wider group of people who will enjoy some protection at least on the death of the tenant with regard to the succession to the tenancy. It is hoped that that will assist new—and perhaps younger—entrants to get a start in the tenant farming sector.
As the cabinet secretary mentioned, the Scottish Government lodged an amendment that responded to the committee’s concerns such that the provision will have an impact, notwithstanding the fact that the tenant may have died before the bill comes into effect, in circumstances in which the relevant counter-notice has not been served until after the bill comes into force. I listened carefully to what Alex Fergusson said about retrospection, as I did in the committee at stage 2. I do not think that there is a case of retrospection. That view is shared not just by the cabinet secretary but by Scott Walker, the chief executive of NFUS—I hope that that is of assistance to Alex Fergusson.
Another key element in the bill is the clarification that it provides, further to recent case law, that a variation in VAT will not in itself be deemed to be a variation in rent. That is important, because there could have been a negative impact on the three-yearly rent review cycle. The amendment was sought by the industry and delivered in the bill.
The specific issues that are dealt with in the bill are of great importance and merit our legislative attention but, as members said, during the process it has very much been the case that the elephant has been outside the room, because a parallel debate is going on about a series of significant issues that require to be looked at and resolved. Many such issues were raised in the evidence that the committee took, and it is important that they will be the subject of further deliberation.
I particularly welcome the rent review special ad hoc working group that is to be set up. I commend the efforts of everyone who has been involved in getting to this stage, because the issue is a thorny one, which arises in particular but not exclusively from the difficulties in relation to the recent Moonzie judgment. I also welcome the fact that a series of issues will be considered, many of which have been mentioned in the debate.
We also need to consider dispute resolution. Scotland has set up an excellent arbitration system, which could provide invaluable assistance in the area by negating the need to go to the Scottish Land Court, which is expensive and extremely time consuming.
The bill will do much to improve the position of tenants, while respecting landlords’ rights. There is a real debate ahead of us and I hope that the committee will be able to play a constructive part in the process.
16:12
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate.
When I spoke in the—fairly recent—stage 1 debate on the bill, I said that the bill’s main aims were to create a better environment for the letting of farmland to the tenant farming sector of the agricultural industry and to encourage new entrants into tenant farming. I was part of the delegation that visited Bute and I have visited farms on the mainland, so I now have a much better understanding of the issues that face the sector. I have spoken to several tenant farmers, who identified the two main issues arising from the bill as the amendment of the definition of “near relative” and the prevention of certain restrictions in relation to rent reviews in limited duration tenancies.
I note that there was no change in the definition of “near relative” at stage 2. The definition still includes grandchildren as well as a surviving spouse, civil partner or natural or adopted child, but it has not been widened. I still agree with the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association and NFU Scotland, which want the definition to be widened. The STFA said in evidence to the committee that it wanted the definition
“to be extended beyond a grandchild to include nephews and nieces”,
and the NFUS noted:
“It seems a little bit strange that, during your lifetime, you can assign a tenancy to a wider class of people, yet, at the point of your death, it is restricted to certain categories.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 18 January 2012; c 520, 522.]
Scottish Land & Estates expressed fear that extending the definition could destabilise the balance of rights between landlords and tenants and reduce the flexibility of the landlord. That is a valid point.
One farmer I spoke to recently took over the farm from his uncle as none of the uncle’s close family members wanted to take up the reins. It seems unfortunate that, if the farmer had died without assigning the farm to his nephew, the family would have lost out although it was clear that the nephew wanted to take over the farm and had a genuine interest in it. The nephew would not have been able to succeed to the farm and he would have lost out on that opportunity—and the farming community would have lost out on a new young entrant to the industry.
That is an important theme and the tenant farming forum has agreed to look at extending the definition of “near relative”. I remind the member that this bill is about extra protection for near relatives. In theory, anyone can inherit or be assigned a tenancy. The point here is that there will be extra protection should a notice be served by a landlord.
It seems odd that the farm can be assigned to anyone while the farmer is alive, yet at the point of death it can be passed only to a select few who might not have any interest in continuing the business, with the result that the farm reverts to the landlord.
There was also widespread support for the provision on rent reviews. The STFA argued in its written evidence that
“This proposal will remove the disadvantage felt by tenants finding themselves in a position of weakness when negotiating the terms of a lease in a sellers market and having to agree to such conditions.”
Tenants expressed many concerns about the current process for conducting rent reviews—including the formula for calculating the appropriate rental levels for farms. Many thought that, even though the process was set out well in legislation and guidance, in practice it did not always work out that way. Others considered that further work was required—including an agreed process for conducting reviews and the establishment of a set formula for calculating rent reviews to remove the uncertainty and stress over when reviews will take place. This amendment will go some way towards tackling that issue, but there is still work to be done.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement that a working group will be set up to look at rent reviews. Ideally, landlords need to be confident to let and tenants need to be confident to invest. There are still many issues to be addressed if we are to improve the relationship between landlords and tenants, to ensure that farmers and landlords can go about their essential business, and attract new entrants into the farming sector.
16:17
Other members have detailed the modest achievements of this small bill. It brings to an end a series of reforms that could be delivered through secondary legislation, but the points that we are debating are being delivered through this bill. I hope that it gets passed.
The committee believes that the bill makes necessary—albeit modest—changes to agricultural tenancy law. However, as the evidence from stakeholders and the Scottish Government has demonstrated, there is still much work to be done to improve the law further and to address the recent trend of the decline in the number of agricultural tenancies in order to make more land available for rent and to encourage a greater number of new and younger entrants into farming.
The figures show a drop in the number of secure tenancies from a 2005 figure of 7,172 to a 2011 figure of 6,048. The numbers of short limited duration tenancies and limited duration tenancies increased in the same period. The fact that land is now being let for shorter lengths of time will be detrimental to farming in the long term, because tenants will not invest as they can if they have a longer lease. We will investigate the reasons for that further. When we take evidence on the ground, we may find that there are many farmers who wish to invest as tenants but who find certain barriers in place.
We should take into account the fact that tenant farming has now reached the point of having the European convention on human rights used to determine a case, as in Salvesen v Riddell. That expresses the right of people to enjoy their right to private property, but it also expresses the general interest to have land and other property used well. At the next stage in the process, we have to consider the general interest in Scotland to have more secure and sustainable farms of a tenanted and owned nature. Unless we are able to move to that position, through the application of the ECHR, that argument will be used against the development of farming in Scotland, as the case of Salvesen v Riddell shows. We await the outcome of the case in the Supreme Court, when the Lord Advocate takes it there next year.
That raises the issue that it takes a great deal of time to reach decisions. It has taken more than seven years to reach the point at which we have this modest bill. There are many things to be done, and I welcome the timetable that the cabinet secretary has laid out for rent reviews and suggest that, if we are going to enable tenants to move forward, the tenant farming forum must achieve answers far more quickly.
I mentioned the needs of young entrants into farming. There was some argument about whether 40 was a reasonable age for someone to be considered a new entrant, given that people are living longer. We think that new entrants could be older than that.
The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has just received a response to a submission that we made on the future of the common agricultural policy. Commissioner Dacian Ciolos wrote:
“The Commission is mindful of your concerns about new entrants and the 2011 eligibility rule. The legal proposal limits access to entitlements in 2014 to beneficiaries of the Single Payment Scheme or the Single Area Payment Scheme in respect of claim year 2011 to avoid potential negative distortions of the land markets. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that young farmers are a priority group of new entrants. That is why support during the early years is proposed through the young farmers’ scheme and to allocate entitlements from the national reserve to this group as a priority. If Scotland considers that the allocation of entitlements to all new entrants is important in areas where there is a risk of land abandonment or in areas with specific disadvantages, it could consider using the national reserve.”
I very much welcome that debate being firmed up. At the moment, the offers of land that are made by landlords to tenants are often of a five-year nature—the short limited duration tenancy. I do not believe that new entrants can make a start in farming if that is the only option that they have. We must consider those issues.
I welcome the bill, but I suggest that there is much more work to do.
16:23
I thank Rob Gibson for setting the scene for my speech. The use of, access to and ownership of land are subjects that are bound to generate substantial interest and concern. I am supportive of the measures in the bill. I recognise, like others, that the bill ties up some loose ends that were created by the 1991 and 2003 acts, which is to be welcomed.
The cabinet secretary has already covered what the bill is designed to do, so I will avoid going over the same ground. The scope of the bill is extremely narrow and it does not impact on some of the issues that continue to affect tenant farmers—certainly those to whom I have spoken in the south of Scotland. Issues such as dispute resolution, waygo payments and the establishment of a code of conduct are yet to be resolved. The issues of investment in holdings and waygo payments are important ones.
In its report, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee urged the Scottish Government to re-examine the issue of investment in holdings so that tenant farmers and landowners could have clarity about their responsibilities with regard to what they should be paying for and when such payments should be made. The committee also reported that clarity is urgently needed regarding the compensation that is paid to outgoing or retiring tenants in recognition of the investment that they have made to their holding during their tenancy.
Moves to establish a code of conduct for land agents would be a welcome step. During the evidence gathering for the bill, the committee heard concerns about inconsistencies in the behaviour and conduct of some land agents. Although the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Scotland issued rigorous guidance for its agents, not all land agents are members of the RICS. The committee recognised the tension and conflict that can arise in relationships between land agents and tenants and, as a consequence, recommended that a code of practice for the industry be developed and that the Scottish Government should monitor the development of the code to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
When there is conflict, effective dispute resolution is required. Although I agree with Alex Fergusson’s point about “jaw-jaw”, time is of the essence and, given the age profile of those who currently engage in farming, we need to attract young people to the industry now. Many organisations that gave evidence to the committee testified that alternatives are needed to the Scottish Land Court as a means of resolving disputes. As a consequence, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government work with the tenant farming forum to introduce proposals for improving dispute resolution as a matter of urgency.
Much of the best practice in Scotland in the arena of land ownership relies on personal relationships and good people doing the right thing by one another, rather than well-considered structures and systems. Such systems are designed to support people who do a difficult job in an important industry on which Scotland relies. The absence of dependability in the area ensures that those who engage in financing and supporting farming in Scotland—the banks and other institutions—find it difficult to provide finance for prospective tenants who are interested in developing farming for the future.
I welcome the bill and the cabinet secretary’s announcement this morning of the creation of a new group on rent reviews that will report to the tenant farming forum. I urge the Scottish Government to introduce additional measures as soon as possible to address the significant remaining challenges that face tenant farmers and the industry in general. Until we can attract young people into the industry and prove that it has a future, we will always find it difficult to support those who work so hard on our behalf, day and night for 52 weeks of the year.
16:28
Four and a half months ago, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee held a stakeholder event as part of its consideration of the bill. In the main, it was a fairly consensual meeting, until the latter stages, when the convener—innocently, it should be said—invited brief closing comments from participants. That kicked off a debate on the issue of dispute resolution that, well, kicked off. There was a clear fault line running through the apparent consensus on the bill.
Although there appeared to be majority support for implementing the succession provision in the bill immediately, the majority of stakeholders were prepared to let that go in the interests of keeping Scottish Land & Estates on side. It was clear from the evidence that the STFA and the NFUS favoured further widening the definition of the term “near relative” but, again, in the interests of keeping the peace, SLE’s opposition, which was based on a fear that such a move might destabilise the balance of rights between landlords and tenants, was respected.
The fact that SLE subsequently accepted that its fears about setting a retrospective precedent were unfounded, which led to the Scottish Government amending the original proposal, might have led one to think that a relative calm would descend on the agriculture industry—or as calm as it gets with the CAP renewal process under way. After all, there had been give and take on both sides. However, then came the Moonzie ruling, and for agriculture, we could read agro-culture, or so it seemed.
Among other things, the Moonzie ruling brought back into focus the thorny issue of dispute resolution. Over the past few months, long-standing underlying tensions have come to the fore, with claim and counterclaim—not to mention bulging e-mail inboxes for Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee members, and even more so for the cabinet secretary, I suspect.
Today’s news, which others have referred to, that the TFF has established an independent specialist short-life working group to consider agricultural rent review procedures in Scotland is therefore extremely welcome. It was particularly encouraging to read in the press release that the STFA issued on the matter that its chairman Angus McCall has hailed the four-member rent review working group as having
“a wide range of technical knowledge and practical experience”.
I hope that Scottish Land & Estates will be as welcoming of the development. I am sure that it will be, as that offers the possibility that a way out of the present situation will be found.
The progress that this Parliament is making to furnish Scotland with a legislatively protected and vibrant tenanted sector, while safeguarding the rights of the landowning sector, has been achieved only by Government working closely with the industry. The fact that the cabinet secretary has formally endorsed the setting up of, and provided funding for, the RRWG is further evidence that governmental commitment remains as strong as ever. However, if the industry becomes riven by internal dispute, it becomes difficult to maintain the momentum that has been created or to tackle important associated issues.
From an objective standpoint, it strikes me that neither side is entirely wrong or right in the situation that has developed. For example, it is nonsense to suggest, as some have, that there is little or no evidence of landowners seeking to capitalise on the Moonzie judgment. Equally, claims of demands for massive percentage increases in rent, while perhaps factually accurate, do not always tell the full story. At face value, demands for rent rises of up to 50 per cent are excessive, if not outrageous, but the facts behind the headline claim can paint a different picture.
While attending an industry event the other week, I met a land agent who told me of a call that he took from an estate-owning client, who advised him of his intention to demand a 50 per cent hike in rent from one of his tenant farmers. The agent was a little disquieted by the plan, owing to the controversy and adverse publicity that such increases had been attracting. However, it emerged from the discussion that the estate owner had not increased the rent for the best part of two decades, and at £3,300 per annum the tenant farmer was paying less for their 100 acres and associated buildings than the amount for which individual cottages elsewhere on the estate were being rented out. I highlight that case not as a defence of landowners per se but simply to illustrate my point.
The bill is a step in the right direction as we seek to secure a fairer, better balanced farming sector. I welcome the commitment of the Government to consider, within 18 months of the legislation coming into force, the impact of the changes in it and, in particular, how effective they have been in attracting new entrants and in helping the tenanted sector.
The bill was born of consensus being secured, and it was successfully progressed by there being respect for proceeding in a manner that would not risk unintended consequences. I hope that that sets a trend for further development of land legislation because, as the cabinet secretary indicated, this is not the final chapter in the story.
16:33
I start by declaring a farming interest and by noting that I am a past director of the NFUS. I therefore welcome the chance to speak in the debate.
Much has been said about encouraging new entrants and young people into farming. It is clear from evidence, and it is my experience, that we need a vibrant tenancy market to give access to the limited supply of farming land. As is often said, they are just not making land anymore. New entrants to farming would find it very difficult to find the capital to buy land, so the only real gateway into agriculture is via land that is let.
The bill goes a small but significant way towards addressing some anomalies, and I hope that, through the work of the tenant farming forum, we will go a long way towards addressing the question of the trust that needs to be injected back into the letting market. Indeed, as Rob Gibson said, from 2005 to 2011 there was a 10 per cent drop in the number of holdings. That was due perhaps to holdings getting bigger or perhaps to more landlords taking more land in hand to manage, and therein lies one problem—as we found out in committee, we are data deficient. It would be good if the minister addressed that point.
The trust that I am talking about is addressed in section 1. It extends the rights of succession, which will now cover surviving spouse, civil partner, child or grandchild. An issue that was much debated was who else rights of succession could be extended to—for example, could they be extended to the father or a cousin of a deceased tenant? The relevant provision had been agreed on by the tenant farming forum, with the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, the NFUS and Scottish Land & Estates agreeing that it was the way forward. Therefore, I think that it was wise, for the sake of maintaining trust and because of the willingness that existed to address other issues in Scottish land tenancies, to move ahead on the basis of the TFF’s agreed recommendation.
The committee agreed that the Government should look at further extending succession rights in the future. I agree that that should be done, but it is essential that we bring the whole industry—which includes landlords, tenants and potential future tenants—with us on the issue.
As an aside, I believe that some remarks that have been made on an absolute right to buy have not been helpful, and I would welcome an assurance from the cabinet secretary on the matter when he sums up.
The position of the committee on section 3, on VAT, was fully consensual.
In committee, I found it surprising that upward-only rent reviews and landlord-only rent reviews existed, but I was assured that they were not common. Nevertheless, I welcome the bill’s tidying up of the existing legislation.
Transitional provisions have been a matter of concern. Unfortunately, there will be winners and losers, as always happens when a change in the law is made, depending on which side of the set dates someone falls. There was a willingness to look at retrospective legislation, but it was clear from legal advice that that could create legal difficulties. The Government’s amendment to section 4 has gone a little way towards addressing that within the existing legal framework.
Although the bill is small, it is extremely important. It has been designed to tidy up existing legislation, and I hope that it goes a long way towards developing trust in the letting market in Scotland, which, as I mentioned, is much needed. There is still work to be done—I am committed to helping with that process—if we are to see a vibrant letting market that will benefit tenants and those who wish to enter the farming industry, which is the backbone of rural Scotland.
We support the bill and we support further work on tenancies. We should recognise the hard work of everyone who is involved in the TFF, and we should wish it well with the rent review group that it announced this morning.
We come to the closing speeches. I remind the chamber that members who have participated in a debate should be in the chamber for the closing speeches.
16:37
I am not sure that I am capable of making my closing speech, because I am still in shock at Annabelle Ewing’s making an entirely consensual speech. That is a wonderful landmark for the chamber, and I encourage her to follow up on it in the future. I hope that she and I are in as much agreement the next time we discuss agricultural holdings as we are this afternoon.
All that I can suggest is that perhaps the member has not been in the chamber often enough when I have spoken in the past.
I am delighted to hear that it is not a first.
Having listened carefully to the content of the debate, I seek to remember that we are debating the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, the purpose of which is to do exactly what it says on the tin—to amend the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991.
It is worth noting, as the cabinet secretary and Rob Gibson have done, that the bill would not have come before us at all if it had been possible for the tenant farming forum’s agreed proposals to be dealt with in their entirety through secondary legislation. Most of them were but, for the legal reasons that we now know about, the changes to the definition of “near relative” and to the provisions relating to rent review required primary legislation. In addition, the opportunity was taken—very sensibly, in my view—to introduce a third technical change, to ensure that a VAT change should not count as a variation of rent.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill, as I made clear in my opening speech, when I also made plain my reservations about its retrospective element, on which I guess that we will simply not agree. I hear what Annabelle Ewing said, and I very much respect her views as a member of the legal profession, but I must hold firm to the view that there is a strong argument to be made that the whole bill is retrospective in nature.
When the bill is enacted it will change the contractual terms that were agreed between two parties when they entered into a lease agreement at some point in the past—full stop. I am sorry but if that is not retrospective, I do not know what is. No matter—as I said, I do not seek to oppose the bill. I fully accept on this occasion that it will impact on only a very few people. For that reason, I am more than content not to seek to oppose it, just as I was at stage 2. However, I repeat my reservation that, in principle, retrospective legislation—no matter how it is dressed up—can undermine confidence in any sector and so should be avoided whenever possible.
Other than that, the bill is eminently sensible. I repeat my commendation of those who might have wanted to broaden its impact but chose not to do so at this stage. I hope that that is the message that, with the passing of the bill, will go out to all sides in the debate. I think that Annabelle Ewing referred to that in her speech. Our message should be: “Keep working together and keep making progress together, and the Parliament will fully support your endeavours.”
Much of the debate has been about what remains to be done to address outstanding issues. I argue that that is a debate for the future, although given some of the comments that have been made this afternoon, I foresee a rather more robust debate next time around.
I end by again following the example of my colleague Jamie McGrigor, so I will quote myself when I wound up in the stage 1 debate, when I finished by saying:
“The way to success is surely through agreement in and through the tenant farming forum. Anything that is imposed from outside, be it by Government, by Parliament, by committee or by any other body, will simply extend the current difficult situation. Frankly, that would do nobody any good at all.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2012; c 7787.]
At this stage, I very much welcome the bill.
16:41
I am pleased to be giving a closing speech in this debate.
As members have highlighted, the Agriculture Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is a slim piece of legislation. The Scottish Government responded to concerns that were expressed at stage 2 about the transitional arrangements, so the bill has had a smooth passage this afternoon.
The committee’s stage 1 report included calls for the bill to go further on the definition of “near relative”. In evidence to the committee, the STFA told us that part of the response to concerns about an ageing farming population and the need to encourage and support new entrants could be the extension of who qualifies as a near relative. However, the debate took place against a complex background so that, on balance, it seemed better to consider the broader issues in more detail and more comprehensively. In pursuing that route we need to be confident that there will be solutions, that the partners, regardless of their wealth or status, will be treated equally and that we will achieve an improved set of circumstances for tenant farmers. I thought that Graeme Dey gave an insightful analysis of the relationships involved.
There is broad agreement that a vibrant tenant sector is key to the future of farming if it is to survive as an industry. Although we can point to good examples, greater clarity is required on some issues. I understand those who say that their relationship is fine and that they just need to be left to get on with it. However, as the STFA proposal on near relatives highlighted, we need to think about future generations and their opportunities, which can best be achieved by a tenant farming sector that meets modern expectations. Certainly, wherever there is best practice, we need to learn from it. As new entrants struggle to find farming tenancies, it is more important than ever that we encourage collaboration between landowners and prospective and existing tenants from a basis that is fair to all parties.
It was clear from the evidence that the committee took and from my discussions with stakeholders that the bill is fine as far as it goes, but that there are many more issues that need to be addressed. That has been reflected in the debate, in which many members, including Margaret McDougall, have highlighted the pressures that farmers in their regions have explained to them. That is not to fail to recognise that there are many long-standing, stable, positive relationships between tenants and landowners, but even within such relationships there is often a need for greater transparency and clarity, particularly in light of recent court cases.
Last November, the NFUS held a briefing for MSPs in which many of the issues that members have highlighted were discussed. Since then, greater pressure has been applied by the outcome of the Moonzie case, which has led to uncertainty over rent reviews. The decision left the sector feeling vulnerable.
Along with other members, I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement today on the membership of the independent expert working group on rent reviews. It is heartening that the tenant farming forum is, as a wide group, showing willingness to deal with the problem, and that it is supporting the four members of the group. We cannot underestimate the challenge that the group faces in exploring the determining factors of a rent review, and it will do that against a backdrop of a legal decision that has moved the goal posts.
There is a pressing need to provide clarity and stability to the process, as it can be ill-defined and can lead to disputes, which ultimately sour relationships and make tenancies untenable. The group is dealing with complex problems and it is working to tight timescales. I wish it well in its work and I look forward to the outcome with interest.
Members have highlighted a number of other areas that the tenant farming forum is proceeding with as an agreed set of priorities. Annabelle Ewing highlighted the call for an arbitration system. Although the Scottish Land Court plays a valuable role, there is a need for a simpler, cheaper option that offers dispute resolution. The issue is about building and increasing trust in the system.
The forum will also look at the practicalities of a code of practice. That will address some of the issues that Graeme Pearson raised. Many landowners employ an agent to act on their behalf when dealing with tenants. That is an example of the shifting nature of tenant and landowner relationships—they are moving away from the more personal towards the increasingly professional. In that context, there is an argument that a robust code of practice is needed. The code could include the period of a rent review and what it would cover, which would cross over with some of the work that is being undertaken by the expert group.
A few members raised the issue of waygo compensation. That is often an area of dispute and the uncertainty about what will be recognised leads to a reluctance to invest, which, ultimately, is not good for the tenant or the landlord. There needs to be greater transparency and a better understanding of expectations in relation to how decisions will be made on apportioning assets that may have deteriorated, or assets that may have improved the tenancy.
As Claudia Beamish highlighted at stage 1, we also received representation from RSPB Scotland on its proposals for conservation tenancies. Such tenancies could help it to let more land and overcome some of the obstacles that it and other non-governmental organisations face in trying to let land. The cabinet secretary may want to respond to those points in his closing speech.
It is crucial that we promote an environment that supports long-term letting and gives confidence to the sector. As Rob Gibson highlighted, the current situation is leading to reports of increasingly short-term letting due to uncertainty. That can only mean less investment in farming by tenants and landlords, which will lead to less productivity in and less security for the Scottish farming sector.
The bill will make a small contribution towards resolving those issues, but, in some ways, it has been overtaken by events. The work of the independent expert working group and the tenant farming forum is crucial in pointing to the way forward, but over the next few months we cannot underestimate the challenging questions that there will be for the forum and its partners to answer, nor the complexity of the Parliament’s response. Today’s work may be finished, but we still have a task ahead of us.
I call Richard Lochhead to wind up the debate. You have until 5 o’clock, cabinet secretary.
16:48
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer—you are very generous.
It has been an honour to pilot bills through Parliament previously, but this is the first stage 3 debate in which I have had no amendments to deal with. In that regard, it has been an unusual day. However, I expect that one of the reasons why there have not been stage 3 amendments is—as has been acknowledged by many members—the complexity and sensitivity of some of the issues that we are discussing. I have certainly discovered that this particular aspect of my portfolio is a very difficult one to deal with.
We are dealing with many different circumstances right across the tenancy sector in Scotland, and what may appear to be solutions to some of the genuine struggles, difficulties and challenges in some sectors of tenant farming can cause other problems for other parts of the same sector. I therefore welcome the fact that all parties have recognised the clear challenges. I think that we all have, ultimately, the same objective, which is to create a healthy tenanted sector that offers protection to tenants and security of tenure, while acknowledging that there are two contracting parties in every commercial agreement. However, because we are dealing with land there are extra challenges and sensitivities, and we have to be wary of where the power lies in that relationship, which is why so much regulation applies to tenant farming and agricultural holdings.
We have to recognise that not all landowners in Scotland are as benign and cuddly as Alex Fergusson claims to be; we have a number of unscrupulous and immoral landlords. We are not saying that all landlords are unscrupulous and immoral, but we need legislation that copes with extreme circumstances if we are to prevent a very empowered but unbalanced relationship in tenancy arrangements in some parts of Scotland. We all know from harrowing cases that our constituents have brought to us—I say this as an MSP who has had to deal with a number of such cases, as, I am sure, many other members have—that there are extreme cases in Scotland.
Unfortunately, some landowners do not see their role as being to ensure that their land is producing food or to ensure that there is environmental protection to safeguard biodiversity, and nor do they see that they have a role in relation to the people who live on their land. They do not go out of their way to attract new blood into agriculture. As Mr Pearson and many other members said, it is a national interest; we must attract people into agriculture in order to secure the nation’s future. There are people out there who are not doing that and who could do a lot more. It is important to recognise that.
I am proud that the Government has taken the issue seriously. Since 2007, we have, of course, recognised that to attract new entrants into agriculture, there must be access to land. We were, for example, the first Administration to introduce a dedicated new entrant scheme to help people to deal with some of the challenges that new entrants face. Some 65 new entrants have benefited from support to the tune of over £1 million that has been available under the SRDP.
The Administration tasked the tenant farming forum with identifying the barriers to entry, and asked it to propose solutions to help new blood to get into agriculture. In the previous session, we legislated on five of the TFF’s recommendations; today, of course, we are legislating on the remainder of them. That means that we have acted on all the recommendations for required legislation that the TFF brought forward two or three years ago.
We have done more, of course: we have worked with the Forestry Commission Scotland to create new tenancies. That initiative has been very successful, and I am looking forward to handing over the keys, so to speak, to new tenants in a couple of weeks. A number of people from right across Scotland applied for the few tenancies that were available. Therefore, there is demand out there, and we have to investigate new opportunities.
I am interested in how the RSPB and other large landowners in Scotland can create new tenancies, whether they are conservation tenancies, which Claudia Beamish mentioned, or other tenancies. I am happy to investigate what we can do to support the NGOs and other landowners in going down that road.
We have also introduced new advisory services and higher rates of support for new entrants who apply to take part in some existing schemes elsewhere in the rural development programme, and we will, of course, do much more. We will establish a new entrants panel, host a new entrants summit and work with the TFF on its workstream, which will address dispute resolution, waygo compensation and other issues that many members have addressed. We gave a commitment in our manifesto to review all agricultural holdings legislation within 18 months of the bill’s being passed.
We must recognise that the number of tenancies in Scotland is in decline, but that is a common problem throughout these islands and, indeed, throughout the whole of Europe. The problem is not Scotland specific, but we must find Scottish solutions to some of the challenges that we face.
On the scale of the challenge, I think that I inadvertently said in my opening remarks that the European commissioner said that 17 per cent of farmers in Europe are under the age of 35. I should have said 7 per cent. That shows the scale of the problem that we face right across Europe in attracting a new generation of farmers to be active in our respective countries.
The debate has demonstrated, as previous parliamentary consideration of the bill did, that the issue is only one part of a much bigger jigsaw. More work will need to be undertaken if we are to make progress on the journey for Scotland to have a vibrant tenant farming sector. Nevertheless, the bill’s successful passage through Parliament demonstrates that we are making progress. There is widespread recognition that it is in everybody’s interests that tenant farmers and their landlords succeed.
I enjoyed working on the bill with the parliamentary committee at stages 1 and 2 and am grateful for its smooth transition through stage 3. I also thank my officials. The bill is short, but, given its complexities, the mental challenge that is involved with it is equivalent to that for a much larger bill.
We all know that, on its own, the bill will not change the world, but it is part of a bigger picture that will enable the Scottish tenant farming sector to become more sustainable, progressive and fit for the future. The passage of the bill lays the foundations on which we can build a new future. We can then move on to tackle other issues that could stand in the way of our securing a vibrant tenant farming sector: many members have highlighted such issues. We all know what they are and they have been rehearsed in the chamber today and in recent months and years.
Rent reviews are a crucial area, as are repair or replacement of equipment, investment holdings, waygo, diversification, assignation, and succession. There is no doubt that they are tricky issues, but I am confident that the planned workstreams will deliver on time and will feed into the future review of agricultural holdings legislation that we have committed to in our manifesto.
I take this opportunity to thank the members of the TFF and the other stakeholders for the interest that they have shown in helping us to get the bill through the parliamentary stages. Everyone is in a better place as a result, and it allows us to draw a line in the sand and move on to deal with other issues.
As I have said, the bill is part of a bigger picture of supporting the future of Scottish agriculture. Scotland has been shaped by agriculture for centuries. We owe the vibrancy of our rural communities, the unparalleled beauty of our landscapes, the food that is on our plates and the wildlife that is in our countryside to our farmers. For centuries, tenant farming has played an irreplaceable role in that rich farming tapestry.
To be a farmer today, a person needs many things. They need access to capital. Unless someone is lucky enough to be a millionaire, that probably means access to a combination of loans and Government support. They need to have the right training and skills for their chosen enterprise, whether it be traditional shepherding in the hills or high-tech precision farming with the most modern equipment. They need to have a policy framework that puts them on a level playing field with all other farmers. That has been a hard thing to deliver recently. However, progress is finally being made with the CAP negotiations that are now in full swing in Brussels. I have said time and again that a big priority for Scotland is to stop basing support today for what people are doing on what they were doing 10 years ago when new entrants or active people might not get any support whatever. We must move on from that system to a better system that rewards active farmers and new entrants.
A farmer needs to have the business acumen to succeed in an increasingly competitive commercial environment. They also need the determination and grit to make a go of it against the odds in one of the toughest jobs anywhere in the world.
The most fundamental need for a farmer is access to land. Land is, quite simply, the key to the entire farming sector. It always has been and, no doubt, it always will be. That is why tenant farming legislation is not some obscure backwater legislation; it is crucial to the farming industry today and it will be in the future. It is the key to the door of an entire sector of our nation’s economy. Tenant farmers represent one third of the farming sector and tenant farming allows thousands of families to play their part in rural life. It is the glue that holds rural Scotland together, and I am glad to be able to say that Parliament can be proud of the role that it has played during the past few years to support such a vital sector and Scottish institution.
We all appreciate that regulating arrangements between individuals or businesses is fraught with difficulty, as we have discussed today, but the stakeholders, meeting as the tenant farming forum, have found much consensus. The Government, working with the TFF, has found ways of implementing its recommendations, and Parliament has played its part by putting together a modern legislative framework for the 21st century. I therefore ask Parliament to join me in thanking the TFF for all that has been achieved so far and I urge the TFF to spare no effort in addressing, in the coming months, the issues I mentioned earlier.
Scottish agriculture is at the heart of our nation and tenant farming is at the heart of agriculture. I ask all members to value our land, our countryside and our way of life, and to join me in helping tenant farming towards a brighter future. With the bill, we can pass an important milestone on that important journey. I commend the bill to Parliament.
Before we come to decision time, I remind members that we have the business in the Parliament event tonight. I look forward to welcoming as many MSPs as possible to the event tonight, which promises to be a fantastic dinner. I have just seen the garden lobby and it is looking absolutely spectacular.
We then have the business in the Parliament conference tomorrow, and I look forward to welcoming as many members to that as wish to take part.
That concludes our consideration of the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.