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.

Landowners threaten legal challenge over land reform proposals

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

Scottish Government has been warned amendments to the upcoming Land Reform Bill will almost certainly face legal challenge.

Landowners body Scottish Land and Estates (SLE) has condemned a new proposal to allow secure tenancies to be assigned to a new secure tenancy for value.

Chairman David Johnstone said the proposal breached landlords’ property rights – a view the organisation had sought legal opinion on.

“We are deeply ocncerned that key parts of the bill undermine property rights and will be vulnerable to challenge under European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) legislation,” said Mr Johnstone.

“The minister made clear in the debate the need for rights to be respected – and that includes property owners. It is totally ridiculous for certain politicians to claim that any ECHR concerns raised by landowners are threats.”

Mr Johnstone urged government to drop the latest proposal and revert to its predecessor.

The original proposal, which was put forward by the government-led agricultural holdings legislation review group, was for secure tenancies to be converted to long-term fixed tenancies and then sold for value.

Mr Johnstone said although this could also face legal challenge, depending on the length of the tenancy proposed, it was a better alternative to the latest proposals.

He accused government of hammering landlords and “giving us a kicking” with its latest proposal and warned the sector was on track for another Salvesen-Riddell* type legal dispute due to rushed-through legislation and a drive for radical land reform.

“Everybody agrees we need a vibrant tenant sector and the bill was designed to create that,” said Mr Johnstone.

“We are now talking about stagnating it. How are new entrants going to be able to afford to buy into this? The drive for radical action in 2003 resulted in the Salvesen-Riddell case. Here we go again.”

He urged politicians from all parties to consider the implications of the new proposals and not to pander to an “unrelenting clamour for the bill to be made more radical”.

*The Salvesen-Riddell case was a legal challenge brought about by flawed legislation introduced by government in its 2003 Agricultural Holdings Act.

While the legislation was being approved and amended, it emerged that general partners in a limited partnership tenancy might be given security of tenure, causing some landlords to issue letters to quit to their tenants.

In reaction, the then farm minister, Ross Finnie, decreed that anyone served with such a notice would be granted a full tenancy.

This was then challenged, via the Salvesen/Riddell case, and deemed to be against the human rights of landlords with the blame placed on the Scottish Parliament.