Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Farm leaders fear agricultural holdings and land reform could crash

Survey responses must be submitted by October 20
Survey responses must be submitted by October 20

New policy and legislation surrounding land reform and agricultural holdings legislation is at risk of collision or collapse, industry leaders have warned.

Members of the Scottish Agricultural Arbiters and Valuers Association (SAAVA) were told in Edinburgh yesterday that the upcoming Land Reform Bill and proposals outlined by the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group will prove difficult to implement and in some cases contradict each other.

Former NFU Scotland president Nigel Miller warned that unless the detail was right on issues such as determining secure 1991 Act tenancies based on a budget process, and converting 1991 Act tenancies into new 35-year Limited Duration Tenancies, the whole process will crash.

“Basing rent on the earning capacity of the land has to have a robust system and there has to be some sort of dispute resolution,” said Mr Miller, who called for any major changes in rents to be phased in for farmers.

Agricultural lawyer John Mitchell, of Anderson Strathern Solicitors, added that there could be tensions between upcoming changes to modernise succession law and the agricultural holdings legislation proposals.

“There’s a risk that there will be a pressure towards family units being broken up through the succession process,” said Mr Mitchell.

“At present, if land is owned by an individual, they can write family members out of the will. But the proposal is that legal rights will be based on a legal share. The property of a family may be claimed by a spouse or a sibling, even though they have been written out of the will.”

The move to determine 1991 Act tenancy rents based on budgets was likely to result in another high profile court case such as the recent case with John Elliot at Roxburgh Mains, added Mr Mitchell. “If we move to a budget-based system, we will not remove the conflict of the past,” he said.

While the transfer of 1991 Act tenancies into 35-year LDTs could prove to be legally difficult, he warned. “Would it not have been a whole lot simpler just to say that if you want to convert, the tenancy becomes a fixed tenancy for a number of years. Changing to another type of tenancy is quite complicated, legally,” said Mr Mitchell.