LANDOWNER VERSUS LOBBYIST
I am a small Estate owner in the Highlands and am concerned, having read the consultation proposals on Land Reform, together with Dr Elliott’s review, that the politicians are being influenced by lobbyists such as Professor Jim Hunter who has no experience of running an estate or the issues surrounding sustainable management.
I am totally against any form of compulsory purchase as such measures will undermine the laws on heritable property ownership. Having a register of land ownership is sensible as it will identify those who rightly own and work their land in a responsible way and differentiate them from those multiple estate owners whose objective is to derive as much income from subsidies as possible.
Professor Hunter has been publishing articles suggesting estates should be banned from creating tracks on their land. Such a suggestion shows no understanding of how stalking works and the necessity for the safe passage of deer carcases off the hill ground. Sporting provides circa £240 million annually to the Scottish economy and of the 3,500 tonnes of venison produced annually, much is exported. He also argues for state control of fishings which are currently managed by competent River Boards. There is no reason to change a system that works well.
Many estates provide employment for gamekeepers, stalkers, ghillies, river managers and all the ancillary staff involved in running a successful sporting tourist venue. Many of the fragile communities in the Highlands depend on this employment and the spending power which tourists bring. It is not easy for estates to make a profit, which is why many are lossmaking and rely on the goodwill of the owner to maintain their viability. Many communities would not have the same financial resources to pump into a loss-making venture. The proposal to introduce sporting rates is entirely flawed as it will harm the economy, increase losses and drive sporting tourists to shoot elsewhere.
Most community buyouts are dependent on state funding and many are structured as charitable trusts to avoid paying tax on their income, while communities suffer from management by committee where decision-making can be protracted and not necessarily in agreement with the wishes of the other inhabitants, as was the case in Gigha, which now has a large debt burden. I dare say there are other examples where community buyouts have been successful, however it would be a disaster for this country if the Government was to recommend expropriation of land against the wishes of the owner. Ross Peters, Sutherland