 Welcome everybody to the 33rd meeting in 2015 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. It reminds you that we should have phones turned to silence so that they don't interfere with the broadcast system. You'll notice that committee meetings using tablets for meat papers are now provided in digital format. Agenda item 1 today is the Land Reform Scotland Bill. Business this morning is to welcome our panel, Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment. Good morning, Richard. Billy Mackenzie, team leader at EU Rural Development programme on agricultural holdings, Andrew Campbell, Solister and Stephen Sadler. Angela Morgan instead of Stephen in the Land Reform and Tenancy Unit. Is that correct? It is. Welcome to you all as well officials. Cabinet Secretary, do you want to say a few words at the start? Thank you very much, convener, and just let me say at the outset that I'm enormously grateful to the committee for rescheduling my appearance before you this morning, so thank you for your forbearance. In terms of today's evidence myself on the Land Reform Bill and those provisions relating to agricultural holdings, I don't need to tell this committee that tenant farming is, of course, very crucial to Scottish agriculture and to the Scottish economy. Tenant farming accounts for 23 per cent of all agricultural land and provides a route into farming for new entrants in particular and opportunities for those who don't have the capital resources to buy land. The contribution sector makes is also vital to sustaining, as I said, our economy and particularly our rural communities. Yet despite previous reforms to agricultural holdings legislation, there continues to be a decrease in tenant land in Scotland. Since 1982, there has been a 42 per cent decrease and Scotland now has one of the lowest proportions of tenant land anywhere in Europe. This is what the agricultural holdings review set out to address. Since the review group began its work back in January 2014, I do believe a lot has been achieved. Following an extensive stakeholder evidence gathering by the committee members, we had the final reports, which was published in January, and now we have the proposed recommendations within that being taken forward in some cases through legislation. Measures such as the introduction of a tenant farming commissioner, improving how rents are set and amnesty for tenants improvements and measures to widen the asignation and succession rights for tenants. The aim of this part of the land reform bill is therefore to create a vibrant and modern tenant sector that provides a range of lighting opportunities for those who want to enter and progress within Scottish agriculture, to provide a fair return to both the landlord and the tenant, and to provide those who want to leave the industry with the route to do so that, hopefully, allows them a reasonable return on their investment and the time labour and finances that they have put in while ensuring that, at the same time, the landlord's rights are also respected. Finally, I know that the committee is just as aware as I am of the complexities of agricultural holdings legislation and the relationships between tenant farmers and landlords, and the importance of getting some of those issues right that we are addressing through this legislation and through other means outwith this legislation as well. It is a very serious issue for the future of tenant farming in Scotland. We owe it to the next generation of farmers to bring forward solutions that hopefully do strike that balance between giving tenants the security and flexibility, the need, and ensuring the rights to property landowners and that those rights are respected. I do believe that the provisions on the tenant farming commission in part 2 of the bill and the agriculture holdings provisions in part 10 do provide such a package of measures and hopefully will dramatically improve the framework for tenant farming in Scotland. Thank you cabinet secretary. We are going to kick off by looking at one of these innovations, the tenant farming commissioner. When we had evidence at the beginning of the bill from the bill team, it was suggested that this function was an administrative one as opposed to a legal one and therefore not appropriate to give the tenant farming commissioner powers that could be seen to cut across the functions of the land court etc. When you think about the process of enforcing codes drawn up by the tenant farming commissioner, why not empower the tenant farming commissioner to enforce the codes and, after they are inquired into and find that they have perhaps been breached? Why not give the tenant farming commissioner those powers? Let's address perhaps the motivation of creating a tenant farming commissioner in Scotland. I just referred to the end of my opening remarks, however, all familiar with the complexities of agriculture holdings legislation in Scotland. I think that we are all familiar with some of the disputes that take place across Scotland and some of the history in terms of relationship between landlords and tenants and the various different arguments that can arise from those disputes over compensation, rent setting or wherever that may be. The purpose of the tenant farming commissioner is to give a focus to sorting out many of those disputes, to get to the roots of some of these issues, to hopefully plug a gap that will allow less cases to be referred to the land court, which I think both landlords and tenants do not want to go there, if possible. Therefore, we can find other ways of resolving some of those disputes by addressing some of the fundamentals by creating this office, so we have an individual, an office solely focused on working with all the stakeholders to sort out some of those disputes. Hopefully, that will move the sector forward. There is also a naming and shaming element to this in that, whilst there may be individual disputes taking place across the country, where the tenant farming commissioner takes up a case and we have an interim tenant farming commissioner at the moment who is already looking at some cases, then clearly that will shine a spotlight on those cases. I hope that that in itself, in some cases, will provide a deterrent for the disputes arising in the first place and lead to a much more productive relationship. The final point that I want to make is that, in terms of the legal standing of the tenant farming commissioner, there are proposals for powers for penalties where information is not forthcoming from the parties to help the tenant farming commissioner to fulfil their duties. Also, the findings of any report carried out by the tenant farming commissioner can be referred to by the land court. Therefore, it will be a material consideration about any cases that go to the land court. So, there is a legal ramification, albeit, as the convener refers to, that does not go much further than that. Well, we have been thinking about the relationship between the tenant farming commissioner and the land court. We have been interested to know whether you can give any consideration to changing the process whereby disputes between landlords and tenants can be resolved, because, for example, there should be certain types of disputes referred to arbitration with the right of appeal to the land court for a start. So, after a breach has been found by the tenant farming commissioner, what happens then? Well, arbitration is there at the moment, but clearly I have just outlined what I think will be some of the benefits of creating this specific office of a tenant farming commissioner within the land commission, which is the first. Clearly, we will have to see how it performs, but I do, for the reason that I gave, think that it will make a difference. There is a debate there, and not clearly if the committee has specific views on how the process can be improved. I am willing to consider anything that you come forward with. I did say at the beginning of this process that we are dealing with quite difficult complex issues. Therefore, the scrutiny process in the Parliament is very important, and if there are better ideas and improvements to our proposals for stage 2, we have a relatively open mind, albeit that we are constrained by how many we can take forward for time constraints. The resolving of the disputes that you have outlined so graphically that lead me to ask those questions about, no, should there be a requirement for parties? Can the tenant farming commissioner require parties to go to mediation before going to the land court? I do not see why the tenant farming commissioner could not do that, if you are suggesting that that has to be more explicit in terms of the bill. I will reflect on that. Then, should a lack of willingness to go to mediation be a consideration of the court when it is determining costs? I think that the priority is to avoid cases going to court where possible in the costs, clearly as a crucial element in trying to avoid going down that path. The tenant farming commissioner is just one element in this whole package. Clearly, many of the other measures are also motivated by a desire to try and avoid disputes in the first place, where there are disputes, the tenant farming commissioner may have a role. I wondered about that, because what role would they play in leading or administering or overseeing mediation or arbitration? They are in a lead position to try and solve the problems, as well as having named and shamed, as you put it, if need be. As I said, the tenant farming commissioner is one element that there is legislation. There is a tenant farming commissioner office, which is new. Until that office is established, we can have experience, after a year or so, of reflecting on its performance. It is quite difficult to predict what might have helped to resolve some of those disputes if they do not have the tools available to them or not. I have a relatively open mind as to whether the committee feels that there should be more explicit powers given to the tenant farming commissioner. I would like to finish up this little section about codes that the tenant farming commissioner will enforce. There is no mention about a statutory code for land agents. There is one in which the land agents themselves have created as a voluntary code, but our experience in this committee suggests that we would like to find out your views about whether there should in fact be a code for conduct that the tenant farming commissioner can have oversight of with regard to the way that land agents behave in this whole process. There is no doubt that my experience is both minister and constituency MSP, that, on occasion, the behaviour and attitude of certain agents in Scotland adds a lot of fuel to the fire in terms of existing disputes and even leads to disputes in the first place arising. I think that there is a case for looking at such a code. Clearly, the tenant farming commissioner, one of the reasons of establishing that office, is to identify where there is a need for an extra code over and above what is there already and then go and carry out the work to make that happen. The tenant farmer summed it up by saying that they had to earn three wages, one for themselves and their family, one to pay the land agent and another to pay their rent to the land owner. Obviously, that is quite a big part of their concerns about what they can raise from the units in which they are farming. Therefore, the question of a code is something that we would like to press on you to think about very seriously with regard to land agents. As I have indicated, I am sympathetic to having such a code. I think that there is a place for that. I think that, perhaps more appropriately, the interim tenant farming commissioner, and then, once it is established, that is where to put the case, too, because that will be the job of the tenant farming commissioner, is to create those codes and work with the stakeholders. I am happy to hear the representations in the committee, but I think that also in due course we have to meet those representations of the tenant farming commissioner, because that will be their job to create those codes. Let us move into some of the details about agricultural holdings, as such. The question of confidence and the Government's proposals, Mike Russell, is going to kick off. You made quite a lot in your opening statement about the desire that you have, and I think that all of us would agree with that desire, of both increasing the rights of tenants and also giving confidence to landlords that they could let land. Were that possible, I think that that would be a desirable aim, but we have not taken any evidence that suggests that the confidence of landlords will be increased in any way by those measures—in fact, quite the reverse. Therefore, it would seem to me, certainly, and from the evidence that we have had, that one of those aims has to predominate in terms of the public interest. Which of those aims should predominate in terms of the public interest? The objective of this legislation is to create a vibrant tenancy sector in Scotland. Although I appreciate where you are coming from for a question, I recognise that we need both land on the market available to be lept, as well as tenant farmers with the skills and the ambition to run their own farms and put food on our tables. If one of those elements is missing, we will not have tenant farming in Scotland. We have to strike that balance, but clearly, if we do not have the ability for tenant farmers to invest in their farms and to have confidence in themselves to invest in their farms, as well as landlords to let their land first place, then tenant farming and agricultural generally will be held back in Scotland. I can only say to landlords who are saying to Michael Russell or to the committee that they are not seeing their confidence increasing as a result of this legislation. Well, clearly, if their position is freedom of contract, then any safeguards or enforcement of those safeguards perhaps will not be all that welcome if you want complete freedom of contract, but we believe that it is in the public interest to have those safeguards. Therefore, there is a lot of emphasis in the legislation on providing those safeguards to the tenants because, in a position of power, those with land tend to have more power than those without land. Therefore, we have to go that extra mile to offer protection to tenant farmers in Scotland. Therefore, there is no doubt an emphasis on protection for tenant farmers in the legislation. I would certainly not disagree with you about the need to protect tenant farmers and to increase the rights of tenant farmers. I think that the real issue here is that if you are going to do that and landlords are then not willing to let land, then your actions will have to be taken if you wish to continue land to be available. In other circumstances, if one takes historical parallels and the crafting circumstances, it was the state that in the end intervened and became the crafting landlord when there was a parallel situation. You could look at this in the context of the 1948 act and again it was a state that was prepared to see circumstances, for example local authorities—I would not recommend that—but public bodies owning land and tenencing it. If landlords do not, as a result of this bill, increase or perpetuate the amount of land in tenancy, is it possible that we will end up with something that does not meet either objective? The changes to the tenancies are designed to help tenants, but if their landlords are less and less keen to have tenants, then the situation will continue to deteriorate. Would it not be better to look at whether circumstances demand it—there are circumstances in Scotland that demand it—an absolute right to buy and circumstances in which where landlords do not want to let land, the state is able to intervene and ensure that land is available to let through the market mechanisms? I agree with you that we need a basket of options and measures via legislation or other support mechanisms through the rural development programme or wherever to promote tenant farming in Scotland and diverse agriculture in this country. The subject that we are discussing today is part of a land reform bill, so it is agriculture holdings measures within a land reform bill. That land reform bill is part of an overall programme of land reform. With the land commission being set up, as we previously discussed in this committee, and you took evidence and then freeze it for my colleague, Eileen McLeod, this is going to be an on-going process. You are absolutely right, we will have to reflect on the success or otherwise of the measures that we are taking. I am confident that there will be a positive impact of those measures. Whether it goes far enough, only time will tell. Clearly, there are many complex factors out there that are influencing the future of tenant farming. It is not simply legislation and it is not simply some of the factors that dominate our headlines. It is demographics and all kinds of issues. Therefore, it is very difficult to identify the silver bullet that is going to get where we want to overnight, but we have to have our minds open. As you are also aware, we are exploring other options within Government of using publicly owned land to have new starter units and new leases for tenant farmers. The powers under those measures that we are discussing today for a right to buy, where the landlord is not fulfilling any obligations, is a radical step forward. It is not an absolute right to buy, for reasons well documented in front of the committee previously. I think that we are going in the direction that you are suggesting, Mr Russell, but we have to be more inventive in the future and I do not dispute that. Can I narrow that down to the issue of human rights? Land reform and tenancy reform are about human rights. We have seen some alarming cases in recent times where certainly it appears as if the human rights of some tenants are not being respected in the way that they should be. You and I both know that we have had constituency experiences of that taking place as well. However, the human rights legislation is quoted often by landlords to say that the right to property is absolute. Indeed, if you look at the 1886 Crofting Reform Act, it is questionable whether it could be passed at the present time given the way in which rights under article 1 protocol 1 are being interpreted by some. Do not we need to focus more closely on the human rights of those who use the land, human rights of those who have put effort into the land—some people have had tenancies for up to a century—under human rights of communities, as anticipated, for example in the UN Convention on Social Economic Rights, and put those into the balance against perhaps those who are trying to argue that the rights of property trump everything. If you do that, we do need a more radical approach to tenancy as well as the other issues in the bill. I absolutely agree that we have to bring the human rights of tenant farmers in Scotland more to the fore. I do believe that we are doing that. For instance, some of the criticisms of some of the measures that we are discussing today from landowners are that we are infringing their human rights and we are going too far. I am here saying to the committee today that no, we are not. We are doing what is right for the public interest because property rights are not absolute, but they are, of course, an important dimension of this debate because we all have to respect property rights. However, the public interest, of course, also has to be respected. I do think we are paying a lot of attention to the human rights of tenant farmers, and that is why some of those measures are radical. They may not be radical enough for some and others believe that they are too radical, but I believe that we are going the right direction. I can only reiterate to Michael Russell on the committee that this is not the end of the debate and the land reform agenda is very important to tenant farming in Scotland in the general sense. It is not just about agricultural holding legislation, but, clearly, Michael Russell referred to 1948 legislation in his initial remark, so I have to say that this is not 1948 and this is a challenge for all legislators. This is not 1948, it is 2015, and, therefore, we have to take into account the legislative and international environment that we operate, and we do not have the same abilities legally as we have perhaps had either just before the war or just after the war. So, ECHR rights are very important to be taken to account. I would be very surprised to say—you and I are old friends—that I would be very surprised but happy to debate with you as to whether human rights should, in actual fact, be deeper and better entrenched in 2015 than they were in 1948. Therefore, any argument that I would say people were freer to operate in 1948 might not succeed. We should be doing better than our parents or grandparents are doing. Just one final point, just slightly off of the tangent, we have had raised with us as a committee on two occasions now, and I have had correspondent about the continuing plight of small land owners who are small holders who are left essentially in illegal limbo. I raised this with officials at the start of the process of open sessions. I raised it again. I do not believe that it would be right to leave them again without redress, as has been pointed out to us. What happens to these small holders is that, when they become infirm and cannot operate a small holding, essentially that small holding perishes, the land is left to go to ruin, the buildings collapse because there is no way through to the next stage. It is very important that those people get some assistance, and I would hope that the Government would try and bring forward some amendments at stage 2 to begin to redress that situation. There are a lot of people out there who are suffering. In terms of just very briefly your first points, again, I do agree with Michael Russell that we have to rekindle the spirit of previous generations where access to land and the ability to grow round food as a country has to be seen as national priorities. I do believe that we are rekindling that spirit at the moment, and this is a very ambitious land reform agenda of which the agriculture holdings is one part. As I said before, while the political and legal environment that we operate in in 2015 is different to 1948 and things are not easily changed, we have to be inventive to get to where we want to get to with justice and equality in Scotland in terms of access to land and being able to ensure that the next generation of people to grow food for our country. I have given some examples. I hope to persuade Michael Russell and others that we are going in that direction. In terms of your second point about small landholders, I can only assure the committee that we are looking at this. Of course, we carried out the recent survey. I trust that that information has been communicated to the committee. If not, we will check that after this meeting today. We carried out the survey and we had quite a good response from those who were able to survey. There is still a lot more work to be done. Although I cannot give a commitment to the committee, there will be stage 2 amendments. I can give a commitment that is on the Government's agenda and we are actively looking at those issues. One of the considerations is that even the self-identification of small landowners in Scotland is not simple. If we pass legislation without being able to know who it applied to, that would be not wise. Therefore, there is a bit more work to be done. Good morning, cabinet secretary. It is nice to see you. Up until now, I have largely agreed with Mike Russell—up to very recently, I have largely agreed with Mike Russell—something that he might find surprising, in that it is very difficult to deliver both the objective of recreating a vibrant, tentative sector, which you quite rightly say is the policy objective of this part of the legislation, and increasing the rights and protection for tenants. I believe that it is actually possible to do both of those things, but I do not think that it is possible to do that within the bill as it is laid before us at the moment. You quite rightly mentioned the importance of the relationship between landlord and tenant and the need to restore confidence between those two parties, if that is to be successful. I do not think that the landlord side of it is simply freedom of contract or else. I think that that would be the preferred position, but I do not think that it is a deal breaker, so to speak. However, I do think that there is a feeling that the legislation as it stands bears more similarity to a sort of blunt intervention measure, which is seen as punitive, if I could put it that way. What I am really trying to get at is that I do believe that, by a more targeted approach, that would effectively address the problems that the Land Reform Review Group highlighted and which I am not going to deny, we have seen some of in evidence. As I said, a more targeted approach to address those issues, rather than the broad brush approach of the bill, might help to achieve that confidence and be a win-win on all sides of this debate. You mentioned that there is a need to stay open minded as we go forward. Are you open minded enough to take on board a change of approach to have a more targeted approach to address the problems without the broad brush approach that some see as punitive and is undoubtedly setting minds against what you are trying to achieve? Clearly, I will study carefully the committee's recommendations in terms of the stage 1 report. I can reiterate some of the statistics that we are all aware of, which is that the amount of rented land in Scotland has declined from 40 per cent to 23 per cent over the last 30 years. The total area of land in Scotland, including crofts but excluding seasonal lets, fell by 44 per cent from 1982 to 2015. I simply reiterate those statistics because, in terms of the debate around Government intervention, clearly the market and its self-regulation or lack of regulation in some areas or poor regulation in other areas is not delivering outcomes that we want to seize a country. There is a case for state intervention for the Government to make sure that there is a backstop there to protect the rights of tenant farmers as well as ensure that it is attractive to let land in the first place in Scotland. I do not have a completely open mind in all the measures in the bill. I am not saying that. What I am saying is clearly that we are not rolling out stage 2 amendments and that there are specific areas that the committee believes that can be improved upon. We have an open mind in that context. I come to one or two suggestions as we go through this part of the evidence taking. Thank you, convener. Just when we are dealing with this at the moment, clearly we have debated already the statement of rights and responsibilities, which is right at the start of this bill, in which we have a strong interest in making sure that as many people take part in the creation of that statement, presumably elements of landlord-tenant relationships will be reflected, at least in the principles that are stated therein, and that that will give a hint that this is an area in which we are prepared to continue to intervene until we get it right. Yes, it all comes down to the rights and responsibilities of land ownership in Scotland and that can be in relation to impact on communities or tenant farmers. So, yes, you are right, the principles apply right across the board. We will see how that pans out. Thank you for that. We move on to another aspect of this relationship, Graham Day. Thank you and good morning, cabinet secretary. It just leads on from your last comments. How would you judge the success of the bill in this area? We would be halting the decline in the amount of land under tenancy, increasing it, having more tenancies. Where would you hope we might be five, ten years from now? Well, from five to ten years from now, I hope that we have a more vibrant tenant farming sector in Scotland, where both tenants feel more confident to invest in their holdings and where there is a more healthy availability of land to let in Scotland. As I said previously, I am confident that the bill will play a role in helping that to happen, but it will certainly not be the only factor that will contribute towards making that happen, for the reasons that I referred to previously. This is a complex issue. The capital value of land is not something to control of this bill. Demographics is not something to control of this bill. It is about changing society and economics. If I may convene on, you reiterated the word vibrant there. In your opening of march, you also talked about a modern tenant sector, but what about a genuinely viable one? In the course of taking evidence on the bill, we have come across examples of tenants who are basically scraping a living, in some cases only, by having jobs away from their farms because of the physical and the productive capacity limitations of the tenancies that they have. Do you have concerns about the financial viability of many tenancies at the moment? If you do, how do you think that the bill might help to address that going forward? There is the general answer to that question, which is that I have that concern in relation to agriculture across the board. There are many examples in Scotland of agriculture in some sectors or some parts of the country being too fragile. That is an on-going challenge for a Government of whichever colour to address that. That is also a European issue, as well as a Scottish issue. Therefore, some of the tenant farmers that you have spoken to will be experiencing some of the turmoil of volatility in agriculture more generally. In terms of the bill, as I indicated previously, I think that where the bill can help is if we can create an atmosphere where the tenants feel more confident in investing in their own holding and they will get a return from that in due course. Clearly, that can help to lead to more productive and active agriculture on our farms and, in turn, better profitability. Therefore, those issues are linked in the bill and play a role in supporting agriculture. Looking at modern limited-duration tenancies, which flows on from Jim Ewing. It is morning. Of course, the cabinet secretary is good to see you. There has been some concern, particularly from STFA, who have thought that MLDTs are more appropriate as bolt-ons to existing farm businesses. That was also echoed quite vociferously at our public meeting in Dumfriesbytham, where I think was a young farmer. Again, it is more for the farm that wants to expand into the neighbouring farm, perhaps. I just wonder why the MLDTs are aimed at existing farmers rather than new entrants. Surely, we should be trying to encourage new entrants. Well, while the modern limited-duration tenancy applies to all farmers in terms of those that want to take out known 1991 tenancies, there is an element within it, which specifically addresses new entrants in that the 10-year modern tenancy can be broken after five years for new entrants to give them the opportunity of reflecting on their first five years in the farm. As they want to change that relationship, they will have the opportunity to opt out as a new entrant. We take into account the needs of new entrants in the context of the new tenancy. There are, of course, some flexibilities that are not in the existing limited-duration tenancies that are going to be in the modern tenancy. Of course, there are similarities. There are just a couple of differences, but those differences are relating to flexibility. The review group that looked at the issue clearly made the recommendation that it is more flexibility required, and the emphasis should be on trying to encourage 10-year tenancies. Clearly, that is more stability for the new entrant or any farmer rather than five years, albeit five years still there. Ten years is just a bit more emphasis to try to encourage people to go for longer-term leases. There are other protections that may be available for new entrants within that. Is the Government considering bringing forward amendments to perhaps address some of the 10-year federations association's concerns in stage 2 or 3? As I said previously, I am keen to look at the evidence that you received from your done-free meeting. We will look at that carefully as we look to stage 2. No doubt, you will reflect that in your own recommendations. In terms of the other flexibilities, I think that it relates to negotiations over fixed equipment on the farm, and hopefully it will make that a bit smoother in terms of the 10-year lease. I think that that is the point. We took evidence from the Crown estate recently in relation to its attitude towards tenancies. We heard that, as part of a very considered succession planning for the next generation, there are issues in tenancies that were on up to 37 years in duration, taking the tenants up to the age of 65. I would just welcome your views on that approach, cabinet secretary, and whether you think that that is one that could be fed into the mix here to improve the general situation. I very much welcome leases of those terms, because clearly that is a career span for any new entrants. Therefore, if we want to encourage new entrants to give them that opportunities, that is a good incentive. I welcome what you are saying about the Crown estate and the 37-year lease. I welcome that. There is a separate question as to what should be in legislation, and we are here to discuss legislation. I encourage others to follow the example of the Crown estate, who clearly had the confidence to give those leases of that length of time. I hope that we would find other landowners to have that same confidence, so I welcome that. In terms of legislation, there is a different question of what we should legislate over. Thank you. Alex Ferguson is going to look at the next element of that. Thank you, convener. I am just looking at conversion, cabinet secretary, which is an interesting one. I think that particularly it ties into the question that Graham Daze just asked, because I think that the bit that we find interesting about the Crown estate model was the flexibility that it allowed in having not just a fixed term, but a term based on the retirement age of the next generation. I think that we all found that to be considerable, so it could be 15 years, it could be 37 years, as we heard, but it allows the flexibility while also giving a clear definition of why that is in place. I think that that is the sort of approach that people could buy into and have total faith in, if I could put it that way. It is important in this one, because, as you will be aware, the review group recommended that 91 act 10 should be able to convert to a 35-year lease. The actual length of the lease has not been included in the bill, but there is a power for ministers to set the duration. One of the bits of evidence that we took was a suggestion that the longer the converted lease was, the harder it would be for new entrants. We are talking about trying to create churn here to be able to compete with existing farmers for it, because, obviously, the longer it is, the greater the value. I just wondered whether there is any chance of the Government providing more details on its thinking as part of this bill, rather than leaving it to further future legislation, because, obviously, it is quite hard for us to comment decisively on this, without knowing what is being thought about. It is important to note that the purpose behind this measure of allowing the 1991 tenancies to be converted to the new modern, a limited duration tenancies is to encourage a bigger churn of tenancies in Scotland for a couple of reasons. First, if the tenancy was lost, then there is one less tenancy, so to have a fall-up tenancy means that there is still that tenancy available to someone else. Secondly, the fact that it can be a sign of value to a new entrant clearly gives an incentive for those who may be hanging about because there is another option, despite the fact that they may feel that the best years are behind them. They will give them an incentive to leave the industry with dignity and again make that tenancy available. I would dispute that that will lead to less tenancies and more frustration for new entrants, because, if it works properly, it will lead to more opportunities for new entrants. I am sorry to interrupt, but the point that was given to us in evidence was that the longer the stated minimum term of the lease, the harder it would be for people to get it, so what I am looking for is whether you are open to a greater flexibility in that term of the lease. I think that the point that I was just trying to make was the net benefit of the measure, which would be an overall increase in tenancies and opportunities for new entrants. I understand your specific question, so this is something that we have not reached a decision on yet and therefore we welcome the committee's views. Clearly, we are taking the power. There are some discussions on working on the stakeholders in the coming months as to how best to implement that through secondary legislation. The review group made one recommendation of 35 years. There is a variety of other scenarios, so we are working those through with the stakeholders. Well, thank you for that. Perhaps just on the subject of secondary legislation. I would be inconsistent, convener, if I did not mention my normal grumble about the amount of this legislation that has been left to secondary legislation. I do appreciate that it is similar to previous land reform legislation, but my concern is not so much the number of some of the really quite substantive parts of this that are being left to secondary legislation. I will just put it on the record for about the tenth time that I have. I do find that to make scrutiny of this legislation much more difficult. I know what your answer is, but— For the tenth time, noted. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The tenant's right to buy, Dave Thompson. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary and your team. Section 80, as you know, removes the current requirement for tenants to register their interests and their right to buy their holding, and that has been pretty widely supported by most organisations. However, the Law Society of Scotland has raised a number of practical problems that they envisage in relation to this. For instance, they have suggested that the type and extent of a tenancy may be disputed. They have looked at the requirement to register—well, what they suggest is that the requirement to register actually allowed these issues to be dealt with at an early stage, because once somebody registered their interests, if there was any dispute over whether it was a 91 tenancy or the boundaries of the tenancy, that could be resolved fairly early on. They pose the question that it might create a number of practical problems. There is also an issue raised by them in their submission to us that what have only part of the subjects of sale are affected if a landlord decides that he wants to sell a part of a tenancy for development or whatever happens to the rest. They have raised a number of interesting potential legal problems, and I wonder if you feel that any of them have real substance or what you think the consequences of those things might be if the Law Society is correct. We are considering the Law Society's comments, and we will have to reflect on that as well. The benefit of removing the requirement to register is, for a couple of reasons, there are a couple of benefits. Firstly, there is the issue that perhaps, as we understand anecdotally, some ten farmers do not want to register in case it harms the relationship between themselves and the landlord, and secondly, many have felt that perhaps the process was too complex and needless. Therefore, the easiest thing to do and to simply implement it is to remove the requirement to register. The existing triggers, of course, are already there, so some of the issues that I think the Law Society is raising with the committee are on-going, I guess, because there is no difference in terms of the context of those concerns, because there are triggers already there that will continue to be there as to what defines the farm going up for sale. Therefore, there is nothing new that will perhaps influence that through the removal of the requirement to register. That being said, we recognise that there is more work to be done on that, and we will look at that. Thank you very much. I am reassured by your comments that that is very, very helpful, indeed. Of course, I suppose that if a landlord is proposing to sell, it is not a whim, it is not a spur of the moment thing, so I would imagine that most landlords, if they had planning to sell, would have given probably some considerable thought to it. Therefore, if they thought that there were issues around those matters, you would expect them to have considered them at a very early stage in any case. I think that that is entirely right. That is a very good point. Sometimes concerns are expressed by the Government about the legislation not catering for particular scenarios, but it is quite difficult to find evidence of those scenarios ever arising. We can only work with what we know that actually happens in reality, and some of those issues are genuine and some are not. In the vast, vast majority of cases, as Dave Thompson says, a lot of thought is put into those decisions. They are carried out in a very respectful way, where the landlord will speak to the tenant and the tenant will be aware of what is happening, and it is all open and above board. Yes, legislation has to cater for the very few extreme examples where things are not like that, and that is important. That is why the legislation is important, but, yes, you are right, in the vast majority of cases, people are responsible. We are looking at the sale where the landlord is in breach. I thank you, Donald Leight. I apologise for appearing late to traffic congestion. Good morning, cabinet secretary, and good morning to your team. With regard to a sale where the landlord is in breach, Section 81 contains a process for the tenant to apply to the land court for an order for sale if the landlord is not complied with an order from the land court. Is it possible to give us a figure on how many cases there have been where the land court has made an order requiring a landlord to make good material breach of their obligations? I think that it is fair to say that we are only aware of one case where that has happened. We are only aware of one case, so it is clearly a system that is not working too well. There is no need to go to court in the first place, or people will feel that the court is not the best option. Would you regard that situation to continue? I will move on. With regard to the issue of the buyer of last resort, when the committee took evidence on 16 September, the issue was raised of who would be the buyer of last resort if the landlord was ordered to sell, but the tenant then did not buy. Possible options were suggested, obviously, including local authorities, the new crown estate or the Scottish Government. Who does the Government intend would be the buyer of last resort if the tenant did not buy following a successful application to force a sale? I think that the potential parties that you outlined are potential options, but we are going to have to bring forward secondary legislation to define the process for a third party buying the farm, because, clearly, that will need a little bit of work to get that right, so we will do that. The three options will be there. Will you give some examples of perfectly legitimate parties that could potentially be the third parties? If I could move on to the issue of clawback, the STFA has some concerns regarding the provision in section 38N, which allows a former landlord to clawback some of the increase in the value of the land if it is sold on at a profit within 10 years. The STFA and its evidence have suggested that, in effect, the original landlord should only be able to clawback any increase in value of his or her original interest in the lease and the land. As it stands in section 38N, it would, according to the STFA, hinder any attempt by the tenant to borrow to allow the purchase of the holding due to concerns regarding the size of the clawback that may or may not be the case. Will the provisions on clawback for a tenant's sales on exclude clawback of the value of the improvements that the tenant has made in the time that he has been there? I will look at that clearly. I will have to reflect on that and get back to the committee. I am sure that the purpose of the clawback, as you are aware, is to ensure that this process is only undertaken in the spirit of the legislation, which is to allow the land to be farmed and the tenant farmer to a better future, where the landlord is not fulfilling the obligations. That is why there is a clawback provision in there. I will reflect on your point there and come back to the committee. I appreciate that, cabinet secretary, but clearly the STFA has a strong argument on that, given that it would be the tenant who will have made the investment that has created the profit if the land is sold on. That point should be deducted from the clawback, but I will reflect on that. We are looking now at rent reviews. Claudia Beamish will lead on that one. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary, and welcome. Good morning to the officials. The rent review issue, as you are only two aware and the committee as a aware as well, has been a very challenging issue for tenants and indeed for landlords. There has been legislation around it, of which we are all aware as well. Trying to get this as fine-tuned as possible is obviously very important. In section 82, in my own view, there is quite a lot on the face of the bill that is itemised, which I will not go into now. In order for there to be real confidence in this challenging aspect of tenancy, issues still need to be resolved. One of those is the issue of going forward as the bill states with productive capacity as the judge of the rent. I wonder if you could comment at all on what committee has come across, that there are some concerns about that, and that, on farm capacity productivity, there might be a substantial increase in evidence in rents, which would be very concerning. Also, the definition will obviously be very important and the transparency of it. Some have argued for the simplicity of it, but I know that those who are working on it have had what I think is called a non-exhaustive schedule of factors. I am not in any way criticising the fact that that is quite long already because it is a very complex issue, but I wonder if you could comment on how that is progressing at all. The source of how rents have been set in the past has been the source of many of the disputes that we are aware of in tenant farming. My understanding is that the vast majority of not all stakeholders support moving away from open market value being the main criteria to the productive capacity of the farm, which is much more realistic. We have to have some criteria to give guidance on how to set rents, so you cannot guarantee that there will be a reduction or an increase in whichever circumstance, but as long as it is a fair, open and transparent criteria that is used for the setting of rent, that is a good thing, and that is why the stakeholders seem to support what we are proposing here. Of course, it has come from a lot of work that has taken place among stakeholders in terms of what we are putting into the bill. There is a lot of modelling that has been taking place and will continue to take place in conjunction with stakeholders to define the productive capacity of farms. We recognise that that is very important, so that is under way of that work, and that will be used to provide guidance. However, to put in legislation, this measure will be very helpful, and it will give the land court, of course, the ability to use a different criteria when it comes to settling disputes over rent, if they do reach the land court. In terms of the minutes that we have received from the rent review and template stakeholder meetings, some of which are not public yet—I am not going to comment on those—it makes it quite difficult for the committee on a number of those issues on which agreement has not yet been reached. That is not a criticism of the group, because I understand slightly the complexities of it. We have to do our stage 1 report, and it would be helpful if the group could be encouraged to move on as fast as they can, with respect to them. I do not know if you have anything to say about that. I will reflect on that and see if we can do anything there to make more information available to the committee. I am sure that we can at least ensure that we are up to speed as much as possible by the time that we are doing a report where things have got to with the defining product of capacity and the modelling that is taking place. Alex Ferguson and Jim Hew may not be able to answer it, but I know that one of the sticking points is the business of surplus accommodation on a farm—housing, really. I wonder if you are able to update us as to whether any progress has been made on that issue. That is an issue, and some people have raised concerns with us over that. If you are happy, I will come back to the committee on that particular point. I have looked into it, and it is not the easiest to understand in terms of how complex it is as to the arguments that go either way. I would like to reflect on that. Jim Hew. Modelling the work on going would be good to know when that would be concluded, because in our considerations, we need to know what the crucial part of the bill would be on the ground. Modelling is crucial for us to understand fully what the effects would be. Is there a date that we know yet that modelling will be concluded by? No, I do not have a date. I can just reiterate to the committee that this is clearly a significant measure that has been the source of many disputes over a long time and which has a lot of support. Adopting the principle and the new policy in the bill is quite important, even if we have to do the follow-up work to define productive capacity, et cetera, afterwards. It is a question of whether it is very important that we should get it into legislation as quickly as possible. Everyone feels that that is the case, and therefore, if that is work to be done afterwards, we will do that as quickly as possible. Thank you very much. Moving on to succession and assignation, Dave Thomson is going to lead off. Thank you again, convener. If we look at assignation and so on in succession, the bill is proposing to substantially widen potential assignees or successors, and the policy memorandum indicates that part of the reason for that is to modernise succession through the family to younger, more active members. Cabinet Secretary, if you could clarify the policy intention of the part of the bill, what is the fundamental reason why the bill is dealing with it, which is important, as there may be challenges under ECHR in relation to that particular section? The review group clearly looked into the issue in detail, and it was felt that widening the class of relatives and people who can be assigned a tenancy or who can succeed is very important to the future of tenant farming in Scotland for a number of reasons. Firstly, there are demographics, and families today are different to families 100 years ago. Therefore, you may have to spread the net a bit wider to other relatives if families are smaller for obvious reasons. Therefore, that will help to address that. There is also the need to allow families to have more longer-term planning, so if they have more options, they can plan succession in a much better timescale, and that is good for stability and good for the business. Then, of course, the key reason is to keep land in tenancies. If the option is not being able to assign it to anyone, there is no obvious who would be able to take over the lease. Therefore, the tenancy could be lost in a reduction in tenancy land. Therefore, that would hopefully ease land staying within the tenancy sector as well. Thank you very much for that answer. Some people have suggested that open as a nation would be a better way to ensure that tenancies were retained, because then the tenant farmers could decide who they wished to assign the tenancy to. I wonder whether you can comment briefly on that point. Again, the review group looked at this and took the view, and I think with reasonable grounds, that if the net is cast wide enough in the vast, vast majority of cases, hopefully that will allow someone else to succeed or to be assigned the lease, and that land will contain to be farmed. If you were to go to open as a nation, clearly the wider debate within agriculture is how to ensure that we have land coming on to the market and that there is a sense of fairness within the system. Open as a nation would give the pression according to what the committee was hearing that you have lost control of land forever, open as a nation would be forever and so on. We have introduced that element of insecurity for landowners, so it is striking that balance again. However, this is a very ambitious measure because the cast in terms of new relatives and relatives will be farmed wide. Do you feel, cabinet secretary, that open as a nation—you have explained that very well—would strengthen any particular challenge under ECHR, Scottish land and estates? I have made a supplementary submission to the committee on that, claiming that this part of the bill, I think all of it from what they are saying, is outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament. I wonder whether you could assure us that you feel that it is within your legislative competence. Clearly, I do not want to comment on the legal advice on those specifics, but there are factors that we have to take into account in terms of what stage any measure infringes on property rights, as we have previously discussed in relation to other questions. Those are factors and decisions, and there are no doubt factors that the review group had to have at the back of their minds as well. However, the primary focus of the review group on making that recommendation to not go down the route of open as a nation was the need to maintain confidence in the overall tenancy sector in Scotland. I think that we have got Ardek Fergus, then Mike Russell and then Claudia Beamish. Just a point that has been put to us that I would appreciate your opinion on is that responsible landlords of letting estates whose business is letting land need from time to time the flexibility to adjust the units to ensure that those units remain viable. We have already spoken about the difficulty right across the agricultural sector at the moment, and farming has changed a lot over the years. Obviously, units get bigger, or in some cases smaller. How does this part of the bill tie in with that need for flexibility for units to be altered or are we not in danger of perpetuating non-viable units through those measures? We believe that we strike a good balance in ensuring enough flexibility with ensuring that we can keep land in tenancies for the future of agriculture in Scotland. At the same time, we have to be careful that we do not allow anyone to place obstacles in the way of those tenancies being assigned or succession. There is clearly an argument that using the viable unit argument would be an obstacle to stop the farm being assigned or succession taking place. We are reasonably sceptical of the arguments around viable unit and how that is defined and how it is used within this debate. Surely, there is a mechanism that would say that if somebody puts a case that a certain unit needs to be divided between two other units to make them more viable when it has become vacant, surely on a condition that it is re-lit, there needs to be some flexibility within the system to allow units to remain viable. This has been a bit of a debate. The point that I am just making is that we have to be careful that we do not allow this to be abused and become an obstacle to assignation or succession. We are very conscious of that. In the question of assignation, I do not want to harp on the 1948 act too much, you will think that I was there. I do think that the 1948 act had a much more flexible view of assignation than subsequent acts. The bill is taking us back to a more flexible view. There is an argument that Dave Thompson has put for open assignation or the ability of open assignation at value, which would allow landowners to take land back if they chose to do so, but there would be a fairer system of buying out tenancies and presently existing. Of course, there are current cases that are difficult in that regard. Do you consider the question of open assignation at value tied to a fit and proper person test? If there is a fit and proper person test, that is, a farm cannot be assigned to somebody who has no experience of agriculture, you have quite a strong way of taking forward tenant and land, but it does not remove all the rights of the landlord. You are perfectly correct in that the situation in 1948 was much closer to open assignation. Again, for reasons that we have gone over, a lot of the legislation has changed dramatically since 1948, so it would not be as easy to return to that as what you might think or what we would like if we chose that as a policy option. We only consider, as far as the recommendations from the review group are concerned, who would have looked at the issue. For that reason, we have not revisited it in terms of putting it in the bill for open assignation. Again, for the reasons that I gave in response to Dave Thompson's questions. I am not ruling anything out. It is one of the issues in the background of how we take this bill forward, so if the committee has strong views on open assignation, we will listen to that closely. If you had open assignation and a fit and proper person test, you would then give a security in tenure, which is greater now. I certainly support the provisions here, but I think that I can go a step further. That would then create the circumstance in which what many landlords wish, which is freedom of contract, could be introduced with greater confidence, because there would be a stability in the market and it would then be for individuals to choose it. In freedom of contract, you would have to create a circumstance in which there was proof of no coercion, essentially. However, freedom of contract is not in itself unattractive to many people in agriculture on both sides, providing that there is a stronger support for tenancies and the continuation of tenancies. Is that a mix that you might be prepared to think about? It is certainly a mix that I think would be essential if we were to go down that road. We are aware that there are those arguments and therefore the Government's position would be that, if open assignation were to be taken forward or considered in more detail, there would have to be those issues around it. Following on from the discussion that we are having on succession and assignation, whether you are considering the possibility of someone who has worked on a farm throughout their working life or for a certain period of years, such as a shepherd, which is an example that I came across, of widening it to those as well as to the categories that you have there, besides just a point that has come up in evidence. It is an interesting point, again. If I can maybe take that away and reflect upon it, whether that would be appropriate. I suppose that I should raise at this moment the question about, you know, we are looking at the idea of the countryside being populated, we are looking at the idea of families being able to farm, and I hope that we are thinking in terms, despite the varieties of shape of families in this day and age, that we would still see that very much at the heart of what we are trying to do. Because, you know, when we talk about the bare question of somebody farming a piece of land, that is all very well, but people actually being able to live there is clearly a very important part of the thing that we have experienced as we go round and take evidence. There seem to be real difficulties that people have in so doing. We will come to one or two of them later on, but is that a kind of fundamental principle that you believe in when we are talking about the means to transfer from one generation to another or to another active farmer? I certainly do, and I think that many of the measures that we are discussing today and, again, reiterate that this is just one part of the debate, as is the legislation as other many equally important parts of the debate, such as the common agricultural policy, and we have to find ways of knocking down the obstacles for allowing people to be able to farm in all parts of Scotland, which is appropriate when we have good agricultural land for keeping people on the land and working on the land. I thought that I would make that point because it seems to me to be underpinning. Thinking about compensation for tenants improvements. Thank you very much, convener. It is a quite simplistic question. Sections 90 to 95 provide for an amnesty period for two years when a tenant can bring forward improvements that they have made so that they can obviously be compensated in the future. That is set at two years at the moment. Evidence that we have had and even the Scottish Land and the States said that three years would be perfectly reasonable. Therefore, I am just wondering if the Government is minded to leave it at the two years or whether it is considering to perhaps widen it out to three years or even more. Our initial view has been that two years is ample time, however, clearly as part of the consultation process and scrutiny process, other arguments are being made that should be longer than two years. I do not have a closed mind on that. If the committee wants to come back with a view, we will look at that. I tend to think that two years is a reasonable amount of time, but if you have other views as a committee, please convey them to us. It sounds like a liquor at whatever. No, that is fine, that is fine. If there is a good substantive argument to put forward as by three years better than two years, of course, we will listen to those arguments. No, that is fine, thank you for that. I move swiftly on to compensation and wego. Yes, I think that we all agree probably that the current process of wego is a mess and it needs to be smartened up and clarified. I think that doing so would help to restore some of the trust that is currently lost in the whole system. I wonder whether you have views on whether or not the two-stage process that the committee has taken evidence on and looked at are sympathetic towards the two-stage process of wego? Again, we have been looking at this and we are open-minded about whether that should be a two-stage process. I can see the advantages, but I am just not clear of how essential it is. If the committee again has views on whether it should be a two-stage process, we are open-minded about that. We probably all agree that it is only fair to the tenant to know what he is going to leave with before he decides to leave if I can put it that way and that the two-stage process would help to bring that about. However, I am sure that we will make a comment on that in our report on stage 1. I can see some advantages whether it is absolutely essential and I do not know if the arguments are input. If we make a big difference, we might be willing to look at that. We have also heard evidence that the list of improvements that are eligible for compensation at wego possibly needs to be updated. Is there any thought of including some of that on the bill, or is this something else that will be left to secondary legislation? I suspect the latter. I am not sure whether it is the first time in this evidence session that I can call on assistance from my colleagues here on whether that has reached that issue. We are aware that it needs to be updated and improved. Stakeholders have already made some representations, including as part of their rental review work, where we have been looking at some of these issues. It is an issue that we will have to look at and improve and it will be done over time at the secondary legislation that we would like. I just want to take that hand until the 11th time. Just while we are on the question of leases and so on, we had a question about repairing leases that was raised by the public in Dumfries. We are interested in the Government whether you are still considering the repairing lease to be a proposal for a 35-year repairing lease. Is it aimed at new entrants or is it aimed at other farmers to extend what they have already? We are keen from the point of view of the questioner in Dumfries that it should be aimed at new entrants. We are supportive of the concept of repairing leases and we are looking at the options of when it would be most appropriate to take that forward. The big benefit would be for new entrants. I do not necessarily think that it would be only for new entrants, but it is fair to say that those that stand to benefit would be new entrants if it makes a lease more attractive and that the new tenant would not have to have a higher rent to pay for fixed equipment or whatever it may be. Is it likely to be a 35-year repairing lease or would it be shorter or whatever? I think that we face the same debates with that as we face with the other timescales of other leases. Some of those issues can be agreed to with two agreeable parties. That is in terms of legislation, though we would have to think carefully about the timescale. Thank you very much for that. We have some other issues to raise. Sarah Boyack is going to do that. One of the issues that we have been grappling with throughout the process, partly in relation to agricultural tenancies but also in relation to wider community issues, is the whole issue of affordable social and private housing in rural communities. At the public meeting that we heard in Dura, that was one of the top issues in terms of lack of affordable housing and access to housing. It is a particular issue for retiring farmers, but it is also an issue about enabling young people either to stay and live and work in an area or to be attracted to an area. The committee would be keen to get an update from the cabinet secretary about the Scottish Government's plans to ensure that we have more affordable social and private housing made available across rural Scotland in the future. I am happy to send that update to the committee. Sarah Boyack says that it is a very important issue. I did right to all local authorities in Scotland that I recall a few years ago when we were taking forward our first new entrance initiatives, urging them to give priority to planning for homes, for retiring farmers or for new entrance, etc. It is something that we have to revisit as quickly as possible in terms of my portfolio, but it is very much at the forefront of their thoughts in terms of affordable housing policy. If the committee would allow me to speak to my colleagues and get back to you with an update, I will happily do that. I think that that would be very helpful. I suppose that the point that you made about writing to local authorities, do you have a sense in terms of responses of what impact that has made in terms of generating new opportunities for retiring farmers? I think that it is quite mixed. I find it difficult to answer the question because I do not know the information on retiring farmers, but the picture is quite mixed in terms of planning permission for agriculture purposes for homes. There are local authorities who give extra weight to planning applications for agricultural jobs, but that is quite patchy. I do not have an analysis to make available on that to the committee, but I will certainly look into it. I think that that would be really helpful in terms of people who work on farms, as well as farmers themselves. There are lots of affordability issues. I have asked them to have decisions in cases where people have wanted to reverse so that agricultural workers who want the conditions relaxed in their homes. It goes back to the point that colleagues were making earlier about particularly for tenant farmers, when you stop farming, what are you left with, whether you have a pension, whether you have somewhere to go and live. It is a really, really big issue. The other thing is what impact you see with legislation in terms of the community right to buy opportunities and delivering affordable housing in communities that currently do not have a lot of people living there or do not have the opportunities. Well, there is no better illustration of sustainable development being hampered, whereby communities are unable to have affordable housing for the next generation, so that is a very relevant debate that the community right to buy. Time will tell to what extent communities want to take advantage of what is made available to them in terms of the new measures to build affordable housing. Clearly, it is a prime example of why we need to ensure that communities do the ability to acquire land for housing purposes. Thanks minister. I think that that is helpful because one of the issues that we talked about on Monday with your colleague was about the purpose of the bill and about what the sustainable development means and what it will mean in the future for communities, so thank you for that. I think that this is one of the key parts of the bill that is not really yet in a position where we can grab hold of it but needs to come in the second stage two. All bills change at stage two, all bills develop at stage two and there are opportunities. There are two areas that I asked you to comment on. They are linked. One is the question of the commission and the role of the commission particularly as a land agency. There is a lot of public land out there. There may be the prospect for more public land if the issue becomes whether land needs to be purchased for agricultural tenencing but the commission does not seem to be able to fulfil the role of a land agency and the land agency, which has been much discussed, would then be in a position to look at the use of public land and particularly the use of public land for housing. That is issue one, connected to it. There is nothing in the bill that gives ministers essentially a right to push forward for example for sale of land so that land can become available for social purposes. The initiative lies with communities, there is no bad thing in that but sometimes that is not going to happen. When I look at many communities in Argyll, there is not often the capability or the infrastructure within those communities to allow those things to happen. I think that we would all be grateful, I suspect, from whatever side we come from. It would be grateful for further thinking on this in terms of the bill so that the bill can do something in terms of pushing forward the issue of rural social housing and can do so in a way that is going to make some early progress, because we are suffering in the west particularly substantial depopulation and that is not presently being assisted by local authorities, certainly not by the local authority in my area and we need to get some radical action. In response to Michael Russell's point, which I think is a very exciting debate, I would say that land reform in Scotland at the moment is a very exciting juncture and there are clearly other areas that we are going to have to spend a lot more effort to take forward in terms of how we have more joined up approaches for instance in Scotland's land, a publicly owned land. Although the land commission is not a land agency, clearly we now face the opportunity of the devolution of the Crown Estate if that ever happens in a way in which we will actually make a material difference to Scotland's communities and we have the land reform bill and the land commission being set up and we have our existing functions in terms of publicly owned land in Scotland and of course we have the other initiatives under way such as using publicly owned land for new starter units for farmers and I do feel that we need to join that up a lot more so the issue around the land agency in which agency at the moment performs the role of a land agency or whether we have to create something new is certainly to the forefront of the Government's minds because we are now at a position where it makes sense to think about the best way forward for managing publicly owned land in Scotland and that quite rightly as Michael Russell says could range from making opportunities available for affordable housing to new starter units for farmers or whatever so it's a really exciting agenda really exciting place just now in the land reform story in Scotland and land management story which could open up lots of new opportunities for communities and for Scotland's economy and for future generations and the only final point I would make is that in terms of compulsory purchasing land for affordable housing I'm not going to delve into the area of local government policy but clearly there are powers there with local government at the moment that can be used so there are various tools in the box at the moment land reform legislation will hopefully give solutions for many of the annuals but there are some there already that's not being used history of if I might convener the history of of you know local authorities and public sector compulsory purchase for example is a poor one from you know dr green on rase all those years ago I am conscious I'm acting almost as a historian these days every time I ask a question but you know from dr green and rase onwards that's not been highly successful and many would argue that the compulsory purchase powers local authorities are essentially too too slow too cumbersome to be used we need a very clear targeted powers to actually solve what the housing situation is in rural areas particularly though in other areas as well and also see land as a public asset because the other benefit of having a land commission and a land agency is to change the relationship with land for us all to understand that land is a public asset and should be working for the good of the community not just for the good of one or two individuals and I advise the committee you know perhaps to consider putting your own ideas to the land commission and you know what they should be looking at in their early days we all come across situations in our constituencies and we think I wonder if land reform legislation will cope with this circumstance and if not perhaps it's something land commission can look at in early days so you know that there's an opportunity for the committee there to put its views to the land commission Claudia Beamish then Jim Hume then Alex Ferguson then me last but not least convener cabinet secretary could I just focus briefly on the issue of tenant farmers actual homes which in some cases and I stress in some cases have been in a frankly dilapidated state from what we have heard and also some of the things that we've seen over my time in the rural affairs committee and as a South Scotland MSP and if those types of conditions were with a different form of private landlord which we're looking at in other ways in the Scottish Parliament that would be completely unacceptable and I appreciate their different forms of rent their different forms of tenancy but I wonder if in your deliberations you can look at this issue of modern homes for tenants it's a very important issue in terms of ensuring that a career in agriculture is attractive if you have a nice house to live in with your family when you're not working the farm so I will look at that I think that's a good point and he'll allow me again to come back to the committee on that particularly looking at the interaction between the tenancy arrangements for the farmhouse and other tenancy arrangements for private landlords in the country that may be good to do okay so Jim Hume the inalic first that was more or less the point that I was going to make as well I'll just re-emphasise it obviously normal housing tenants whether in the private sector or social social rented homes they've given protection of repairs to roofs they're done they have electricity and gas safety certificates they have carbon monoxide monitors in their homes they have fire alarm set and none of these are afforded to of course the tenancies that we see at the moment because the actual farmhouses as you know are seen as part of commercial property and we have I think we've all seen houses and been in houses that you would think would not in any way be fit for human habitation if they were in either private rented sector or the normal social rented houses so I'm just re-emphasising claudius point that's a fair point and I'll certainly take that with you it's really a comment but I just wanted to say that in certainly my constituency experience the lack of the lack of rural affordable housing is down far more to infrastructure constraints than it is to lack of land availability I don't know of any community that hasn't found land to build or to have affordable housing built on where the infrastructure has been up to but the problem is more to do with infrastructure complaints than it is about land availability I may not speak for the whole of rural Scotland on that there's no doubt that is an issue but clearly there are a number of issues and there are many empty homes in Scotland that could be used in the rural communities if they were improved and again the government's conscious of these issues and action has been taken so I'll get back to committee about that I think cabinet secretary you can see that the issue of housing particularly on farms and indeed rural housing as such is something that's a you know it's really hit our us in every part of Scotland that we've visited and therefore you and we hope that you will be making the kind of approach to the planning review that would allow for land to be available and indeed for means to actually use the powers that exist for compulsory purchase and so on but there's a another part to it as well when we were in Dura one of the estates suggested that they had setting up seven crofts now these would be new crofts which couldn't be bought but none of these have been taken up because people couldn't weren't able to build a house in that part of Dura to be able to live there and run that piece of land now the point about that is appalling because at least it was an attempt to try and create some new crofts but I wonder whether like in the past the department agriculture had designs for houses which crofters and others could build and before crofting was separated from the rest of agriculture in 1955 these models were used throughout the country we need up to date eco friendly housing models which are agreed by the agriculture and rural affairs people and that planners understand that these designs would be given priority when houses are being built and I believe if we did that and we had particularly wooden houses that are eco friendly and built in prefabricated form that it might well be possible for more people to have a good house to live in the kinds of places that I've described in Dura just now because these things seem to me to be fundamental to dealing with climate change etc and dealing with the potential for people to actually have economy in the houses that they built and that if there are a series of models that that might be a main means to ensure that we actually bring this to the fore as an idea that planners have to agree to and agree to very quickly powerful point and clearly the guidance that is issued by Scottish Government local authorities is one vehicle where that kind of initiative could be taken forward so I could raise that with my planning colleagues in the government and we'll incorporate that into my response to the committee after today it's a good point and there are many members around the table who represent stunning rural constituencies in Scotland and you'll be aware they're fantastic rural designs for homes and there's no reason why they should be blocked by local authorities unless they're really in sensitive locations so yep we need the support of local authorities taking that forward but the idea of having some designs that can show it can be done is a good idea. Dave Thompson wanted to make a final point did you? Yeah I did indeed convener thank you very much for letting me in just to say that there's been an interesting debate in Highland between the council and various local folk in relation to section 75 agreements in relation to building houses in the countryside and the folk who owned the land actually won their appeal and I was very pleased about that and it's just on that general point of planning to finish off cabinet secretary I believe in likes of Ireland there's a presumption in favour of rural housing whereas here it's the opposite and with the planning review going through now I would hope that the government will be looking very very carefully at encouraging folk in the countryside to be able to build on land that is available and if there was a presumption in favour of rural housing that I think would serve a number of purposes it would allow far more houses to be built in the countryside it would help to cut waiting lists to give people an opportunity and free up land for housing in a way that would cost the government nothing and would allow us to tackle what is a very very serious housing problem and my constituency and others in the Highlands and elsewhere. Again fair points and I'm sure my ministerial colleagues will be more than happy to come before the committee and discuss rural housing policy with you. My own view just to finish on that theme is and I have expressed this before to local authorities is that our local authorities in Scotland I would urge to have rural development policies and when they have a rural development policy they're able to join up the housing policy with the farming policy and so on and so forth. Well we can see that that's the kind of things that underpin a lot of our discussions about this that people can live in the countryside and we want them to be able to do so. I'd like to thank the cabinet secretary and his team for their evidence and we will now be able to consider what to do with all of this. That concludes our evidence taking on the bill. The committee will now consider its views and publish a stage 1 report to parliament in early December. This will be published on the committee's website. At the next meeting of the committee on 11 November the committee will consider two negative instruments and take evidence from the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Dr Eileen McLeod on the UN climate change conference in Paris in November 2015 and as previously agreed the committee will now move into private session to consider evidence heard this morning and at previous sessions and I now close the public part of the meeting and ask the gallery to be cleared. We'll have a short recess.