William Galbraith, 17 Clampernow Road, Newbuildings, Co Derry

DEAR SIR: I write in response to an article in the Irish Farmers Journal of 16 April, “Busting myths about farmland tenancies”.

I am a resident landowner in Northern Ireland. The Agri-Food Strategy Board’s report has come down in favour of a land lease agreement between an “active farmer” and “landowner” with the view of eliminating conacre.

I am unaware of any opportunity that landowners may have had to put forward their views. I consider that the decision should rest with the landowner. They should not be compelled to lease nor should they be penalised if deciding to remain in the conacre system.

The majority of farms in NI are small, family farms, whether owned by active farmers or landowners. In essence, the land is passed on to the next generation. The Agri-Food report accepts that many of these farms are not viable without support. There has been support in one form or another since World War II and, unfortunately, there are no farmers alive today that have farmed without support.

Active farmers therefore run their businesses to include continuing support, which means they will need support in perpetuity. The biggest outlay from the EC budget is paid out to agriculture. In the long term, this is unsustainable so eventually agriculture must stand on its own feet. Perhaps over a 25-year period, support should be reduced with the ultimate realisation if active farmers wish to maintain their businesses then they have to be profitable. Otherwise, they will have to diversify or seek part-time work outside farming. Nobody has a God-given right to farm any more than any other person has to follow their trade.

Perhaps landowners should be suspicious that the abolition of conacre is another mechanism to provide continuing support to active farmers at the expense of the landowner in view of reducing support from the EC. Is there a future motive to drive down the rents for land? Rents, at present, are determined by normal business practice – supply and demand.

There are many landowners who depend on these rents to augment their pensions and basically try to survive and hold on to their lands in the meantime.

So-called lease agreements are likely to require legal advice to set up and further legal input when it comes to disputes.

I am of the view that the current CAP reforms we are subjected to have essentially answered the question of conacre v lease. Most of the landowners have relinquished any basic entitlements they had and have done so to their chosen active farmer.

While there may be little in the way of written agreements, there is that fundamental trust and good working relationship between the two participants.

I say leave well enough alone and allow the landowner to hold their own land on the same basis as that of the active farmer.

The conacre system leaves both with freedom of choice and it works.

Lease agreements by their nature could be fraught with problems. I have no issue with anyone who wishes to enter into a lease agreement but, at the same time, the next man should be afforded the same right to continue with conacre if they so wish.

If the active farmer is unhappy about conacre, then the ultimate decision is theirs as to whether or not they proceed.