Responses to Land Reform (Scotland) Bill:
NFUS, SLF and Charles Connell

(filed 6/2/03)

This Bill has now been passed by the Scottish Parliament, the vote being largely a political one according to party lines, rather than logic. There are two main parts to it:

Matters concerning Access to the Countryside
Tenancies of farms and the Rights to buy land

Access to the Countryside

The remarkable thing here is that this part of the Bill was passed without an Access Code being established: i.e. the political dogma comes before the practical. Apparently the Access Code is to follow with a 12 week period for “consultation”. It is to be noted that after all the previous “consultations” very few changes to the first statement of the then Scottish Office have been made. Indeed, from the aspect of running a farm next an urban settlement the situation is sizeably worse.

Rights to buy land

The extreme stance taken by Alasdair Morrison MSP (Labour) who wanted a right to buy, whether or not the owner was willing to sell it, was rightly dismissed.

Responses by NFUS and by SLF

The responses to the passing of the Bill by the two main bodies involved in the management of land in Scotland are interestingly diverse.

NFUS

The response from the NFUS was practical and consistent with their earlier stance and concentrated on the problems of Access. They emphasised money would need to be channelled into establishing and maintaining a core path network if the right of access to the countryside was to work effectively. The great concern here of course is that it will not be adequately funded and the burden of increased access will fall on the farmer. Thus the NFUS has consistently argued that it is crucial to ensure that access around enclosed farmland is well managed. They have rightly emphasised that the countryside is a place of work as well as recreation. Land managers (as farmers are now called by the Scottish Executive) must be able to continue their work uninhibited, without presenting a danger to the accessing public.

They should have added to their statement the problems with biosecurity on farms (especially livestock farms) and conservation of wildlife.

The NFUS added that they were disappointed in that the issue of liability had not been fully addressed, and that it now looked like it would rest with the courts to determine how a new right of access will be legally implemented. This of course is a bad deal for farmers, as few will have either the time or the resources to pay lawyers to establish such experimental legislation against a well funded majority with no related responsibilities.

The NFUS further emphasised in their response to the passing of the Bill that, once the access code was published, educating access-takers on its contents will be crucial. However, to date virtually no education in this area has taken place. This is a strange Bill indeed, with the law made first, the rules follow and no education about how to basically comply has occurred (and is probably unlikely to using expense as the excuse). We have then a Bill based on political dogma, with little concern about its sensible application.

SLF Response

The response from the SLF is nothing short of remarkable. Previously they prided themselves on taking the lead regarding the land reform debate. Some of their members however were distinctly unhappy about how they were setting about this, but nevertheless trusted them to put their case effectively to the Scottish Office and subsequently to the Scottish Executive. The problems of farmland next urban settlements were emphasised to them repeatedly from a number of quarters within their membership.

However, when it comes to reading their response to the passing of the Bill these problems only get lip service. Thus:

23 January 2003 SLF Press Release (www.slf.org.uk)

ONUS IS NOW ON EXECUTIVE TO MAKE LEGISLATION WORK FAIRLY

The SLF today (Thursday) responded to the passing of the Land Reform Bill by asking the Scottish Executive to ensure that the legislation is implemented fairly.

Robert Balfour, Chairman of the SLF Land reform Task Force said:

“The SLF recognises that the Scottish Parliament has passed this legislation today and that it is a defining moment in the Land Reform process. We are pleased that radical amendments at Stage 3 on right to buy were rejected by the parliament as too extreme. The SLF will be studying very closely the Bill as it is finally passed as we still have concerns regarding public interest issues.

“Across access, community and crofting right to buy, a number of processes have been defined. We are not saying that any of these processes are necessarily unfair or will not work, but we must emphasise the widespread concern about how these conditions will actually operate. The Bill creates new rights and responsibilities which will be tested as the legislation unfolds over the coming months.

“The challenge for the Scottish Executive in implementing this legislation is to demonstrate that these concerns are unjustified and that the assurances of the late Donald Dewar – that good landowners have nothing to fear – were not hollow words.”

The fact that the convener of the SLF, who has only recently retired from that post but continues as chairman of the SLF Land Reform Task Force, has now been appointed to the SNH Board must make some people wonder. Is his appointment an opportunity for the SLF to at last get its message across, or is it that the alliance between the SLF, SNH and the Scottish Executive has mainly been concentrating on what affects the big estate owners most - the community right to buy?

Sadly there is rather too much circumstantial evidence that the latter is the case, including accepting monies from SNH to fund further SLF staff presumably to implement access as SNH sees it. The old saying that “he who pays the piper calls the tune” is probably apt.

In his TV interview following the passing of the Bill, Robert Balfour indicated that work on his estate in relation a core path network (? with fencing) was being paid for by SNH and not by the local authority. Is SNH going to pay for fencing and path maintenance for anyone else, so that livestock farming can operate efficiently and safely within enclosed fields, and the public from the adjacent urban settlement (and their dogs) can have good paths outside these fields? Perhaps it is irrelevant that it is alleged that his estate sold much land for much housing at Glenrothes. Possibly he sees access in a rather different light from a farmer who simply needs to farm and who has not benefited in anyway from the mushroom like growth of urban dwellers on his doorstep - now all hyped up with great aspirations for unfettered access to farmland for their own diverse recreation and for trouble free toilet facilities for their rummaging dogs.

Robert Balfour is now in a key position to resolve these doubts by putting up a strong case for a sensible balance between land management issues (especially round urban communities) and access. Let us hope that he chooses examples of the problems from the farms of SLF members other than his own or that of a previous president. The SLF have previously been reminded that they should not neglect the interests of those of their members who farm land of more average or modest size.

Unfortunately it is remarkably difficult to really know what goes on within the SNH quango, although there are plenty reasons for concern (1, 2, 3).

Charles Connell & Co.

The letter by Mr Charles R Connell published in the Scottish Farmer (1st February 2003) describes the situation well:

Assets and Reform

Sir,

Re land reform and access on enclosed low ground. This company has invested heavily in rural property and food production over 30 years. We view this Act with apprehension in that, in which other industry does the operator lose control over security and his/her assets?

SEERAD extols farmers to enforce biosecurity and develop Countryside Premium and Rural Stewardship Schemes, whilst this Act will allow non-motorised access by day and by night across and around our working assets and stock even up to the tramlines of our crops. The curtilage zone is not enough around livestock buildings and night-time access should not be allowed on enclosed land.

The result will surely be to kill investment in the primary food production industry

CR Connell
Charles Connell and Company
Woodend, Craigallian, Milngavie, Glasgow.

References

1. Editorial Comment. SNH told to think again - This time about hedgehogs.
(Filed 29 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

2. Further concern about SNH advice regarding bats - Kirsty Macleod.
(Filed 23 December 2002, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

3. Irvine, James (2002). Bats and Rabies, No. 1 - First Death from Rabies in the UK for 100 years
(Filed 12 December 2002, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

4. Mitchell, Ian (2002). Scientific Objection to the Designation of the Sound of Barra as a possible Special Area of Conservation. LandCare Scotland, 2: 3-49.
(Filed 19 November 2002, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

MENU

6 February 2003

Responses to Land Reform (Scotland) Bill:
NFUS, SLF and Charles Connell

(filed 6/2/03)

Access to the Countryside

Rights to buy land

Responses by NFUS and by SLF

NFUS

SLF Response

Charles Connell & Co.

References

Further Reading recommended by Land-Care

MENU

6 February 2003

Responses to Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: NFUS, SLF and Charles Connell

(filed 6/2/03)

Access to the Countryside

Rights to buy land

Responses by NFUS and by SLF

NFUS

SLF Response

Charles Connell & Co.

References

Further Reading recommended by Land-Care

Responses to Land Reform (Scotland) Bill:
NFUS, SLF and Charles Connell