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.

STFA rebukes Ruth Davidson for ‘astounding’ tenancy call

STFA rebukes Ruth Davidson for ‘astounding’ tenancy call

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson made a controversial intervention into tenancy matters on Thursday and was immediately rewarded with a sharp rebuke from the Scottish Tenant Farming Association.

Ms Davidson is calling for freedom of contract between tenant farmers and those letting land, and removing the restrictions which limit land tenancy agreements.

Her belief is that this would ensure flexibility and security for both main parties, and better use of land across Scotland.

With what Ms Davidson styled as a new rural business tenancy, the terms of use of the land and the timescale would be agreed completely between the tenant and landowner.

The proposal follows the release of the party’s rural action plan earlier this year.

This sets out a number of areas for improvement across rural Scotland, including a new local police force to operate separately from Police Scotland, superfast broadband for all of Scotland, and a community’s right to block local windfarm applications.

Ms Davidson said: “We believe that freedom of contract is better for tenant farmers, and best for Scotland’s land.”

She said nothing would do more to free up land in Scotland and rejuvenate an ailing tenancy sector.

The Scottish Tenant Farmers Association (STFA) has branded the suggestion as “destructive” and an “unwarranted interference” in the sensitive relationships between landlords and their tenants.

Reacting to the announcement, STFA executive director Angus McCall said: “It is deeply disappointing that Ruth Davidson has chosen to attempt to make tenancy reform, a matter devolved to the Scottish Parliament, an election issue.

He added: “Attempts to remove the laws which regulate the letting of land and govern landlord-tenant relations, as advocated by Ms Davidson, have already been comprehensively rejected by the agricultural industry and successive governments.

“It is widely recognised that regulation in the let land market will be necessary as long as the current imbalance in supply and demand of land persists,” Mr McCall said.

“The recent tenancy review in Scotland had little hesitation in ruling out the introduction of freedom of contract,” he added.

“In doing so, the review group noted that none of three main industry bodies, (including Scottish Lands and Estates), supported freedom of contract, and also concluded that, in the present circumstances, its introduction would disadvantage tenant farmers.

“It is therefore astounding that the Scottish Conservative Party has chosen to make an election issue of a policy which has been so universally rejected by all bar some hard-line landowners,” Mr McCall said.

“Fortunately, the Tory party has little influence in Scotland, where land matters are a devolved matter, and such blatant electioneering tactics will cut little ice in the rural sector.

“However, whilst this intervention by Ms Davidson may appeal to the landowning party faithful it is unhelpful to the already fragile relationships between landlords and tenants.”

* Opinion, by farming editor Ewan Pate.

Typically general election campaigns take some odd turns, but Ruth Davidson’s foray into the complex world of agricultural tenancies is not only extreme but strangely detached from recent discussions.

She seems to have completely failed to recognise the recent work of the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group (AHLRG) and paid little heed to the debate which has followed, particularly in Holyrood’s own cross-party Rural Affairs Climate Change and Environment Committee.

The point she has missed is that nowhere in the AHLRG report is freedom of contract mentioned. Neither does it form the policy of any of the leading stakeholder groups including landowners’ organisation, Scottish Land and Estates.

Why would she think it worth suggesting unregulated freedom of contract now, and risk derailing real progress and growing consensus?

There is also the point that the agricultural holdings arrangements for Scotland will be decided in Holyrood, not Westminster.

Ms Davidson seems to have temporarily forgotten that this is a general election campaign. Her intervention yesterday is indeed a strange one.