LETTERS Class warrior

Sir: The Prime Minister's reported vision of `a classless society' prompts me to wonder how this might affect the structure of own- ership and management of the countryside.

There is growing recognition that much that is best about the countryside, that everyone wants to protect, was created by families of estate owners over many genera- tions. In one lifetime these estates have been so squeezed by the policies of succes- sive governments that their beneficent management of the countryside accounts for 30 per cent of it today compared with over 90 per cent when I was born 70 years ago.

Far from being an anachronism, the sur- vival of such estates can now be seen more clearly than ever to be very much in the national interest. This form of land tenure is probably the most successful, if not the only method of ensuring that our limited land resources are put to the fullest and widest use, in terms of comprehensive, long- term and balanced development. This entails harmonising the often conflicting interests of food and timber production, nature conservation, environmental protec- tion, sport, public amenity and recreation.

The break up of estates, now proceeding apace, into small units makes such an objective virtually unattainable. Not only is it essential, with trees taking anything up to 150 years to mature, to make plans that span several generations, but in terms of space the achievement of multiple land use Is hardly a practical possibility unless groups of farms can be managed as a single unit, preferably on a scale that can justify high-class management, technicians in many fields, and specialised equipment.

The impact of John Major's 'classless society' ideals on the survival of the 30 per cent of the countryside that is still the responsibility of dedicated estate owners, is of great concern to all country lovers.

New legislation, such as the anti-landlord Housing & Urban Development Bill for instance, makes one wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware that not everyone wants to be an owner occupier, be they a householder or a farmer. My own anxiety, with responsibility for a large rural estate, rather naturally relates to the future pat- tern of ownership and management of the countryside.

It is fair to ask what evidence I have to support my claim that not everyone, in farming terms at any rate, wants to be an owner occupier. Over the past year I conducted a survey With complete anonymity among Buccleuch Estates' tenant farmers. Out of 125 replies, 89 per cent said they would advise a young man with available capital of £100,000 to rent a farm and only 11 per cent advised him to buy a farm. When asked about the

fairness to them of the present landlord/tenant legislation, 92 per cent replied 'fair or quite fair' and only 8 per cent said 'unfair'.

On the question of amending current landlord/tenant legislation to encourage landlords to let more farms, 74 per cent said 'yes' and only 26 per cent said 'no'.

My fear is that the Prime Minister's ide- als may so conceal from him the signifi- cance of the historic structure of the coun- tryside and the sad consequences of the changes that have taken place already, that the 'one man, one acre' principle might seem as logical as 'one man, one vote'! I hope the figures I have produced from the grass roots across the Scottish Borders may help him to think twice before risking the decline of the remaining great estates.

For it is increasingly difficult to explain the estate owner's desire to continue in the face of such adversity, with economic and political scales, including security of tenure legislation, weighted so heavily against him. There may be no logical explanation other than a strong sense of duty based on an inherited belief that he is merely a link in a long chain of continuity with responsibility for a comprehensively managed rural com- munity.

It is unreasonable to expect the average farmer who has purchased his holding from a fragmenting estate, with the pressure of paying his bank manager more in interest than he ever paid his landlord in rent, to undertake the same comprehensive man- agement techniques of the former regime. Yet, unless the surviving estates can be commercially viable, fewer and fewer landowners will have the resources needed to support the sense of duty that has hither- to prevailed.

There is a popular misconception, espe- cially among urban journalists, that landowners are invariably 'immensely wealthy' — a label they automatically attach to any owner of land. It is seldom realised that one acre of windswept hill, typical of my own family estate, is worth about as much as the space occupied by the wastepaper basket in a Fleet Street office. A 4,000-acre Highland estate with lodge, cottage, fishing and stags can be worth less than a 'semi-detached' in Hampstead.

Throughout the nation there are many owners of land like myself who can still contribute much to the well-being of the countryside to the benefit of our whole population, who look increasingly to it for relaxation and recreation; but it may take more than a sense of duty and an act of faith for them to continue much longer.

In a recent article I was described as being a 'One Man National Trust'. The truth of the matter is that there are a great many other estate owners like me who merit a similar label and who might be encouraged to continue, with suitable assurances that the Prime Minister's ideals will not jeopardise our efforts.

Duke of Buccleuch

Bowhill, Selkirk, Scotland