The introduction of milk quotas in 1984 created a valuable asset and started a debate about its ownership which the landlord and tenant lobbies (CLA and NFU/TFA) could not agree. As a result the Government produced a “fudged” Agriculture Act which created considerable conflict between landlords and tenants. One wonders whether the same could happen again with the identification and introduction of “Public Goods”. Under existing tenancies will it be easily decided as to who should be credited for the public good, the land owner or the land occupier? Valuable assets could be created (as with milk quota, ewe and suckler cow premium, potato and sugar beet quota and also with entitlements) where there could be freedom to transfer, buy, sell or lease the public good whether by change of occupation of the land (as was the case initially with milk quota transfers with land) or by other means. The question is whether the same arguments of efficiency will apply, which upheld the right to allow what became known as “naked acre letting” ensuring more land rather than less land has as much public goods as possible (see RT & S King vs Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs in 2016 where it was considered to be within the spirit of the Scheme to increase the amount of land subject to Cross Compliance).