Keeping records is onerous but alternative is worse

I CONSIDER myself lucky to be involved with managing rural property across Scotland and on a daily basis to undertake extremely rewarding work, writes Mark Mitchell.

I accept that in a civilised world there needs to be rules by which we operate and to some degree untangling the regulation that successive governments have put in place is what provides me with a livelihood.

You may be surprised to hear that you should hold a bonfire licence if you are in the habit of burning garden waste and if you t ook t he notion tomorrow to become a l ivestock f armer and wished to own cattle or sheep you need to be a r egistered keeper of livestock and are required to keep accurate records for almost everything that happens from moving stock on to the farm to off again once sold.

The regulations for how you manage your land continues beyond simply buying it and the stock you place on to it, for instance from December 31 this year a farmer who purchases fertiliser for professional use must have a certificate demonstrating their competence to do so and from November 26 next year anyone who uses pesticides for professional use must equally have a certificate.

It will be an offence for somebody to buy pesticides for others unless you have ensured they hold a certificate too.

I should point out that it will still be possible though for those buying sprays for their gardens to continue to do so without having to jump through all these hoops.

Farmers and landowners are required to keep accurate records of both their sprays and fertiliser applications on a field by field basis.

Those in t he areas designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) need to keep a close eye on the level of nitrogen applied to their fields.

The NVZ have been identified as those areas most at risk of run-off into the rivers and watercourses and the premise is of course very sensible but the records to be kept are highly complicated.

While maintaining these records is a time consuming business it has to be undertaken as farmers are subject to spot checks from the Rural Payment Inspectors,and while t he paperwork involved in keeping the records is substantive it compares to nothing when faced with a full blown inspection.

Inspectors can spend days if not weeks checking that everything is in order and the slightest error can result in draconian fines.

The timing of these inspections is a major issue to the livestock community as inspections are generally undertaken with very little warning, for obvious reasons, but sometimes at times of great stress, for example during lambing.

It appears the government now wants not only to control what we do on our land but how much we own.

The Land Reform Review Group set out 62 recommendations in its report last Friday among which was to limit how much land any single person can own.

Now I can’t claim to have read this report but just wonder if the number of acres you can own will depend on its value, or will it depend on what you do on it.

For i nstance prime arable land sells for £6,000 per acre and more, while a heather-clad hill top might fetch no more than £150 per acre.

The reason for t he difference in value is essentially what you can do on it and the return that can be made from it.

You could therefore perhaps argue that the owner of an upland farm should be allowed to own more acres than a low ground arable farmer, but is it as simple as that?

Should the cap be based on the number of people employed per acre and should that include diversified employment, such as farm shops, sporting and recreational activities.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I see solicitors and perhaps the odd surveyor eyeing up Human Rights claims, but then again will it actually happen and, crucially, will Scotland still be in Europe by then?

Mark Mitchell is a partner with rural agents Bell Ingram in Perth.