Ending of 27 farm tenancy agreements not due to desire to plant more trees
Lesley Riddoch’s article (“Tenants versus trees row has echoes of the Highland Clearances”, Perspective, 19 February) would have readers believe Buccleuch is involved in a plan to carpet large areas between Langholm and Hawick with trees – at the expense of tenant farms. This is not true.
On estate land across all three Scottish estates, 27 farms let on limited partnership tenancy agreements are coming to the end of them – as demanded by farming bodies and government.
In most cases, these farms are either being sold to tenants or new medium and long-term leases have been agreed. Two farmers have retired. There is only one farm where the tenancy was terminated and the land is being sold to a forestry company. The tenant owns another farm which we sold to him and he also rents other land from the estate.
Forestry, which is being encouraged by Scottish Government as a land use, is being considered on parts of three other holdings. Decisions to consider forestry on these farms were not the reason for ending these 27 tenancy agreements, where the vast majority of land remains in agriculture.
The forestry proposals amount to a very small percentage of agricultural land. Should they go ahead, it will not , in our opinion, change the character of the Borders and tenant farming will remain very much a key part of Buccleuch’s farming operations.
We are in the business of land use – and each decision we take looks at not just the economic and environmental impact but also the social impact – how any land use choice will affect tenants, our 250 staff and the communities of which we are a part.
Despite being made aware of the facts by Buccleuch, Ms Riddoch chooses to paint a misleading picture in pursuit of a political narrative. Sadly, many people making public statements on this issue, including Oliver Mundell MSP, have made no attempt to find out the facts from us on what is happening in the area. We would be very happy to meet them, or indeed, talk them through our agricultural and forestry proposals. We are holding a public exhibition of our forestry plans in the area next week. Mr Mundell suggests that the format of the public meeting is “designed to avoid tough questions and accountability”. This is also untrue. This event was proffered by Buccleuch and the Forestry Commission to communicate with the local community and its format is in accordance with National Standards for Community Engagement.
JOHN GLEN Chief Executive, Buccleuch Henderson Place Lane
Edinburgh It is not often I disagree with Lesley Riddoch. Her solution for tenanted farms is a right to buy scheme for the tenants. This was done by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s for the tenants of the Department of Agriculture against, incidentally, the advice given by Lord Northfield, who had been commissioned to look into land use and tenure.
What it achieved was significant damage to the tenanted sector, particularly the smaller farms where aspiring farmers with limited capital could get a start. What is worse is that, as time has gone on, most of the land bought by the tenants is, slowly but surely, falling into the hands of big wealthy farmers. With land ownership, the depth of your pockets is the overriding criterion. There is no doubt in my mind that a good landlord/tenant system is better than a totally owneroccupied system.
The solution? Well, having been a tenant farmer of the Department of Agriculture myself, the remedy would be to go back to State-owned farms. The best way forward would be for a compulsory purchase order to be placed on any farm or land where the landlord was behaving in a selfish manner and contrary to national and local interests. There would be a seamless move for the tenant farmer from private landlord to the State or Department of Agriculture. A healthy tenanted farming sector is also a system where there can be control of farm size.
PETER D CHEYNE Barbaraville, Invergordon