 Welcome to the fourth meeting of 2016 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Before we move to the first item, remind members and those present to switch off mobile phones, or at least on to silent, and notice that, of course, community members are consulting tablets during the meeting because it provides the meeting papers in digital format. Gender item 1 today is the Land Reform Scotland Bill. We now move to our third day of consideration of amendments to the Land Reform Scotland Bill today. We will consider amendments picking up where we left off last week and consider amendments up to part 9 in the bill. We will have a brief suspension at the conclusion of part 9 before moving on to part 10. At that point, we will be joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment and his officials. I welcome back the minister and her officials who will be present for amendments up to part 9. We will pause briefly after the first group to allow some changes to the officials supporting the minister. I note that officials are not permitted to speak on the record in these proceedings. We are joined by Patrick Harvie this morning who has amendments to lodge. Welcome, Patrick. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshaled list of amendments that sets out the amendments in order in which we will be debating them and in the groupings that were published on Monday. There will be one debate in each group of the amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move the amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group who wish to speak should indicate to me or the clerk. If the minister has not already spoken on the group, I will invite her to contribute to the debate just before moving to the winding up speech. I should also note that there may be times when I allow a little more flexibility for members to come back on points during the debate. On each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate in the group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If the member wishes to press ahead, I will put the question in the amendment. If the member wishes to withdraw the amendment after it has been moved, I will check whether any other member objects. If any member does object, the amendment is not withdrawn and the committee must immediately move to vote on it. If any member does not wish to move their amendment when it is called, I shall say not moved. Any other MSP present may move such an amendment if and no one moves the amendment. However, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting on any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. If we do not reach the end of chapter 4 of part 10 today, then we will stop at an appropriate point and pick up where we left off on day 4 next week. I hope that that is all very clear. I welcome the minister, Dr Elaine McLeod, and her officials. We should now move to the first of the amendments. It is a compulsory sale order. I call amendment 128, the name of Sarah Boyack, group with amendment 132, Sarah Boyack, to move the amendment 128 and speak to both amendments in the group. I raise the issue in the stage 1 debate. At that point, the minister agreed to pursue the issue in advance of stage 3. I wrote to her so that we could exchange ideas about how we might proceed, and I received her reply last week in advance of our committee meeting. That is an issue that has been under consideration and discussion for some time now. Shelter, the Scotland Towns Partnership, the Rural Housing Scotland and Scotland's Scottish Empty Homes Campaign Partnership and Community Land Scotland and the Development Trust Association of Scotland have all been very enthusiastic about those measures. It is intended to be used as a last resort where all other approaches to get access to land or properties that have been vacant are brought back into use. That strengthens the bill, particularly in urban areas, but it could be used in rural areas as well. It would be seen particularly as a last resort where other mechanisms to bring long-term empty properties and land back into use have failed. It was something that we first discussed in the community empowerment debates. The practice is seen as something that would give local authorities another option, another tool in the toolkit to enable them to regenerate communities. The report that current compulsory purchase order legislation is inappropriate for this purpose and that is why they do not use it. Introducing a compulsory sale order would help local authorities and communities to bring back long-term empty properties and vacant and derelict land that blight communities back into use. It would do that by giving local authorities a legal right to force long-term empty property or derelict land onto the open market for sale with the purpose of securing its reuse. One of the things that we talked about when we were gathering evidence for the bill was the number of people, particularly in rural communities, who cannot get access to affordable housing. Across the country, we have 150,000 people waiting on housing waiting lists. That would be one way that we could begin to increase housing supply levels in a very practical and effective way. The amendment also encompasses the situation of vacant and derelict land, which can blight communities when the land remains in that condition, sometimes for years. The amendment would not only create an incentive to develop the land, but it would also provide an effective sanction when the land is not developed. I hope that it would concentrate the minds of owners who are sitting on land waiting until the market rises and waiting for a better price. In the meantime, our communities suffer, our urban environment suffers and it can blight communities. That would add an opportunity for local authorities to deal with vacant, derelict land and properties, and it would promote better economic and environmental conditions in our communities as well. It would be a cost-effective, viable tool. The current legislation is not and is unlikely to be used by councils. That is the key point. In concluding, convener, I just want to highlight the point that the Development Trust Association Scotland made in submitting its comments. Its view is very strongly that the CSO power would complement measures in the Community Empowerment Act 2020, and, like the general right to buy, its greatest impact might be to bring change of culture around the ownership and use of vacant and derelict land. I believe that it would, in help, encourage discussion, negotiation and, hopefully, voluntary agreements. Although it is very much seen as a last resort power, it is a power that does not exist at the moment and it is solely needed. I move the amendment in my name and look forward, particularly to the comments from the minister. Her letter was very helpful and she welcomed the references to the power at the stage 1 debate. I know that there has been a parallel consultation running along the same time as our discussions on the bill. In considering whether to push my amendments this morning, I would be very keen to know where the minister and the Scottish Government are on the issue and what their plans are. If the minister has a current timescale that she is able to mention to the committee or a vehicle by which the measure might be brought to Parliament, I am supportive of the amendment. We can all point to places in urban Scotland, especially where land has just sat there at the same time, while some people, such as housing associations, could put up houses and, obviously, address the housing shortage in Scotland. Obviously, it may even affect local authorities in some respect, who do sit on some brownfield sites, et cetera. I am very keen to support Sarah Boyack in her amendment today. I am very supportive of Sarah Boyack's amendment. It seems to me that this has to be done, and both parts of the amendment have to be done. Both the question of compulsory sail orders, and I think that there is a weakness in the present situation. When you drive around Scotland in both urban and rural areas, you see quite a lot of land, which is, if not completely vacant and derelict, this land that could be utilised by communities for the benefit of those communities and by individuals for the benefit of those individuals. Land is a resource. It is a resource that requires to be put to good use, and there are many circumstances that do not happen. I also think that having—we will come to this later in group 2—a register of that land, making it clear what the situation is, will in and of itself bring a lot of attention on the issue. My only reservation is that the parallel consultation has been taking place. The fact is that the issue is wider than simply a land reform issue. It is an issue that is of great importance to housing, and it is an issue of great importance to communities. However, I would want to see from the minister, without any doubt, a commitment to taking this forward across government and an indication of the timescale for it being taken forward. I think that this is an idea if I might be not coined a phrase and use a well-worn phrase. It is an idea of his time has come, and it is time that those powers were available to communities in Scotland. Minister, while the discussion about the—oh, pardon me, I will come back to Alec Ferguson first, then I will come in after that. Sorry, convener, thank you. I am also supportive of the principle of this. I can think of examples in my constituency of land that is owned by an arm of government in the shape of the Forestry Commission, where I think that this could be highly applicable. My one concern—and maybe the minister will come to it—but Sarah Boyack mentioned that she felt that this would complement the community empowerment bill, and I just wonder whether it does not actually duplicate the community empowerment bill. Even if it did, I am not minded to oppose it, but I would just be interested if anybody had any comment to make on that. Minister, there is a third leg to the stool, the planning review that is taking place at the present time, which is an independent one. I wonder whether, in fact, issues about the purchase and compulsory purchase are being taken forward in that area. I think that we would need to know that as well if you have any information on it. It would help us in our deliberations this morning. I thank Sarah Boyack for explaining her amendment 128 and the related 132. I very much welcome much of what Sarah Boyack and other members have said about the amendment, which seeks to ensure that our local authorities have the power at their disposal and that it could be used as a result of a request from a community group. As we have already heard this morning in terms of the policy context, the committee will be aware that the call for the introduction of a compulsory sale order was made in the land reform review group recommendations that were published in 2014, and those recommendations relating to land assembly, housing and regeneration with the subject of an extensive consultation that was undertaken by the Government last summer. As part of that work, the compulsory sale order recommendation was widely welcomed by more than 300 stakeholders that took part in the consultation process. However, it was made very clear that a lot more work was required to ensure that power was effective, that there was a correct balance achieved between the rights of owners and benefits that would arise from such a power and that it fit with existing powers such as the compulsory purchase that were understood. The consultation feedback was clear that this power would be most useful for abandoned buildings and small plots of land, particularly those that blight our town centres and neighbourhoods rather than large pieces of land. I am happy to confirm my comments that I made during the stage 1 debate that the Scottish Government is considering the issue of compulsory sale orders. Ministers are still giving full consideration to the consultation findings in themselves, and I think that to bring forward an effective compulsory sale order will take time and very careful consideration. In the stage 1 report on the bill, the committee made it very clear that it is imperative that the bill, as with all legislation that has passed for the Scottish Parliament, is within the legislative competence of the Parliament, including being compatible with the ECHR. There are a number of technical and legal issues with the proposed amendment that help to illustrate the type of issues that we would need to consider further before bringing forward effective proposals on the issue. In terms of the particular drafting of the amendment, we would need to consider whether the words vacant and derelict would need to be defined in this context. Other definitions and key concepts such as how an order would be enforced are missing, but there are legal issues that would need to be considered again. A proposal that requires a landowner to sell their land would be an interference with rights under article 1 and protocol 1. That would include considering whether such a proposal could pursue a legitimate aim, whether that proposal would achieve that aim and whether, on a fair balance, the benefits of achieving the aim by the proposal outweighs the interference with the article 1 protocol 1 rights. However, as other members have said, the time has come for compulsory sale orders. The Scottish ministers intend to fully consider all the issues with any such measure. Obviously, if the Government is re-elected, we would want to bring a CSO forward in the next term of government as part of our on-going programme of land reform measures. It is such a measure because it cuts across a number of portfolios, not just within land reform, but also local government housing. As you rightly said, convener, on planning, I can assure the committee and assure Sarah Boyack that we are considering this. Obviously, as we have said, we have an election on the horizon and, as with all plans for potential legislation for the next parliamentary term, it is not possible to give precise timescales as to the overall legislative programme, which is dependent on the outcome of the election. However, I can assure the committee that the Government is absolutely committed to doing this. I am very happy to keep the committee up to date. If possible, I would welcome the opportunity to meet Sarah Boyack along with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Alex Neil. Given that there is a real commitment there to take forward work on compulsory sale orders, I would ask Sarah Boyack to consider withdrawing her amendment in that light. I thank colleagues and the minister for their comments about this amendment. I will borrow Mike Russell's phrase, it is an idea whose time has come. However, it has been hanging around for a while and that is really why I was keen to push it today. As the minister said, the land reform review group raised it. We have discussed it in the community empowerment bill. It is certainly one of the issues that, when I used to do the local government brief, was something that I discussed with local government colleagues in relation to town centre improvements and regeneration. The idea has been around for quite a while now. I was very keen to make sure that we came back to this on the record, so that we could secure a commitment from the minister. I was hoping, maybe for before stage 3 of the bill, but I am an optimist. I have hopefully secured the commitment. I write around the table across the parties for this, and I think that it is something that we could all work together on. Getting the detail right, I would have been astonished if my amendment had been perfect in all respects. However, I will take the general political support that there has been around the table today. I think that the campaigners outwith the Parliament, some of whom are here today, will hopefully be reassured by what we can now take as a commitment from all of us to pursue this over the next few weeks and months, and certainly into the next Parliament. It would be an additional power, an additional option for local authorities, and the points that were made by colleagues about what is going to be in the register, the different types of land that might be available in urban and rural communities. I think that it would complement the powers in this bill and the Community Empowerment Act, and it would help us to tackle both the problem of lack of affordable housing but also our town centres. For those reasons, I will not push it today, but I am grateful to everybody for their positive comments. Sarah Boyack wishes to withdraw amendment 128, with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member objects, so the amendment is therefore withdrawn. The next amendment concerns non-domestic rates, vacant and derelict and unoccupied industrial lands and heritages. Amendment 129, the name of Patrick Harvie, group with amendments 130, 131 and 133. Patrick Harvie, to move amendment 129 and speak to all amendments in the group. As a non-member of the committee, I did not ask to speak in the last group, but I would want to endorse many of the arguments that were put by members about the issue, which is certainly one that I can recognise in Glasgow as well. This group of amendments are related. They seek to address some of the same concerns, albeit in a different way. As Sarah Boyack described, her proposal is perhaps something that would be used as a last resort. This proposal is one that might be something more of a first incentive in relation to the same issue of vacant and derelict land and buildings. When I come to the committee to move amendments, I always do so in the spirit of hopefulness. In this instance, I would like to think that there is some cause for that, given that some of what the group of amendments is trying to do is very much in keeping with aspects of the Government's agenda. I would like to mention amendment 131 first of all, because in relation to unoccupied industrial land and buildings, that is something that the Scottish Government has already taken some action on or indicated an intention to act on. The local government finance settlement makes it clear that the Government proposes to reform reliefs of empty property for industrial property, effectively bringing them into the same treatment as empty retail property. The Federation of Small Businesses welcomed that, noting the intention that there would be an incentive to—by reducing the amount of property relief landlodge would have an incentive to drop rents, invest in their properties, making them more attractive to potential tenants. I very much welcome the steps that the Scottish Government has taken in that line, and this amendment simply locks that in for the future. Obviously, all Governments hope that they will be in power for all time, but that is not necessarily the case. I would hope that the Government is willing to support amendment 131 and ensure that its own policy is given a statutory basis and a clear signal that it is going to be a long-term provision. Amendment 133 is consequential to that. Amendment 129 takes the same principle and extends it to vacant and derelict land and the many instances that were discussed in relation to the last group of amendments. Again, we can all recognise the reality that in our constituencies and regions there are many examples of land that could be put to better use. Bringing that land back into the valuation role, making sure that the owners of it have some financial incentive to put it to use, to invest in it or to dispose of it at a fair price if they do not wish to put it to use themselves, I think that that would be an important step to eradicating some of the perverse incentives that exist. For example, there are situations in which owners of land have an incentive to demolish buildings that exist on it in order for it effectively to cease to show up on the valuation role. As far as I understand it, there is not an explicit exemption for this land. It is more a question of on-going case law over centuries. I think that we have arrived at a situation that we would not have done by design, so that amendment 130, which is consequential to it, is intended to rectify that situation. I am told by the legislation team that there might be some requirement for modification to other aspects of the bill as a result of that, but my understanding is that the bill already gives ministers a general power, so I have not included that as a specific aspect of these amendments, given that the general power exists within the bill. I move amendment 129. Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to speak? Mike Russell? I am also, as I said earlier, sympathetic to the idea of the register of the incentives, and I think that there is something inherently attractive in both having a last resort power and an early incentive for people to consider what should happen. I think that the motions, the amendments that Patrick Harvie is moving, are more applicable to the urban situation and to my own constituency. However, I do think that they could have applications within my constituency, and there are places where there is a blight on community activity and development because of the way in which land and buildings are treated. I am sympathetic to those. I have a feeling that some of the reservations that the minister put forward in terms of the progress that she is making and the need to have that progress more widely across government may apply here, too. However, I do not think that there would be any lack of willingness to accept that the principles that Patrick Harvie is initiating are principles that we should be able to take on board. The practicality of putting them into place is always the difficulty, but the idea is the right idea. I can see where Patrick Harvie is coming from with those amendments, but I see great practical difficulties and I see enormous potential for conflict and argument when it comes to determining if land is derelict or whether it is actually serving a purpose environmentally, for instance, in not being used for what one might need to be, normal traditional use. I am not minded to support them at this stage. I can see the principle behind it, but I think that there are practical difficulties in implementing those, if it were to be passed. I thank Patrick Harvie for bringing forward those amendments. We are setting out the rationale behind the group of amendments and I absolutely understand the principles behind them. Obviously, the intention with amendment 129 to include the vacant and derelict property on the valuation role is already provided for in statute. Non-domestic property is currently entered in the valuation role, whether vacant or derelict or not, and that is subject to specific exclusions such as farms and shootings. The amendment also seems to intend the prescription of the valuation method for vacant and derelict properties, but the provision is flawed because it refers to a method that is prescribed by section 6.1 of the local government Scotland Act 1975, but that is only an order-making power and does not prescribe any valuation method. That part of the amendment also refers to such method, as the assessor considers appropriate. That would seem to be the opposite effect of prescription, which is to curtail the discretion that the assessor otherwise has in respect of valuation. For those reasons, amendment 129 seems to be flawed both in its intention and in its content. For that reason, I would ask Patrick Harvie to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 130 is consequential on amendment 129, and I would ask Patrick Harvie not to move the amendment. On amendment 131, I assure Patrick Harvie that the Government wishes to retain different rates relief provisions for empty industrial property and for other empty non-domestic property. Patrick Harvie has said that we have made related proposals as part of the draft budget 2016-17 to limit the rate-free period for empty industrial property to the first three months that the property is empty and to provide 10 per cent relief thereafter and for non-industrial property to reduce relief for the initial three months period from the current 100 per cent to 50 per cent and to retain the current 10 per cent relief thereafter. In our view, the changes can be made by secondary legislation. Subject to final ministerial decisions and we will be laying regulations soon, so I would ask Patrick Harvie not to move this amendment. Obviously, in terms of amendment 133, which is consequential on amendment 129, I would ask Patrick Harvie not to move this amendment, but I would also like to add to that that I would certainly be very happy to explore with both the assessors and with Patrick Harvie the practical approach and the outcomes around us. I am grateful for those who have recognised the case in favour of this. We have not only got to try and recognise the incentives or increase the incentives to bring derelict and disused land and buildings back into use, but we should also recognise that this is a potential source of revenue. The current estimates of the amount of derelict and disused land and buildings suggest to us that a reasonable rate poundage of the existing rate poundage of 48p would be able to generate over £300 million per annum from the existing derelict and disused land and buildings in Scotland. If we talk about the need for investment in social housing, it is not just a case of freeing up the land, it is also a case of finding the revenue that we want to invest. This proposal would do something toward both of those objectives—the land and the money that would need to be spent in order to achieve what is a shared objective. I recognise the comments that the minister has made about the technical aspects of those amendments. I was not quite clear whether the minister was endorsing the intention, the basic proposition, that this is a thing that should be done. Is she saying that this is the wrong way to do something that ought to happen, or that this ought not to happen? I would be interested if she can be a little clearer if she is permitted to intervene. Minister, do you want to respond? Just to say that the current legislation on this is very clear around that. I am tempted to ask permission to withdraw amendment 129 on the understanding that I would have some discussion with the minister prior to the deadline for stage 3 amendments and might come back with a revised version of that, if that is agreeable. Patrick Harvie is asked to withdraw amendment 129. Does this have the agreement of the committee? Does any other member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No other member objects to the amendment being withdrawn. Non-domestic rates, shootings and deer forests. The call amendment 94, in the name of Alec Ferguson, group of amendments 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 95 and 99. Alec Ferguson, to move amendment 94 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you convener. Amendments 94 and 95 seek quite simply to remove section 66 and 67 from the bill, the result of which would be to continue the exclusion from the valuation role of shootings and deer forests for the time being. During our evidence taking, particularly at the meeting in Dumfries, it became increasingly obvious that the Government was frankly unclear about too many aspects of this part of the bill. The minister with respect was unable to answer questions about how much the measure was likely to raise, how much it would cost to raise it, how much it was required to raise, given the First Minister's earlier statements that proceeds would go towards the Scottish land fund, or even how the assessors would go about the exercise of assigning a rateable value to every acre of non-urban land in Scotland. I will come back to that in a minute, if I may. The Government was not either able to answer the question of why shootings and deer forests had been singled out, while several other forms of non-agricultural land use will continue to be exempted. The result of our stage 1 deliberations was as damming a section of a stage 1 report as there is likely to be in this parliamentary session. The committee was unconvinced by the Government's arguments and suggested strongly that a major rethink was required. Not the least of our concerns was the lack of any social, economic or environmental impact assessments, but I have to say the aspect that concerns me almost most of all is that in answer to the question of why the Government seeks to reintroduce this tax, the only answer has been that it is a question of fairness, and I have to ask exactly to whom this fairness applies. If I could refer members to the letter to the committee from the minister and the cabinet secretary for financial sustainable growth that was sent on 19 January, paragraph 72 of that letter refers to the minister's view that the 8,000 subjects that were on the valuation role in 1995 is an indication of the scale of the exercise that is faced in this instance. In their evidence, the Scottish Assessors Association told us that the total potential entries was likely to be between 52,000 and 55,000, so I wonder if the minister could explain why she appears to be seeking to include only a small proportion of the subjects and who is going to decide as to which subjects go on to the role and which don't. Paragraph 73 of that same letter states that the minister notes, and I quote, the suggestion from some stakeholders that shooting entries would be required in the valuation roles in respect of every acre of land. That, however, was not the case for the many years that shootings were rateable, and this bill proposes no such change or anything to cause such a change." So I have to ask also, does this mean that the Government is advocating that many of those who should be on the valuation role are not actually going to end up on it because that's what happened last time? Prior to the exemption coming in, many people appealed their rates bills successfully, with the result that some people ended up carrying the tax burden, while others carried on happily rates free, thanks to what was effectively Government-approved avoidance measures. Those two approaches don't seem to me to exemplify the principle of fairness that the Scottish Government says that it seeks. Indeed, the only witness that we met in our travels as a committee who is dependent on running a shooting business was an individual who rents the shooting from a border's estate. That business employs seven people in a rural area and many more during the shooting season itself, to say nothing of those who come to shoot staying in local hotels, adding considerably to the local economy. That individual explained to us that, while he makes a living from his business, the profit margins are not huge and that the weather plays a major part in whether the business actually shows a profit or not. I suspect that this year he might have some difficulty. However, that business is situated only a few miles from the border. I find myself asking how it can possibly be fair to that witness, or to the seven employees of his business, or to the local hotels and shops that benefit from it to impose a burden of taxation on it that will not have to be borne by a similar business just south of the border. Sporting rates will simply place that businessman at a massive competitive disadvantage with similar business just a few miles away. I do not think that that is fair, convener. In fact, I think that it is the absolute opposite. It has often been said that the exemption was first introduced by a Tory Government as a SOP to its benefactors. That is absolute nonsense. The exemption was brought in because the cost of collecting the rates was overtaking the amount that was being raised. Thus far, the Government has not been able to tell us how much it is likely to cost to implement and raise the sporting rates that it seeks to impose. I wonder if I could remind members also of our statement in our stage 1 report referring to the ending of the exemption when we said, based on the available information, that the committee believes that the case has not yet been made. The committee asked for robust and comprehensive evidence-based analysis of the potential economic, social and, most importantly, the environmental impacts of the proposal. I do not believe that the limited amount of information that has been provided since comes anywhere close to satisfying that request. Just to conclude, convener, if I could say just a brief word about the possible environmental impact that this might have, because I think that that is important, shooting businesses are known to assist in the delivery of the Scottish biodiversity strategy. It is an interesting fact that shoots over farmland are proven to help in providing habitat that reversed the trend of the decline in farmland songbird numbers. It is worth noting that the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust supports the amendments on the ground that, without the evidence-based assessment that the committee has asked for, the bill poses an unqualified risk to the environment and is based on unclear policy drivers and displays a failure to acknowledge the conservation benefits that stem from game management. I have to say that I agree fully with that, convener. So until the requests of the committee are fully complied with in respect of this part of the bill, I believe that it should be removed from it. That is the purpose of the amendments in my name, convener, and I move amendment 94. Thank you. Mike Russell. Sorry, I beg your pardon. Mike, I'm sorry, the minister has to speak to amendment 122 first before we bring in other members. Then Mike has to speak to your amendment 126, sorry. Is it not amendment 94, convener? Sorry, you speak to all the amendments in the group. I'm sorry, I'm just waking up again. Sorry, it wasn't what you said, Alec, it was just... Minister, to speak to your amendments and all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and thank you to Mr Ferguson for explaining his amendments 94 and 95, which would together remove the part 6 provision to return shootings and deer forests to the valuation role. I would reiterate the purpose of part 6. It is to enable revenue raising to fund public services and to reflect fairness returning shootings and deer forests to the same rating regime that applies to the majority of other non-domestic properties. To briefly recall the background to the current exemption dating from 1995, the rationale given by UK ministers at the time was to align Scotland's arrangements with those in England, but their exemption did not do that. The alignment was only achieved when a subsequent exemption was legislated for in England, taking effect in 1997. Others have suggested that the reason for the 1995 exemption was that the administrative cost exceeded the revenue, but there is no evidence to support that. We have engaged local government and the assessors on the administrative costs and considered them to be incremental and sustainable. I recognise the issues with scrutinising evaluation provisions such as this, as it is not a rating provision and does not in itself determine rates revenue. For non-domestic rates, the first step is valuing the tax base. Given the absence of entries in the valuation role since 1995, there is no available data source to identify shootings and quantify rents. As with the 220,000 properties on the valuation role, the work is for the assessors. In light of that, the Government has committed, subject to the passage of the bill, to return to the committee to provide information on the emerging valuations once they are available and to invite the committee to express any views before rating decisions are made ahead of implementation next year. At this stage, 2017 rates revenue cannot be predicted accurately for any sector as we know neither the valuations, the poundage nor the relief eligibility for respective properties, and that is a case across all the sectors ahead of a revaluation year. We have also said, convener, that if we are elected, we will continue the small business bonus scheme for the duration of the next parliamentary session. I anticipate many shootings being eligible for considerable rates relief under that scheme, which already benefits around 100,000 rateable properties. The liability should be considered in that context. Having considered the extensive evidence on the proposal, including our own public consultation, which drew over 1,000 responses with a 71 per cent agreement from those who gave a view, we consider that the measure is sustainable, as it was for more than 100 years before the exemption. We recognise the potential conflict with our wider dear management policies, and taxis can conflict with objectives for any sectors. That does not necessarily mean that we should not tax. However, our intention is for a fair and sustainable rating liability, and our view is that any such conflicts are manageable. The assessors will work with the sector to ensure that there is an appropriate valuation methodology. I welcome the preliminary discussions that are already under way. As with all rating valuations, ratepayers can appeal their valuations in independent hearings. We have presented the available evidence to the committee. Despite calls for more information and more analysis, we have received no suggestions as to what the alternative data sources or types of analysis might be. The Government has also not heard any compelling evidence why shootings in deer forests should remain a special case and be entirely excluded from valuation and rating. Accordingly, it does not agree that the current exemption should continue. We intend to continue to work closely with our stakeholders during the scrutiny of the bill, and then ahead of and during implementation to secure fair and workable arrangements. I would ask Alex Ferguson to withdraw amendments 94 and 95. I want to add some comments that Mr Ferguson had made in his opening remarks about the comments that are made by the chair of the Scottish Assessors Association, Alastair MacTaggart, when we are talking about whether there should be shooting entries in the valuation rules covering every single area of land. As we have said in our analysis, there were around 8,000 shootings on the roll in 1994. By comparison, there are around 55,000 farms as well as other land holdings in terms of estates in Woodlands. When the chair of the Scottish Assessors Association was before the committee on 30 September, Alastair MacTaggart, which I think may have caused some confusion, said that, hypothetically, every shooting right should be in the valuation roll. However, over the 100 years leading up to 1995, a degree of pragmatism came in and the valuable shootings, the shootings for which the right was exercised and for which there was some value in that right, were the ones that were entered in the valuation roll. Assessors will now have to re-establish the position in the next two to three years. I was a little alarmed last week to get an email from a... I will eventually get set. You will eventually. The minister wants to say some more about other amendments in the group. In terms of amendment 99, I thank Alex Ferguson for explaining his amendment 99. Amendment 99 is consequential on amendments 94 and 95, which I have asked Mr Ferguson to withdraw. I have also asked Mr Ferguson to withdraw amendments 99. In terms of our own amendments, amendments 1 to 2 to 1 to 5, they amend the wording of section 67 to remove any unintended scope for misinterpretation. Amendment 1 to 2 simply removes the term yearly value, which, although used right up into 1995, has now been questioned by some stakeholders, given that the prescribed form in existing subordinate legislation, that is the valuation roll and valuation notice. Scotland Order 1989 is for entries in the valuation roll to include net annual value and rateable value. Given that existing provision, amendment 1 removes any possible doubt as to what is required. Amendment 1 to 3 inserts the term relating to to make the link with the valuation area so that shootings are entered in a valuation roll only so far as they relate to that valuation area. Amendment 1 to 4 inserts the term in so far as situated in to make the link with the valuation area so that deer forests are entered in a valuation roll only so far as they are situated in that valuation area. Amendment 1 to 5 removes the original links to the valuation area in so far as exercisable or, as the case may be, situated in for shootings and deer forests respectively, which are instead addressed by amendments 1 to 3 and 1 to 4. The combined purpose, convener, of those three amendments 1 to 3, 1 to 4 and 1 to 5 is to remove the term exercisable and, correspondingly, avoid any doubt as to its interpretation. The intention of the original wording was simply to make the link to the valuation area, not to invite a distinction to be made as to whether shootings were exercisable or not. The amended wording removes any possible doubt in that respect. I am going to move amendment 1 to 2. I was alarmed on Friday to receive an email from a local journalist in Argyll who said that she understood that Alex Ferguson and I were jointly moving amendments to wreck the bill. I was a little concerned about this and asked where it came from. Apparently, the countryside alliance had made this assertion in either of its websites. I would like to make it clear that that is not the intention of this amendment. I do not share Alex Ferguson's view that the Government has failed to come forward with more information. I think that it has come forward with more information. I think that information is perfectly easy to understand. I think that it is quite clear why this section is within the bill and I shall be supporting this section. However, we should not rewrite history. I was interested enough in the issue of the abolition of sporting rates to go back and look at the reasons why that had happened. Amongst those reasons, and I am quoting from the Minister of the Day, was the wish that the money spent on sporting rates should go to better management of deer. There was an attention—I shall say something later on, convener—about the history of deer management in Scotland, which is not a terribly happy one in the last 60 years. However, there was an intention that the resources of the states should be used for the better management of deer. All that I am seeking in this amendment is to continue that linkage, to make sure that if sporting rates are in existence, they do not impact in a detrimental way on deer management. I contend and will contend later on that the situation that we are in in terms of deer management is considerably worse than it was in 1995. To that extent, I do not think that the proprietors involved did use those resources for the better management of deer, so there is in itself an argument for re-imposing these sporting rates. However, I do not wish to see that imposition undertaken in circumstances where they might even accidentally produce circumstances in which deer management suffers. I am looking at the very least to the minister for an assurance that this will be an issue that will be borne in mind and that will form part of the general guidance to the assessors. I hope that assessors considering this matter, and the minister has referred to custom and practice by assessors, that assessors will consider this debate and the debates that this committee has had and read those debates and realise that deer management is of extreme importance in Scotland and needs more activity and more resource, and not less activity and less resource. I look forward to that reassurance to the minister to see whether or not I will move the amendment. Jim Hulme. I have been minded to support Alex Ferguson with some of his amendments. The minister has mentioned that in 1995 there is no evidence that revenue received covered the costs of gathering that income. I think that there is also no evidence that income received would exceed gathering that income, because we have not had enough evidence back from the Government, especially regarding the economic, environmental and social impact. I represent, like many other people, very remote areas where there are very little options for employment. I feel that bringing in the domestic and non-domestic rates for shootings and deer forest shootings, especially, could actually see a loss of jobs in some of the more remote areas. I believe that it is more of a political move. I believe that it is more pointed at the so-called landed gentry. However, we have to remember that there are tenancies and very ordinary working folk that actually engage in shootings, so I think that those would be the people who would be more at risk. There was an independent survey that was done back in 1999 and 2000 in the Scottish Borders. They looked at the economic impact of shootings, and, for that very specific area, it pointed out that there were £41 million brought into the economy. Lots of hotels would not be open during the winter periods if there was not shooting active in the area. Therefore, I would be happy to support Alex Ferguson with his amendments. Alex Ferguson is right to say that, in our Stage 1 report, the committee raised significant concerns over the issue of sport and rates relief on the basis that we had in sufficient information. Unlike Mr Hume and Mr Ferguson, I am reassured by the Government's response, both in writing and again today, so I am not going to support Mr Ferguson's amendments. However, I have considerable sympathy for the sentiments and the intent that lie behind Mr Russell's amendments. I suspect that this matter might perhaps be more appropriately addressed in guidance if the Government is minded to offer encouragement to estates and chutes to continue doing the right things or to begin to do the right things in terms of deer management. I can ask the minister to comment on a particular aspect of the matter. As we have heard, those who have posed a measure of warning among other things that it has the potential to harm local economies and therefore undermine local communities, I just wonder whether the reverse potentially could very much be the case. The sums to be generated here are earmarked for the land fund, which would support acquisitions. I think that I am right in saying that that can include helping to meet the cost of the formulation of business plans. Can I ask whether there is or could be scope to go beyond that and fund, say, community land Scotland to proactively seek to develop capacity in communities where there is interest in acquisitions but a lack of knowledge of how to go about such? As part of that, it would be charged with raising awareness of the fact that such support could be available to communities that went and bred to Scotland. I am not convinced at the moment that everyone who might be interested in getting involved fully understands the backup that might be there for them. The stage 1 report from the committee did indeed say that, on the available evidence, the case had not been made, but I think that it is a case that I am reassured by today, as with my colleague Graham Day. It is important that the type of non-domestic rate returns to the same arrangements as the majority of non-domestic property rates. I note what the minister says about it being incremental and sustainable. I was reassured by the minister's comments about the assessors and the development of the Scottish Government dialogue with them. In the next Parliament, there will be a return to the committee seeking views on the arrangements, which I think will be very important because there will need to be analysis at that stage. It is very important that small businesses are protected. I have listened to what the minister said about that. Finally, I support Mike Russell's amendment 126. It is important that there is a continuation of a linkage of rates, or at least that there is a linkage between the monies raised and future deer management. However, that might be—I am listening to what Graham Day's suggestion was on that. Just a brief addition to the comments of Claudia Beamish, one of the things that is quite striking when you think about the principle policy position here is why to continue to exempt shootings when there are quite a lot of other rural businesses that are also marginal, struggle depending on climate, and that are also related to wildlife and tourism. It raised quite a lot of wider issues about what is appropriate. The discussions that we wanted at our stage 1 committee were that wider consideration of what the impact was and a commitment to monitoring. We have pretty much got that. In principle, the other elements in the bill about deer management need to be considered at the same time when we need a joined-up discussion about that. The reintroduction of those business rates needs to be monitored. However, in principle, I do not see why shootings should be excluded when other rural businesses such as wildlife or tourism businesses, which are also involved in managing issues, are included in the rate system. I think that there is a fairness issue here. Minister, I wonder if you have given consideration to equal opportunities issues in relation to the seasonal workers who are employed for shootings and so on. Do we have any information in terms of them being paid the minimum wage or indeed a living wage in terms of the businesses that have been discussed that people have had concerns about? I do not know whether you have information about that, but I just thought it was worth asking the question. I do not have that level of detail with me this morning to hand, but I am more than happy to supply that to the committee in writing. I thank the members for their contribution to the amendments around 126 from Michael Russell and the other amendments in the group. I thank Michael Russell for setting out the rationale behind his amendment 126. As I know, amendment 126 would give the assessor's discretion to set the rateable value of shootings and deer forests lower than the net annual value to reflect good management in the public interest. I very much understand the intention of the amendment and the reasons behind it. However, such discretion would be problematic because it would require the assessor themselves to interpret whether good management existed and is subject to that to apply a deduction at their own discretion, which could range from zero up to the full net annual value—that is, they could set the rateable value at zero. I think that such a judgment and the corresponding revenue effects might sit beyond the long-standing role of the assessor in valuing property. More tangible criteria would normally be provided for in such a derating under the valuation acts. I note the discretion that the assessor would have under the unamended provision. For example, before the current exemption was put in place in 1995, assessors discounted valuations to take account of increased culling activity due to Government policies. Although assessors cannot give a guarantee at this time of what their future methodology would be, they have confirmed that valuation would take account of all material factors. I reassure Mr Russell that the Government acknowledges and recognises that we need to get there through a whole combination of regulation and incentives. My officials have given the issue of a relief much thought and consideration. If it appears that the business rates are unduly interfering with that goal, we will consider whether it is necessary to provide relief through the normal mechanism of rating reliefs or an alternative support measure ahead of the rating implementation in April 2017. It certainly will be borne in mind when we are working with the assessors. I want to give that assurance to Mr Russell and other members of the committee. The tax base for shootings in deer forests will be a more prominent reference point in primary legislation. It should be valued under the same general provision as other non-domestic properties, with the same due discretion for the assessors to reflect relevant factors. As I said, part 6 is evaluation measures, not a rating one. That is the necessary first step to value the tax base before we consider rates, reliefs and revenues. Only once that step is complete can an informed assessment be made of a new relief. I want to give that assurance to the committee and to Mr Russell. In that light, I propose not to move the amendment, but to give a clear commitment to engage the sector. Once we have seen the emerging valuations probably later this year and ahead of making rating decisions in 2017. The points that were raised by Mr Graham Day, I think that what I would say to Graham Day is that the First Minister had said in her programme for Government's Speech to Parliament on 26 November 2014 that ending the rates exemption would obviously help the Government increase the Scottish Land Fund. We will certainly welcome and consider any expenditure proposals that are linked to the non-domestic rate income from shootings in deer forests. Thank you, minister. I would like Ferguson to wind up and press her withdrawal as amendment. Thank you, convener. I will not take up a great deal of the committee's time. Just for a point of clarification in regard to the information that the committee had asked the Government to come forward with before stage 2, I did not say that it had not brought forward any further information. I said that, in my opinion, the information that it had brought forward did not come close to satisfying the committee's request. I still believe that to be the case, bless you. I am not happy with where we are at in that regard. I am somewhat confused by the minister's response to my amendments because she has acknowledged that there is no available data that accurate assessments of future revenue cannot be made and yet believes that the measure is sustainable in the way that it has been tabled. I find it very difficult. She says that it will raise revenue and be fair. The past experience, frankly, would suggest that it will be neither. I am very supportive of Mike Russell's amendment and I will be sorry if he withdraws it. Rates can be a considerable burden, but, in this case, I believe that they could be used as a great incentive to encourage proper deal management. The committee has been very hard on deal managers and deal management organisations. I think that the Mike Russell's amendment, which I was about to table something very similar to myself when I realised that Mr Russell had already tabled it, provided that incentive. I find it worrying that there might be a situation whereby an estate is carrying out exemplary deal management in the way that we would all want to see happen and yet it is then hit by a rates burden for doing so. I will be sorry if Mr Russell withdraws that amendment, but although I do hear what the minister says in regards to taking it forward, I will press my amendment conveno. In doing so, I am very mindful of a little bit of verbal evidence that we got off the record when we were in the borders when a tenant farmer told us. He said, just be careful when you are going after the big guys that you do not catch out the wee guys. The people who will be badly impacted by this are not the owners of shooting rights or maybe those who run shooting businesses, but it will be the wee guys, the beaters, the hoteliers and others who are very dependent on this activity. I will press amendment 94. Okay, the question is that amendment 94 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Raise your hands for those who are for, thank you, those who are against, raise your hands and no abstentions. So there were two for and seven against, therefore the motion is not carried. We now put the question on section 66, and it goes straight to a minute. So we agreed to put the question on section 66. Does the committee agree to section 66? Sorry, does the committee agree to section 66? Right, otherwise. Okay, then we don't agree to section 66 in which case. Well, in fact, section 66 has been, that amendment 94 was intent on removing section 66, we have already agreed not to do so, so therefore we will go straight to amendment 130. Section 66 has been agreed to. Amendment 130, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is already debated with 129. Patrick Harvie, to move or not move? Not moved, thank you. In that case, we will move on to the question is that amendments 122, 123, 124 and 125, all in the name of the minister, all previously debated, invite the minister to move amendments 122 to 125 on block. Thank you. Any member object to a single question being put? No, if any member nobody does, so the question is that amendments 122 to 125 are agreed, are we all agreed? Yes, we are agreed. Call amendment 126, the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 94, Mike Russell to move or not move? I do accept the minister's assurance, but I would reserve the right to bring something back at stage 3, which puts on the face of the bill the issue of good-dear management in this area, so I would like to have those discussions with the minister because I do think there is a need to put into the bill a reference to good-dear management within this section, so I won't move it at the moment but I will take the opportunity to come back. Thank you. Mike Russell has not moved. I wonder if I could seek an assurance from the minister, convener, that she will have that discussion with Mr Russell. I would imagine that the answer to that is probably yes, because she knows what's good for her. But if she could give that assurance, then I won't move this amendment as I'm very tempted to do. I'm absolutely happy to give that assurance that I will meet with Mr Russell to discuss his amendment. Thank you very much. Mike Russell has not moved that. Call amendment 95, the name of Alex Ferguson, already debated with amendment 94. Alex Ferguson to move or not move? I'm not moved. Amendment 131, the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 129. Patrick Harvie to move or not move? I'm not moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 131 is that section 68 and 69 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are agreed. Thank you for attending. That's the end of this particular involvement by Patrick Harvie. Now we move on to deer management. We call amendment 119, in the name of Claudia Beamish, group with amendments 121, 20, 121, 3 and 4. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 119 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Scotland is probably unique in having a public resource such as deer, which are largely managed as if they were private property. Other bodies, mainly public, typically pick up the costs for this arrangement. Damage to forestry, deer ffencing, road accidents and effects on biodiversity and wider environmental impacts. In Scotland, the voluntary approach to deer management has been given every opportunity to work. The 2014 deer management group assessment, which was published only in October 2015, shows quite a poor delivery in many areas against public interest outcomes, which was of concern to the committee. The amendments that I propose are not costly or particularly complex, although it is a very complex issue to resolve and has been an issue that has been on-going in Scotland for many years. When the committee took evidence on deer management and its impacts on the natural heritage, that was in 2013 when I was on this committee. There was a concern at that point which the minister, the then minister, Paul Wheelhouse, clarified, well, summed up for me by stating, I too recognise that deer populations have an impact on Scotland's natural heritage in certain areas. We need to continue to take steps to minimise these impacts. I would also point out generally that, before I come to my two amendments, the land reform review group also had concerns following its investigations about the limited progress made. To move to the amendments 119 and 120, 119 is to consider the creation of a legal duty on land owners to implement the code of practice on deer management 2012. I want to give a very quick summary, as I understand it, and having had discussion with those outside the Parliament who know a lot more than I do about this issue, that, in 2011, as part of the consultation exercise relating to deer provisions of the Wain Act, the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act Scotland, the then Deer Commission Scotland proposed a duty on land owners to manage deer sustainably. It was to deliver a better balance between the rights that are enjoyed by land owners in relation to deer and the responsibilities that should accompany those rights. It is a concern, I believe now, that it has reached the point where, without the legal duty to manage deer sustainably, that the deer code being not legally binding has become a really serious issue. I propose that the creation of a legal duty on land managers to implement the deer code should now be bought in and that we should not be waiting for the review which will come before a committee in the next Parliament. It should be supported in terms of enforcement by existing offences related to non-compliance and the ability of SNH to recover costs, similar to the current provisions in relation to the control schemes in the Deer Scotland Act 1996. The code of practice on deer management sets out to define the public interests and provides for benchmarks of standards. I do not think that there has been concern previously about the effect on small land owners for the issues that we have just been looking at in terms of rates for shooting rights. I do not think that this provision, although there has been some concern expressed about it, will affect small land owners if discretion is used as to who SNH applies the duty. This provision would also be linked only with those land owners who receive a statutory cull notice return notification, who have to say what numbers they are culling from under existing powers. The amendment creates an offence of failing if it goes through, of failing to comply with the notice of non-compliance with the codes of practice, and such a notice may be appealed, as I have said in the amendment to the land court, but if not appealed or if upheld it appeal it becomes an offence not to comply. This, therefore, in effect creates a duty on owners and occupiers to comply with the code of practice or risks SNH giving notice of non-compliance and then, if not complied with, committing offence and offence. This is similar to the land management order procedure that I understand provided in the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004, although I did not know that before being given that information. 1.20 is a general enabling power to allow Scottish Government ministers to make provision by regulation for SNH to take actions for improved deer management. Sustainable deer management is required for the delivery of a range of public policy outputs and, therefore, it is proposed by this amendment that Scottish ministers should be able to provide to improve SNH's powers in relation to deer management by a more straightforward process of regulation. I am asking that that is approved by Affirmative Instrument. This power would better enable SNH on behalf of the Scottish Government to make quicker and more responsive decisions, in my view, to manage deer in the public interest and without the need for primary legislation. This approach would have public safeguards in that it would still need Scottish Parliament approval and the advice of ministers. I am also very keen to listen to Mike Russell's arguments for amendments 1 and 2. It is important to say that the deer issue in Scotland is not a new one. The roots of the deer problem in Scotland arise in the 19th century, the establishment of about a million and a half hectares of private deer forests, that is, essentially private hunting estates. Since the mid-19th century, there have been no less than seven Government-appointed inquiries into the issue of red deer in Scotland. The last of those, after the Second World War, resulted in the establishment of the Red Deer Commission in 1959. I am grateful to Simon Pepper for what is a wonderful analysis of the process since then, which he has provided as a private paper. He points out that, in 1959, Frank Fraser Darling, who was the adviser to the Red Deer Commission, suggested that the optimum number of red deer in Scotland would be 60,000. Today, there are something between 350,000 and 400,000, and there is also an increasing number of row-seeker and fallow deer. The Scottish deer population is now well over half a million. His analysis of the reports of the Red Deer Commission, the Deer Commission and the SNH since then show an extraordinary story of the failure of public policy. You cannot put it in any other way. I have to say that, as environment minister myself for over two years, I wish I had known this at the time, because the reality is that the public bodies repeatedly, year after year, pleaded with private owners to take effective action, and year after year, that did not happen. From 1959 onwards, and there had been considerable debate before them, from 1959 onwards, there has been an argument for change, and that change has not happened. Even when there has been limited legislative change, it has actually produced virtually no effect. That is not a criticism of the individuals involved, for example, in the deer management groups. I have met some of those in recent weeks. I do think that people engaged in this activity are genuinely committed to change, but that change is almost impossible to achieve now, because the sheer numbers are so great. If I can just remind members of the committee that, in order to simply stop the growth of numbers, you would require to cull a third of the population every year. That is clearly now an impossibility given the numbers. The problem of deer populations simply goes on getting worse. Although in some areas it is broadly contained, in other areas it is completely out of control. In the area in which I live, it is completely out of control. It is impossible to grow trees in unfenced areas. The optimum number of deer per hectare for that is massively increased. If you go back and look at some of those reports, you will discover that the same things that the committee was talking about when it looked at the bill are talked about in the reports. In 1965, the report said that deer stocks could be greatly improved in quality if numbers were reduced, but nothing happened. In 1970, effective conservation control of red deer must begin with efficient management of deer. This is the annual report of the Red Deer Commission. In 1987, with few notable exceptions, the passage of another year has seen little success in reducing the population of red deer. It goes on. In 1989, the 30th anniversary of the Red Deer Commission, the chairman's statement in the report said that 30 years on and no improvement. Now we are in 2016 and we are facing a worse problem. My amendments are in fact very modest proposals. I am grateful to the help of Environment Link and others for putting them together, but they get nowhere near tackling this problem. They will help SNH to begin to take some action. Although the officers on the ground in SNH are very active, I have to say that the management of SNH has been completely supine in this matter. I have said before at this committee that the merger that took place with SNH has not produced the results that it should. When the Scottish Government reviews the issue of deer later this year, I do hope that it will look first of all at the evidence of the reports of the Red Deer Commission and the Deer Commission and SNH and it will draw the inevitable conclusion that there requires a major change in public policy in order to tackle the issue of deer in Scotland. The number of deer in Scotland is out of control. There is no question about it. It cannot be disputed. The good work of deer management groups in various parts of the country is succeeding perhaps in stemming the tide, but it is doing no more than that. We have a considerable environmental problem in Scotland of our own making, created by the circumstances of the 19th century and not managed effectively by public policy since that time, which now requires major initiatives. If we can wake Scotland up to that by the small things that we might do today, then I hope that in future months and years a future Scottish Government will determine to tackle this much more radically. It is vital for the environmental wellbeing of the country, and it is vital for the wellbeing of the deer, and it is very important in terms of how we take the whole of Scottish public policy on land forward. I will propose motions that are modest. I certainly think that Claudia Beamish's amendments are also of importance, but I am looking for the Scottish Government to recognise that the time is now right for a major rethink of where we have come from. Any other members wish to comment at the moment? I am torn on all of this, and I am very aware of Mike Russell's considerable expertise in this matter, particularly from his constituency interest. The problems of deer management in my part of Scotland are very different from the problems of deer management in his part of Scotland and, indeed, further north. However, I have some difficulties with his amendments, which he might be able to satisfy me on in winding up later. He talks about a major change in public policy that needs to come about. My own belief is that any major change in public policy needs to go hand in hand with private interests and private buy-in to the policy aims that are being put on the table. In other words, it is my belief that those are most effective when they are part of a consensual process. My concern about his amendment 2 is that that becomes a very top-down process and that SNH would have the ability, if I read this right, to rewrite sections of a deer management plan and put it back to the effective deer management group without any further consultation whatsoever. I worry about the top-down approach that that seems to me to exemplify. I am also a little concerned about amendment 3, which asks for cul-returns to include forward projections. My understanding is that that is already part of deer management plans and that, if amendment 2 was accepted, it would simply involve a degree of duplication and other administrative costs that I believe to be unnecessary. I am concerned about Claudia Beamish's amendments in that they seem to me to apply statutory requirements for codes of practice, which are not in themselves statutory in nature. Codes of practice provide guidance not statutory requirements and I have a difficulty with that equation, if I could put it that way. Maybe those could be addressed by both the minister and Mr Russell Amdras Beamish, as that goes on, but I will listen carefully to the debate before deciding how to vote. To pick up on Mr Ferguson's point, I hear his concerns about the top-down approach, but I would say briefly that seeking consensus self-evidently has not worked. That is where we are today. Yes, I know that this is not a normal debate, but I think that I have to come back on that. We do not yet know where we are today, but, as members are very aware, the committee has taken a very robust position on deer management and we have put in place the ability for the Government to have a review during 2016 and be ready to act at the end of it. I think that it is much too early to say that we are not having any impact on that. I restate my concerns in that regard. In that regard, I would like to add a few remarks about the very first chair of the Red Deer Commission, Major Crichton Stewart, who served a term and a half and resigned. He was quoted in the Glasgow Herald of September 23, 1963, saying that the last report of the Red Deer Commission complained that lack of co-operation from farmers and landowners could cripple it in its task, which is to reduce the red deer population of the highlands to manageable proportions. Indeed, it is all the more pressing today as we have a much wider range of landowners, some of them small, such as community land trusts, some of them are non-governmental organisations as well as shooting organisations, and it would seem to me that the way in which this is operated could well in areas of crisis, such as in ascent in my constituency, bear down upon a community trust that does have a need of a small income, and not on people who shoot for pleasure and therefore have no likely pecuniary interest in carrying out the kinds of culls that are necessary, nor indeed on the NGO John Muir Trust, whose stated national policy is not to allow ffencing and so on in areas where there are threats to trees. I understand that in the circumstances of this debate that we have to take into account the realities on the ground, but I think that the words of Major Crite and Stewer in 1963 suggest to us today that we cannot wait any longer for this kind of action to take place, and I hope that the minister will take the seriousness of Mr Russell's amendments into account. Before I address this group of important amendments in detail, perhaps with the committee's agreement, I would like to set out some context in relation to on-going action and deer management planning as a way of trying to help the committee in its consideration of this issue more broadly. I have noted the concerns of the committee on the issue of deer management. I take those concerns extremely seriously. Of course, the key step in the future of deer management in Scotland is the review that was agreed with this committee. Claudia Beamish mentioned the 2014 deer management group assessment by SNH. That was intended to set a baseline for the 2016 review, but given the concerns that we have heard at stage 1, we are absolutely determined and committed to seeing an improvement in the management of deer to protect the public interest. We have taken the significant step of bringing that review forward so that it will be completed during the course of this year. If the review points to us to the need to make major changes to the legislation governing deer management, we will then be in a position to take action to develop proposals and will consult sooner rather than later. I recognise that this increases the pressure on the deer sector to step up and prove absolutely that the current system can deliver effective management, but I am confident that it will also recognise the concerns that have been expressed here in Parliament and the need for concerted action. I turn to the review on how that will be carried out. The review will focus on the key question of whether there has been a step change in the effectiveness of deer management. That review will be evidence-based and factual, drawing on, firstly, an assessment of progress of deer management group plans in meeting the public interest, secondly, data on the condition of protected areas, and thirdly, a review of the outcomes of existing section 7 voluntary agreements. The Scottish National Heritage Report will evaluate evidence from both upland deer management group areas and the lowlands of Scotland. In compiling that report, the SNH will seek data and evidence from other organisations. It will also liaise with the Association of Deer Management Groups regarding progress on the deer management group plans. It will provide a report to ministers by the end of October. A baseline has been established and work is already in hand to gather the data and the evidence. SNH will also put in place an internal quality assurance process that will ensure that the evidence presented is robust. Staff resources have been allocated within SNH and a project manager has put in place to ensure that that deadline is met. I hope that some of those details will reassure the committee that the review will be as comprehensive as well as fair and measured and that we are absolutely, as a Government and as a Minister for the Environment, absolutely determined and committed to seeing a real improvement in how our deer are managed. I met the chair of SNH last week. We discussed the importance of making sure that we have a timely and a robust review process. I have no doubt that this is understood by all those involved in the process. I turn to the amendments, convener, because I am conscious of time. I thank Claudia Beamish for explaining her amendments 119, 120 and 121. Amendment 119 creates a mechanism whereby non-compliance with the SNH's code of practice on deer management could become a criminal offence. That code was introduced under the Wildlife and Natural Environment Scotland Act 2020, relatively recently. It was approved by Parliament under the affirmative procedure coming into effect from 1 January 2012. As we know, the code is intended to support our deer managers with that practical guidance in setting out responsibilities of our owners and occupiers of land with deer on their land. It has various categories of guidance. It sets out the legal obligations on owners and occupiers and it also sets out advice on best practice and advice that might apply only in particular circumstances. I appreciate the sentiment behind Claudia Beamish's amendment. I do not believe that it would now be appropriate to create a mechanism whereby non-compliance with the code became an offence. Amendment itself would essentially mean that the code would have to be redrawn to reflect its altered purpose. It would have to be more prescriptive and would end up providing less useful help and guidance and so reduce the support that is available to our deer managers. The current code has not only been helpful to individual deer managers but it has also been used in the deer management group assessment process where the public interest criteria that is used in that process were drawn from the code. I understand absolutely that there is a desire to see some teeth behind the code and the requirement for effective deer management. I would like to remind the committee that, in this respect, SNH already has significant intervention powers, which we are already adding to through the provisions in this bill. SNH has the power to call for a volunteer agreement to deliver specified deer management measures under section 7 of the deer act. If those measures are not delivered, SNH can move to compel landowners and deer managers through the use of a section 8 control scheme. As the committee knows, we are significantly increasing the penalty for non-compliance with a section 8 control scheme in this bill. The hierarchy of intervention powers available to SNH is more focused than a new offence of failing to comply with the code. SNH is required to have regard to the code in exercising those powers of intervention, and I believe that that is an appropriate role for the code to have. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, I think that, for all the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support the amendment and I would ask Claudia Beamish to withdraw it. I thank Claudia Beamish for the thought that he has gone into the amendment, and I appreciate that it could be useful in certain circumstances. We are not always able to predict situations that could arise in deer management, and there may be situations where we wish to take action to address situations. For example, where the code of practice on deer management strongly advises a course of action, but deer managers are routinely not complying with the advice. We could, in those circumstances, consider whether that part of the code could be strengthened by further regulatory action. There are some problems with the amendment as it is drafted, because, for example, there is no provision for penalties for non-compliance with the new regulations, and the powers are rather wide. It is also, I think, not realistic or fair for a legal duty to comply with the code, to apply only to some owners and managers and not to all. What I would like to suggest to Claudia Beamish is that, if the amendment is withdrawn, between now and stage 3 that we work with Claudia Beamish with the aim of coming back with a much more tightly drafted provision that could assist SNH in ensuring that we have sustainable deer management. With amendment 121, that amendment provides for a penalty in relation to the requirement to comply with the code of practice enforcement order under amendment 119. I would also ask that amendment be withdrawn. In terms of the amendments from Mr Russell, I would like to thank Mike Russell for sitting out the rationale behind his amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 and for the detailed work that has gone into these. I recognise and fully support the intention behind amendment 1 in encouraging more consultation and engagement with the local community and interested parties on the development of deer management plans. The process that is set out in the amendment is cumbersome. I am also advised that it is legally problematic because it defines, for example, the legal owners and occupiers to which it applies by reference to membership of a deer management group. However, deer management groups at the moment have no legal status, and membership of them is neither compulsory nor do they cover all the deer habitats in Scotland. The amendment also does not provide for the publication of the plans in draft or final form, so that could be problematic given the trigger for the proposed provision as a development of a new plan. It could provide a disincentive to the production of new plans, which I know would certainly not be Mr Russell's intention. I greatly support and very much welcome the intention behind these amendments, as I said. In fact, they address the issues of transparency and opportunities for community engagement, but I suggest to the committee that there are other ways to achieve what amendment 1 is trying to do. The benchmark for deer management groups includes a communication section and advises that local consultation should be accessible and advises that local consultation should be carried out during the plan's development. I know that action is being taken to place deer management plans on the association of the deer management group's website. I am on there just about every day, checking to see what progress is being made. Finally, as the committee will be aware, the deer provisions already included in the bill include a provision that allows new functions to be conferred on deer panels with a view to facilitating improved consultation and communication with the local community. While I completely support the spirit of Michael Russell's amendment for all the reasons that I have said out, I would ask Mr Russell to consider withdrawing his amendment 1. As regards amendment 2, I would expect that, in practice, there would be dialogue between SNH and the owners or occupiers served with a notice. Section 6A requires them to prepare a deer management plan, allowing for modifications to any plan under preparation to be made. However, I can see that there is benefit in formalising this position in legislation, so I am happy to accept Mr Russell's amendment, which clarifies it. On amendment 3, I am sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment in the fact that it will provide a focus and a reminder for all that, while there are a number of aspects to deer management, it will nearly always be important to keep a control on numbers. However, there is a technical issue with the way that amendment is drafted in that the offence in a deer act, which attaches to the requirement to provide a cull return, would also attach to this new requirement to provide a cull projection. The offence also applies to the provision of false data, and clearly this will be difficult to interpret when applied to projection. I am proposing that, while I am happy to accept this amendment, I should say that we will probably wish to give further thought as to the operation of the offence that is linked to the new requirement, and to come back at stage 3 with Mr Russell with an amendment that addresses those concerns. Turning lastly to amendment 4, I recognise the concern that the committee and others have raised in relation to the timing of the commencement of the deer provisions. I have listened to those concerns very carefully. I have decided that the provisions should be commenced as soon as it is practical to do so, rather than the original intention of awaiting the outcome of the review. Those provisions provide SNH with additional useful powers to intervene in support of sustainable deer management, and it is right that we make those powers available to them. However, I must resist amendment 4, which commences the provisions the day after Royal Ascent. It is the practice for certain technical provisions to be commenced at that point, but it is not normal practice for substantive provisions to be brought into force so quickly, and certainly not provisions with offences attached. However, as I have already made clear, we recognise the imperative to move quickly. We have brought forward a review, and alongside that, I will commit to commencing the deer provisions as soon as it is practical, and that will be approximately two months after Royal Ascent, and I trust that the committee will accept that commitment. Given that commitment, I would ask Mr Russell if he would consider withdrawing amendment 4. Claudia Beamish, to wind up the presser withdrawal. I would like to start by thanking Scottish Environment Link and others who have had a wide knowledge of the issues, and I have gained some knowledge of it through committee. I have to say that it is disappointing that my amendment 119 is not going to be accepted, because, while I understand what the minister is saying about, that it could make it less useful in some way, the code, I think it is really important now that time has come for compliance with the code, and I do not think that we should be waiting any longer. Alex Ferguson said, if I got it right that he thought it was too early, I think it is too late, and I think that Mike Russell's opening remarks summed up very well the reasons for concern across Scotland, both in highland and lowland areas. I am disappointed about that, and I want to highlight from the evidence that we had in committee that section 8 was proving hard to take forward. I know that there is some movement on that, but I think that that is part of that picture as well. I have listened carefully to what the minister is saying. I do not intend to withdraw that amendment. I am very pleased with the offer to talk about amendment 120 and understand that there is no point in having an expectation that groups or individuals would comply with something without having any penalties. It makes sense to have a discussion about that, and I hope that we may be able to reach an agreement on that before stage 3, so I am pleased about that. I really want to highlight what a serious issue this is finally. I am keen to listen to what Mike Russell says about his amendments. I also want to have on the record the amendments that I have tried to take forward and the remarks that I have made in no way to disparage those dear management groups that are working well, but an attempt to get a grip on a very serious situation. I think that now is the time to make a more robust start on it. Thank you. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. Were those show who are in favour of amendment 119? Raise your hands. Those who are against 119 now show. Those who have abstained will count those who are against. Those who are against again, please. Six, we got it correct. Thank you. Those who have abstained, one. The amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 1 in the name of Mike Russell. Already debated with amendment 119, Mike Russell to move or not move. I accept the legal objection and I will not move on. The question is that amendment 2, in the name of Mike Russell, ready to debate with amendment 119, Mike Russell to move or not move. I think that I will move as the minister accepts it. Mike Russell, and the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Those who are in favour of the amendment 2, please show. Thank you. Those who are against, those who are abstaining, one. Eight for none against and one abstain, so therefore amendment 2 is agreed to. Call amendment 120, in the name of Claudia Beamish. Already debated with amendment 119, Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Not move, convener. Not move. The call amendment 121, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 119, Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Calling amendment 121, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 119, not moved. The question is that section 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 3, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 119, Mike Russell to move or not to move. Mike Russell has moved, therefore is the committee agreed with Mike Russell's amendment? No. We will have a vote. Those in favour of amendment 3, please show. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Those against? No. Those abstaining? One. The answer is eight for none against and one abstain, so therefore Mike Russell's amendment 3 has been agreed to. Therefore, the question is section 71 to 73 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed and suspend. I thank Aileen McLeod for all her efforts in this part of the bill, and I wish you could dig a backseat for a short while on this matter. Thank you. I welcome the cabinet secretary and his officials. We move to the question of repairing tenancies. I call amendment 154, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings list. I would point out that amendments 187, 188, 189, 190 and 191 in this group are preempted by amendment 298 in the group, retention of existing procedures for the variation or rent of review of rent. Note that amendment 188 is also preempted by amendment 299 in the group, limited duration tenancies and modern limited duration tenancies determination of initial rent. I also point out that amendment 262 in this group is preempted by amendment 153 in the group, application of repairing standards to agricultural tenancies, etc. The cabinet secretary to move amendment 154 and speak to all the amendments in the group. If I can speak to amendment 154, although it comes earlier in the bill, amendment 154 is consequential to amendments 159 to 165, which create the new form of agricultural lease called a repairing tenancy. This amendment amends section 74 of the bill to make it clear in the new section 5A1 of the 2003 act that a modern limited duration tenancy and MLTT cannot be a repairing tenancy. Turning to the other amendments, I also propose amendments 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165, which provide for the new tenancy type repairing tenancies as recommended by the review group and the committee in your stage 1 report. The aim of the repairing tenancies is to give a future to holdings that are in a poor state of repair or abandoned and bring them up to a standard to enable them to be farmed effectively. We can all think of derelict farms and all of our constituencies, I am sure, but if they were inhabited and managed well, it could make a real difference and positive impact on the communities that surround them. Repairing tenancies have the potential to be one of the keys to release a stronger, more vibrant and sustainable future for those communities. This set of amendments creates a structure and key features of the new tenancy. Amendment 159 provides that the tenancy will last for at least 35 years. The tenancy will begin with a repairing period, which is a period of at least five years from the commencement of the tenancy. The tension is that the tenant uses the repairing period to bring the holding up to a standard that enables it to be farmed effectively. During the repairing period, the tenant is exempt from having to comply with the rules of good husbandry. This is out of fairness to the tenant in taking on the burden of improving a holding in bad repair, and so they can use that time to bring the holding up to a standard that enables it to be farmed effectively. Amendment 162 contains provisions that set out the use and treatment of fixed equipment present on the holding at the start of the tenancy and how fixed equipment is to be considered during the rest of the tenancy. In the repairing period, the tenant is by default responsible for providing and maintaining the fixed equipment that they need to be able to farm effectively, although the landlord can provide fixed equipment if both parties agree. After the repairing period, the tenant is by default responsible for maintenance and the landlord is responsible for any renewal or replacement. Again, of course, parties can agree to divide responsibility differently if they so prefer. There is also provision to ensure that the tenant is not required to pay a whole or part of any fire insurance premium for fixed equipment, as that should be done by the landlords. Amendment 161 allows for repairing tenancies to contain a break clause enabling the tenant to terminate the lease at any time up to the end of the repairing period, so they have a get-out option if they decide that it is not working out for them. At the end of the repairing tenancy, unless the parties terminate the lease, it will continue on for a period of seven years, in the same way as proposed for MLDTs by amendment 156. Amendment 163 provides some protection for the tenant's investment in the holding by preventing the landlord from resuming the land or any part of it during the repairing period or until five years after the end of the repairing period. Amendment 164 also prevents the landlord from irritating the lease during the repairing period on the grounds that the tenant is not farming the holding in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. After the repairing period, the landlord would be able to irritate the lease on the same grounds as provided for in section 78 of the bill for MLDTs. Amendment 165 gives the Scottish Minister's power to make regulations to apply the compensation provisions of part 4 of the 2010 act to repairing tenancies with such changes as are needed. Those amendments are supported by 54 additional and consequential amendments, so, if the committee would want me to go through those clearly, I'm happy to do that, or I can skip and just conclude this part of the discussion. I don't know if the convener wants to take a vote on that, or just to take him in education, I get an impression that you're happy to skip the consequentials. But, presumably, there are no other substantive matters in the... Okay, in that case, I'll just conclude by just making the points that Rome wasn't built in the day, and neither will those farms where repairing tenancies are aimed at. It's going to take hard work, goodwill and strong business relationships for those tenancies to work. I don't think that we should underestimate the scale of effort that lies ahead for the tenants and landlords to take up those repairing tenancies, but I also don't underestimate the scale of positive impact that those new types of tenancies can have in the future of our tenancies sector in rural Scotland, and that's why I believe that we have attracted widespread support. So, accordingly, I officially move amendment 154. Thank you very much. Other members wish to comment on this just now. I thank you, convener. I hope you'll forgive me if I just make a general comment at the outset of part 10 of the bill. I just wish to do so because, as members and indeed the cabinet secretary are aware, I dissented from part 10 in the stage 1 report for reasons that I put on the record at that time. Those reasons, as far as I'm concerned, still stand, not the least of which is, I've always believed that this part of the bill would have been better if it had been a separate piece of legislation, which delivered the entire package of the AHLRG, which the cabinet secretary who chaired that group and the group were indeed at pains to put forward as a total package at that time. I can only say that I think there's been a degree of cherry picking within the recommendations of the report since then, and we've been told that a number of issues are due to time constraints. I see that there have been no time constraints in relation to those amendments, and I'm very pleased about that. I wish that it was the case that the time constraints didn't impact on other parts of the bill, but we'll come to that in due course. Having dissented from that part, I fully intend to play what I see as a productive role as this part is taken forward. I would wish to move amendments that I think would improve the bill. I don't expect many of them to be agreed, but that's what I will do, and play what I hope is a positive role as this debate continues. That said, I fully support the intentions of these amendments. I think that we were all happy to see repairing tendencies. We might have had some debate about the length of a repairing tendency, but I will not be opposing the set of amendments today. I welcome its inclusion in part 10 of the bill. I'm not going to take up any more time other than to say that I am positive about these amendments and that, just to note that the Land Reform Review Group was supportive, but also just to ask the cabinet secretary how the decision was made about the initial five years and whether it might be more appropriate to consider a slightly longer time in view of some comments that I've had from STFA about the difficulty of maybe getting a holding back into a good state if it's dilapidated within the period of five years, so I'm just highlighting that point. The cabinet secretary to wind up. Thank you and thank you to the committee's support for these amendments. In relation to the five-year timeline asked about by Claudia Beamish, clearly because it's open to both parties to agree a longer timescale of the soul wish, we looked at five years as a reasonable minimum period, and there's the other conditions within that that give people a lot of flexibility, so that's really just a rationale behind that. And you've already proposed this. The question is that amendment 154 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Modern limited duration tenancies break clauses, call amendment 155, the name of the cabinet secretary in a group of its own cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 155. Cabinet Secretary, amendment 155 has the effect that when a short limited duration tenacy converts into an MLDT in the various circumstances provided for in section 5A, which the bill inserts into the 2000 Act, there is no option of a break clause after five years. This is because the break clause is targeted specifically at new entrants, not at more established farmers who have already been farming for some time under other deases. So, I move amendment 155. Thank you. Any members who wish to comment on that just now? Cabinet Secretary, wind up? No. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 155 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Question is that section 74 be agreed to, are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Question is that section 75 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Modern Lialimited Duration Tenancies and, at 1991 Act, tenancies compensation for tenants improvements on termination. Call amendment 272, in the name of Claudia Beamish group with amendment 282. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 272 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. These amendments look at the WAGO process, and my first amendment requires notices to quit to specify the amount of compensation that has already been agreed between the landlord and tenant or decided by arbitration and also requires the landlord to give earlier intimation of his or her proposed amount of compensation and or his or her intention to refer the matter to arbitration if agreement can't be reached. The option of referral to arbitration to settle on a fair amount where agreement cannot be reached will prevent a situation, in my belief, where the tenant could block the notice to quit by refusing to agree the amount. In relation to MLDTs, there is already provision in the bill and in the 2003 act respectively, as I understand it, for that earlier intimation to be given, so the amendments merely add a new condition to what the intimation must conclude. The two-stage WAGO process would apply only in relation to a notice to quit if the problem being addressed is that the tenant is liable to be on the back foot when negotiating WAGO, having already been served a notice to quit. I move the first amendment in my name. Any other member wishes to comment? No. Our cabinet secretary responds. Convener, amendments 272 and 282 propose changes to both the 91 and 2003 acts by including a new section in the bill. As far as the relation to the termination of 1991 act tenancies, SLDTs and MLDTs, they propose a two-stage WAGO process for 1991 act tenancies and the other leases and an agreement process for compensation for SLDTs. While I agree with the principle that a two-stage WAGO process may be beneficial to the parties in some circumstances, the amendment requires significant policy development. I am not in favour of that at the moment, because we would have to rush that through the process. Instead, I would like to make a commitment to the committee to explore this option further in the future and to highlight the areas in the bill at the moment, which I believe will make the WAGO process as fair and as transparent as possible. First, looking at the amendments put forward by Claudia Beamish, I can already see a problem with their operation. The notice to quits requires the landlord to specify an amount of compensation agreed between the parties, but there is no link to assessment of that compensation under part 4. That could allow parties to undercut the statutory minimum level of compensation provided for by part 4 and to result in the tenant receiving inadequate compensation for their investment made. The amendments would also require the landlord to identify a sum for compensation for improvements that had not even happened yet. It would very likely result in a lot of arbitration with all the cost and delay that would potentially entail before landlords could terminate their tenancies. Tenancies are entitled to compensation for things other than improvements under part 4, such as compensation for what is known as high farming, but the amendment does not cover that. That reinforces the point that we need time to examine carefully how any new legislation on this issue cuts across the existing legislation on compensation to ensure that tenants are not disadvantaged. That reinforces the point that we need time to examine carefully how any new legislation on this issue cuts across the existing legislation on compensation to ensure that tenants are not disadvantaged. My understanding is that one of the most common problems encountered at Wago is that parties cannot agree on what fixed equipment has been provided by each during the tenancy, making it difficult to establish what items are eligible for compensation and therefore leading to compensation disputes. Indeed, during their 18-month review of the issue and the range of complexities that were potentially involved that were examined by the review group, they concluded that, in a, quote, effective recording of an agreement on a tenants' investment and improvements, essential to fair and predictable compensation at Wago. Acknowledging that in reality, many tenants and landlords do not have adequate records. The review group recommended a time-limited amnesty process during which tenants could establish what items would be due for compensation at Wago. The bill, in the moment that drives forward that recommendation, also seeks to address the issue of inadequate record keeping by placing a requirement in both parties when entering into an MLDD to agree on writing a schedule of fixed equipment that will set out the fixed equipment provided by the landlord and a provision for the parties to amend that schedule at any time during release. That means that going forward parties will have the adequate documentation, hopefully, required to enable fairness and transparency at Wago. While sympathetic to the desire for a two-stage Wago process, significant policy work we believe would be required and there is not time for that during this bill process, I believe that the provisions in the bill will alleviate some of the problems experienced at Wago. I urge the committee to not support the amendment that is put forward in Claudia's name. Claudia Beamish, to wind up and press her withdrawal. I think that it was helpful that the cabinet secretary has outlined what there is in the bill for the record already. My concern has been to help facilitate the most easy way for people to leave their farms when they want. This has been quite a complex issue for many farmers. In order to facilitate new entrants coming in and the succession of younger farmers as well, or I should say, our signature in this case. I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but there have been quite a lot of requests from STFA and some others about the possibility of a two-stage Wago process. I am a bit concerned about the lack of timescale on what the cabinet secretary is saying. In view of the fact that there has been comment previous, it is not a new idea that I have brought up by any means, whether it might be possible to meet and discuss whether it would be realistic to look at stage 3, but if not, to get some more definite timescale on the suggested amendments. Clearly, I want to take the opportunity to give a commitment to the committee where it recognises a very real issue and wants to work on it. Clearly, although no amendments would come forward, most likely until the next Parliament, given the lack of timescale with the bill in this Parliament, as Claudia Beamish says, it is an issue that has been raised with us by the tenant farmers representatives, so it is a very real issue that we understand. Because some of the parts of the bill address some of the concerns that the two-stage process is meant to address, we have to be careful that we do not rush into something that cuts across other parts of the bill. I am happy to give a commitment that we will make sure that that is addressed as early as possible in the next Parliament. Claudia Beamish, to press or withdraw. I will withdraw at the moment and consider whether I should take something back, which is somewhat more clear and robust at stage 3, but I am listening to what the cabinet secretary is saying. Claudia Beamish has asked to withdraw amendment 272 with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member objects to the amendment being withdrawn. Modern limited duration tenancies continuation. Call amendment 156, the name of the cabinet secretary in a group of its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 156. This amendment will reduce the continuation timescale of an MLGT from 10 years to 7 years. During stage 1 evidence sessions, the committee heard from stakeholders that a 10-year continuation term is too long. We have taken those concerns on board. The amendment seeks to balance stakeholders' desire for a shorter continuation term with the need to make sure that we do not prevent tenants from qualifying for the Scottish rural development programme grants. Some of the grant schemes require a tenant to be able to demonstrate that a tenant will have control over the land for at least five years. When you factor in the application process, which can take over a year in some cases, a continuation term of 7 years will ensure that tenants will still be able to claim those grants, while giving both tenants and the landlord the flexibility of a shorter term than the original 10 years. I move amendment 156. Any member wishes to comment on that? Comment on this. I am very supportive of this amendment. I hope that the convener will bear with me if I just make one comment, because if I had been thinking a little bit quicker on my feet, I would have moved the amendment that Claudia Beamish has just withdrawn. I do think that the cabinet secretary's response to that section has totally exemplified my real concerns about this bill in that it is time constraints that have prevented this hugely important issue going forward. I appreciate that I may be stretching your patience, convener, and I will simply say that I very much support this amendment. We are extremely indulgent, of course. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Modern limited duration tenancies in 1991 act tenancies irritancy of lease due to non-payment of rent. I call amendment 134 in the name of Claudia Beamish group with amendment 275. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 134 and speak to both amendments in the group. Claudia Beamish. I move amendment 134, and this amendment concerns irritancy of a lease for non-payment of rent, where irritancy should not be possible if the landlord has served an invoice and given reasonable opportunity for the tenant to remedy. This amendment only relates to the new MLDTs. The removal of a 1991 tenancy for non-payment of rent is governed by, I understand, section 20 of the 91 act, and by the terms of some leases that allow the landlord to irritate the lease, which I think is a legal term, for non-payment after six months, even if no invoice has been served and no reminder or opportunity to remedy has been offered to the tenant. This amendment tries to ensure that the tenant may have a reasonable opportunity, as is stated in the amendment, to make a late payment and ensure the landlord must issue an invoice. This will, I hope, assuage fears that a landowner might fail to issue a tenant an invoice for rent in the hope that, through an accumulation of mis-rent payments, this could give cause for eviction. On the other amendment 275, this amendment ensures the same legislation applies to all tenancies, limited duration tenancies, short limited duration tenancies, 91 act tenancies. As irritancy is not currently covered in part 10, otherwise than in chapter 1, it is necessary to create a new chapter for it. It has been put as a suggestion after chapter 4, as there is some common ground with the connection with rent and rent reviews. The outcome in terms of the degree of protection this affords tenants varies according to the type of tenancy. A tenant under the 91 act can have proceedings against him or her commenced, only after the rent has been unpaid for at least six months. Under the others, the lease can be irritated soon after a single rent payment is overdue. The reasonable opportunity clause stands for all tenancies, however, and this difference is just to reflect the length of the tenancy and the security of the tenure. In the amendment to section 20, I have left in a reference to a reasonable opportunity. This may appear unnecessary if the rent is six months overdue. The tenant must surely already have had a more than reasonable opportunity to pay, but I think that it does add something. If the rent is due monthly and the last five payments are overdue, the landlord could, under section 20, as it stands, commence proceedings the day after the due date of the six-monthly payment, without giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity to make the six payments. That is where I am hoping that the cabinet secretary will agree with. Mike Russell. I have a great deal of sympathy for this amendment and I will be interested to see where the cabinet secretary says in response to it. It was an amendment that I was considering myself. There are issues about the presentation of invoices and the payment of rent, and there are circumstances in which the presentation of invoices is not made, and this becomes a very confusing and difficult situation for tenants. There needs to be a renewed clarity about the exact process that would be followed in terms of irritancy. Although the amendment is an atoriously difficult area, and there may be some legal difficulties with the amendment, the spirit of the amendment is correct that there must be a clarity for tenants. Perhaps if the legal issues are cloudy, some way could be found to helping Claudia Beamish to have an amendment at stage 3, which would in actual fact improve the situation. No other member wished to comment, Alex Ferguson. Thank you, convener. I am not quite as supportive of this as is Mike Russell. Any lease of agricultural tenancy, any agricultural tenancy that I have ever come across, states very clearly when rent is due, usually Whetson and Martinus. I really think that this is putting an unreasonable requirement to produce a piece of paper. We all know that there are a multitude of reasons why pieces of paper may not be received or delivered. While I can understand Claudia Beamish's intention in this amendment, I think that the practical difficulties of implementing it overcome its intention at this stage. I am not inclined to support it. Amendment 134 aims to provide protection to tenants of MLDTs by ensuring that a landlord cannot exercise their right to terminate the lease for non-payment of rent unless a tenant had first received an invoice prior to the rent due date and had then been given a reasonable time to pay the unpaid rent. Only if the tenant does not pay the rent could the landlord begin to exercise their right to end the lease. We support the principle, but the bill already gives tenants in MLDTs the protection that Claudia Beamish is looking for under her provisions in the new section 18A6. The landlord has to notify the tenant in writing that they have not paid the rent and the tenant then has at least 12 months to pay. The landlord can only irritate the lease if the tenant still has not paid after all that time, so we believe that amendment is not necessary. Amendment 275 is in two parts. The first part for 1991 act tenancies duplicates the effect of what the 1991 act already does. The existing process in section 20 of that act would already ensure that the tenant is aware of how much rent is outstanding and has the chance to pay, and as such, we do not support this part of the amendment. However, I do support the second part of the amendment for short-limited duration tenancies and limited duration tenancies in principle. I agree that it would be helpful, but it needs redrafting. For instance, the phrase reasonable opportunity is left undefined and that would have to be defined. I would invite Claudia Beamish to withdraw her amendment if she is willing to do that, and then we could work with her to bring forward appropriate amendments at stage 3 if we can do that. I ask the committee to reject those amendments on that basis if Claudia Beamish is willing to work with us towards stage 3. Claudia Beamish, I do not wish to say anything further. I will withdraw amendment 134 because of what the cabinet secretary said, but I will try to fathom more of an understanding of what is in the bill already. Was it the previous act as well, given the protection that is needed for that one? I will withdraw that. The second one, I would be very pleased to work with the cabinet secretary and officials on it and therefore wish to withdraw 275. Claudia Beamish has sought to withdraw amendment 134 and with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member objects to the amendment being withdrawn. The question is that section 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The conversion of 1991 act tenancies and limited duration tenancies into modern limited duration tenancies. Amendment 157, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group of amendments 291, 158, 226, 228 and 259. I note that the amendments 157 and 291 in this group are direct alternatives. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 157 and speak to all amendments in the group. As you know, we have planned for some time now to replace section 79 of the bill, which currently gives minister a power to provide by regulations for secure 91 tenancies to be converted to MLDTs. There are two parts to the replacement of this section. One is the new resumption and asignation process, which amendment 201 introduces. The other is this amendment, which ensures that 1991 act tenancies can still be converted to MLDTs by agreement, even though the original section 79 is going to be removed from the bill. Specifically, this amendment allows a landlord and a tenant to agree to convert a secure 1991 act tenancy into an MLDT of at least 25 years. This is consistent with the existing arrangements in the 2003 act, which state that when an 91 act tenancy is converted to an LDT, that LDT must last for at least 25 years. Compensations payable at the point the 91 act tenancy converts to the MLDT. Again, this is consistent with the current arrangements for conversions to LDTs. The committee will wish to note that when a 91 act tenancy converts to an MLDT, the new MLDT will not conclude the option of a break clause at the five-year point. This is because the break clause has targeted new entrants, not to establish farmers like secure 91 tenants. As I have said, the amendment 201 will introduce the other part of the replacement for section 79, which is a new process that lets tenants relinquish their tenancies in exchange for compensation or assign them to a new or progressing farmer. We will be able to discuss those, as I said before, next week. However, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on Alec Ferguson's alternative proposal for replacing section 79, which is set out in his amendment 291. The Government's proposals have been carefully developed to ensure a fair balance between the rights and opportunities of tenants and landlords set against the context of the wider public interest. By contrast, Alec Ferguson appears to be cherry picking elements of the review groups and the Government's former proposals in order to skew that balance as far as possible towards the interests of landlords. We are each accusing each other of cherry picking, but I want to make a similar accusation. He has opted for a shorter MLDT term than the review group recommended, and he has given the landlord an automatic right to take back full control of the land and perpetuity for the same price, as a new entity would pay to have use of it for just 25 years. Although I welcome that he has adopted our approach to targeting new entrants, the practical results of his proposals could be to keep down the price that landlords would have to pay ahead of genuinely increasing access to land for new farmers. We do wonder what evidence Alec Ferguson has for choosing 25 years when the review group recommended that the converted lease should be a period of at least 35 years. That view is shared by many key stakeholders. At each stage of process, he appears to have adnarled the review group's recommendations in the interests of the landlord without providing any counterbalance. We think that that hardly is in the spirit of the review group's recommendations, nor is it in the interests of the tenancy sector, as it does not provide the balance that current legislation and the bill offer. I therefore invite the committee to reject amendment 291. In terms of consequentials, if amendment 157 is accepted, then the power under section 791 currently contains will be removed from the bill because amendment 157 replaces the original section 79 with full provisions for the conversion of 91 acts to MLDTs. Amendment 226 therefore removes the reference to the bill from the list of subordinate legislation at the end of the bill. Again, in terms of consequential amendments, because it will no longer be possible for 91 act tenancies to convert to LDTs because they will not be there, there is no need for the notice to quit process in the 91 act to be dis-applied so as to allow speedy conversion to the LDT. However, because amendment 157 is effective in an updated version of section 2, enabling 91 act tenancies to convert to MLDTs instead of LDTs, the notice to quit process needs to be dis-applied to allow speedy conversion to an MLDT. To be clear, existing LDTs will be able to continue. Alternatively, they will be able to convert to MLDTs under amendment 158. This amendment allows them to convert without having to go through the length and expensive process of ending the LDTs and settling the WAGO compensation and then beginning an MLDT from scratch. The minimum length of the new MLDTs will be however long the LDTs have left to run. To clarify, the minimum length of the new MLDTs will be however long the LDT has left to run. However, parties will be free to set a longer duration if they so wish. The tenant's improvements will carry over into the MLDT so that the tenant receives compensation and the tenant is entitled to when that MLDT ends. Finally, another consequential issue is that the legal definition of a limited duration tenancy in the 2003 act is set out in section 93 of the act and defined by references to section 5 of the 2003 act. However, the bill repeals section 5 of the 2003 act as part of replacing LDTs with MLDTs. Because pre-existing LDTs may continue for many years, we therefore need to include a workable definition of LDTs in section 93 of the 2003 act, which the amendment does. I call Alex Ferguson to speak to amendment 291. While I accept that amendments 157 and 291 are direct alternatives, I think that there is a difference because the cabinet secretary moves 157 as part of a suite of alternatives, some of which we will be debating next week, whereas I table mine not as an alternative but as a replacement for section 79 for reasons that I will elaborate on. I have tabled amendment 291 to replace section 79 as currently drafted and to replace it with a new section giving greater clarity and detail of the conversion model. I do so because I believe that the conversion model holds the key to the improvement in landlord-tenant relationships that I would hope we are all seeking to bring about through this legislation. What I can say with absolute certainty is that the Government's related proposals on relinquishment and assignation as part of the options that are going to be available will, if anything, cause even greater tensions within the relationship and, with that, the opposite effect on the future availability of land for rent that is one of the stated intentions of the bill. Members might well not be surprised at Scottish land and estates' opposition to that proposal, but I would hope that they are somewhat surprised by the NFU's opposition on agricultural ground, certainly, because theirs is not the opposition of landlords and their agents. It is the view mostly of owner-occupiers and small landowners who see a very real threat in what the Government is proposing. Unlike asigdation, whether or not it is preceded by an offer to relinquish a lease, conversion to an MLDT can and does, I believe, meet the policy objectives of this legislation and let the sector move forward on a positive footing. That was also the view of the agricultural holdings legislation review group, which I have said before, was chaired by the Cabinet Secretary. It was also supported by the committee in its stage 1 report. A conversion model would provide tenants with an option to retire while sending a positive message to the industry about fixed-term tenancies. In cases where conversions did take place, while in many cases the owner of the land's expectation of regaining vacant possession of the holding would be delayed for a significant period of time, and I am absolutely open to discussion on that length of that period, the owner of that land would at least have the prospect of regaining possession in future to be able then to either relet it or to reorganise either the landlord or the other tenants' farming businesses. It would introduce a measure of flexibility. What has assignation for value, that model, ring fences the secure tenancy, and the owner of the land would have little prospect of ever regaining possession unless he could afford to exercise his right to buy the tenants' interests by effectively paying a premium for his own property. The conversion to MLDT model, therefore, is a less severe breach of a landlord's property rights. I think that that is important because the less severe any breach of an owner of land's property rights, the more likely the owner of that land is going to make it available for rent. Section 79, as currently drafted in the bill, was heavily criticised for the reliance on secondary legislation. My amendment 291 inserts a new section 29, based on the existing provision, but adds further detail about what conversion to an MLDT model would involve, including measures that would provide, firstly, that the landlord would be required to match the sum being offered by the prospective asignee, which means that the landlord has a true right of preemption while not being required to pay a premium. Secondly, that the potential asignees are limited to new entrants and farmers wishing to progress in the industry, which surely means that the provisions are aimed at not only assisting people to exit the sector, which is a problem at the moment, but also providing opportunities for those wishing to enter it. That is not skewing the legislation in favour of the landlord, I think that it is rather the opposite. Finally, I believe that this can and does meet the Scottish Government's policy objectives in a balanced and proportionate manner. The problem that I have is that my amendment really needs to be debated alongside 201, which we are not going to be debated until next week. However, I will listen to what the minister has to say and to other members in this debate before deciding whether to press my amendment or not. I respect Alex Ferguson's views on those matters. In the outline of my own remarks, the Government's position, and to be clearly disagree with his amendment, in terms of the NFU's position, I know that we have had further representations from some members of the NFU today who do support the Government's approach to this issue. In terms of Alex Ferguson's comment over a guarantee of regaining, as he put it, his secure property rights for landowners, at the moment, there is no such guarantee in any case, because if a secure tenant has a successor in place, it will continue to be a tenant on the land, and that secure tenancy will continue if there is a successor. That guarantee is not there that Alex Ferguson is chasing in any case. Clearly, Alex Ferguson's approach is to revert to the original proposal that we are now replacing with two further measures, one of which is discussed this week and the next week, in terms of designation of 91 tenancies, which we believe will help to keep land in the tenancy sector, which is the ultimate aim of this measure. If a secure tenant does not have a successor, then that land could be lost to the tenancy sector. The Government's approach now will help to keep that land in the tenancy sector, and that is the ultimate aim that we are trying to achieve. The question is that amendment 157 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Those in favour of 157, please show hands down. Those against. Seven for two against and no abstain, so amendment 157 is agreed. I call amendment 291 in the name of Alex Ferguson, or are you debated with amendment 157, Alex Ferguson, to move or not move? I think that at this stage I would move, convener, and we will come back to it at a later stage. In that case, we move on to the question that is section 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendments 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165. All in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments 158 to 165 on block. Do you have done block? I ask whether any member objects a single question being put on the amendments 159 to 165. 159, sorry, it was correct on my notes here. Does any member object to the question being put? If no member objects, the question is that amendments 159 to 165 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Act 1991 act 10, 10 is right to buy. We are interposed lease. Call amendment 292. In the name of Michael Russell in a group of its own, Michael Russell will move and speak to amendment 292. I will not be very lengthy on this, because I want to say a word or two more in the next section about some of the history of land reform in Scotland. There is an anomaly in the situation that those tenants who have interposed leases cannot exercise a right to buy. An interposed lease is a lease that is put in place between the landlord and the tenant. There can be legitimate reasons for interposed leases, and they are obviously used from time to time for those legitimate reasons. However, there can also be landlords who use interposed leases to avoid the right to buy. That is extremely unfair but is now presently possible. An interposed lease can be put in place without the consent of the tenant. That is a result of the Land Tenure Reform Act 1974, as a result of which there are tenants who simply will be unable forever to exercise a right to buy, which otherwise might have occurred for circumstances in this act. That is clearly a frustration of the intention of the Government, but it is also a frustration of the tenants' legitimate rights and expectations. I am seeking to ensure that that anomaly is removed, that that injustice to those tenants is removed, and that progress is made to ensure that tenants who have interposed leases can exercise a right to buy. I say to Michael Russell and the committee that I am very sympathetic to the position of tenants who, without any saying the matter, have ended up as sub-tenants in interposed leases, and therefore, as Michael Russell says, do not qualify for the pre-enter of a right to buy. Although there may well be some legitimate reasons that a landlord might interpose a lease, it is not right that interposing should be used as a means of the nine tenants' right to buy, as Michael Russell says. That is an issue that we have been looking at following the review group's recommendation on a right to buy for tenants and interposed leases. It is a complex area, and considerable work will be needed to find a solution that is both fair and legal, so it is not something that we could include in the bill at this time. Under this amendment, the sub-tenant would buy the land, but the land would still be subject to a head lease with a tenant, and that tenant is controlled by the original landlord. If a sub-tenant does exercise a right to buy, they would not be able to farm the land because the landlord's interposed tenant is still there and has a right to farm the land. Once the dust settles, all a sub-tenant achieves potentially is that they are now the landlord, and the landlord is now the tenant. There is nothing to stop that tenant from using the right to buy, which means that it could end up with the original sub-tenant having no land at all, so it is a very complex area and quite confusing. We need time to resolve those quite difficult questions, such as whether to let the sub-tenant buy the tenant's interest as well as the land, and whether that might make it so expensive that nobody would want to do it in the first place. I am sympathetic to this issue. Of course, it is a complex matter. We need to undertake a full assessment of all the issues that arise from it, but I am happy to go in record and say to Michael Russell on the committee that, accordingly, we will plan a consultation on this for early in the next parliamentary term, and that will enable us to properly assess the situation and address it in a way that works. In the meantime, I would urge Michael Russell to withdraw this particular amendment. Michael Russell, to wind up, press or withdraw. Yes, there are a number of issues that are arising in this bill that indicate that it will require to be further action taken. That is one anomaly that I am going to refer to some later on. I do think that it is pity that those issues were not considered as the process of this drawing bill went forward, but I do accept that it is not a matter that can be resolved in a few weeks. With the cabinet secretary's commitment that there is a desire to solve it, with a timescale now mentioned, which is early in the next Parliament, I would hope, whoever is in government, I will be prepared not to move this, but on the understanding that it does get resolved and it gets resolved in the next session of the Parliament. Thank you. Michael Russell has sought to withdraw amendment 292 with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member objects to the question being withdrawn. The question is that section 80 be agreed to or we all agree. 1991 act 10 and says absolute right to buy for certain tenants. I call amendment 293 in the name of Michael Russell group with amendments 293A and 293B. Michael Russell to move amendment 293 and speak to all the amendments in the group. I am conscious, convener, that on the dear management amendments, I started my contribution in the 19th century. I want to do the same again in this section because much of what we deal with in Scotland on issues of land and land law has its roots in the failure to change in Scotland at a time when others were changing. It is instructive that in a period of 40 years in Ireland, there were four significant land reform acts, 1870, 1880, 1901 and 1909. They arose out of very different political circumstances, but what they did was to ensure that systems of tenancy that we still have do not exist there. Indeed, if you look at the history of land reform throughout Europe and further afield, much action was taken in the 19th and early 20th century to recognise the rights of those who work upon the land and who have worked land for a considerable period of time. No such or virtually no such changes took place in Scotland. Certainly, there was a progress of land reform that the UK Parliament legislated for and ambitious land reform acts like the changes to agricultural tenancies in the 1948 act in particular. However, in Scotland, the process of considering the way that the land was used, the relationship of people to land and the use of land as a resource, particularly a community resource, has been slow in coming. It is only with the establishment of this Parliament in 1999 that the process essentially began to move into something other than a crawling gear. Now we are having to cope with those changes because the need in land reform has to take account, for example, of the ECHR, which is hardwired into the DNA of this Parliament. Unnecessarily so, the ECHR is a very important part of considering how people should be treated. However, it is much harder to reform the tenure of land with the ECHR in place unless you accept—this is a process that has been engaged in in the bill and it has been a very instructive and useful process—unless you accept that there are a variety of rights that people have and that those rights are not defined in a single European convention, no matter how important, but are defined much more widely on the international scene. This bill, hopefully to become an act before the end of this Parliament, will take that understanding of the balance of rights and responsibilities a big step forward. As it does so, it will need to consider some very problematic issues such as the right to buy. I am not suggesting an unconditional right to buy, and I want to make that absolutely clear. This is not an absolute right to buy, but there are many circumstances in which conditional rights to buy are not yet dealt with in legislation that need to be dealt with. I have brought this amendment because I am concerned that there has been a consistent attempt to close this issue down, to say that there is no demand for this and that there is no need for it. I have noticed in the lobbying that we have had around this bill that there has been a consistent theme and that it therefore should be put away not just for discussion but forever, because that is what we are receiving from people. That must not be talked about. It is a reform that dare not speak its name, but it is not a particularly radical reform. The illustration of that is in this amendment. What this amendment suggests is very modest indeed. It is not expropriation of land, it is establishing a right to buy for those people who have been working that particular piece of land for half a century. Those are the people who have put in their effort, their time, very often their investment, into improving and developing a farm, and all it does is establish a right to buy in those circumstances. You can define three groups of people about how they look at this piece of legislation. Those who believe that such things are no longer relevant, that there is a healthy relationship between landlords and tenants and that people should get on with it, and I am not averse to that. There are many circumstances in which that is true, and I am certainly not criticising every single landlord. There are those who believe that the rights to property are absolute and can never be interfered with. In those circumstances, any such amendment cannot be considered, and that is simply not true. The legislation of the Scottish Parliament has passed not just under this Government but on previous administration shows that that is not true. There are those who have in their own circumstances a real need for change. I represent some of those people who have a real need for change and who believe that it would be far better if they were able to purchase their land and to move ahead to use it. I had a conversation this morning with somebody about that who said to me, surely there is no evidence that those who wish to buy their farms are going to be better farmers than tenants. I can go to many places in my constituency and prove exactly that. Those people who have taken that opportunity have been able to do things that they could only dream of when they were in tenancies and were not working for them. I want to take that issue forward, but I recognise that ECHR does change that context. I do not expect that amendment will succeed on this occasion, but I want it to have ventilated the issue. I want to make it clear that the issue is not over. It is not closed down. This is one of those issues, like interposed leases, to which we will have to return. I want there to be a debate about those rights that tenants have, within the context—not just of ECHR, but within the context of a much wider view of rights, and in the context of those who have worked the land and are passionately devoted to that land. I did see some references at the weekend when that was being discussed to people who said, well, if people want to buy a farm, they can go and buy a farm somewhere else. That is not the issue. If you live on the island of Eila, if you live on the island of Bute, if you have long-term family connections for generations to a community, then I think that you have a right to move forward in that community having improved your ability, your worth and your involvement and investment in that community. I do not regard that as, in any sense, a radical move. I regard it as a necessary next step. Although that step will not be taken in this legislation, I hope that the minister will recognise that the Land Commission will have to consider this. There will need to be a continued extension of the right to buy, and that that does not destabilise the agricultural market. What it does is that it recognises the modern reality, which we should have recognised during the 19th and 20th century in Scotland, but unfortunately we did not have a Parliament to do so. I know that you are going to move. I will not move this amendment at this stage. I may withdraw it when we come to vote because I want to hear what the minister has to say. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 293A and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I do indeed move amendment 293A. I want to speak in support of what Mike Russell has said. It is very important that we acknowledge that those who have worked the land over generations, and 50 years is a good marker in my view, do have rights and that it is not only about the ECHR rights, but it is about other rights that need to be recognised and respect shown to those who have worked the land in a more sort of ethical sense rather than the actual statutory sense. My amendments to Mike Russell's amendment are to try to help by limiting the right to buy in a way that might give reassurance to some who are opposed to it. I listen carefully to what Mike Russell said and suspect that that will not be the time when those things go forward, but they are not things that can be avoided and brushed under the carpet. They are issues that we must, I believe, face in modern Scotland. There is a demand for this to be looked at. The STFA survey recently showed that 85 per cent support for a qualified or limited right to buy. I understand that the Scottish Government's own survey showed a 46 per cent support for absolute right to buy and a 29 per cent support for a conditional right to buy. My amendment suggests a limited period in which tenants can issue a notice under section 38B1. The amendment suggests five years from the date that this bill becomes an act. As I have said, I think that this might give some confidence about letting for landowners but also give those in secure tenancies an opportunity to purchase their land, which I believe is the right way forward. Although I have not put these points into my amendment, there is also the possibility in relation to this, which I think might be helpful at this stage to put on the record, that there might also be a clause, as this is considered, whereby the tenant could buy the farm if the landlord was in breach within this section, and it might also be that amendment could be considered in a state of optimism that I have written here at stage 3. I am not quite sure that that is going to be the case, but where a successor had to be named, that is another issue to look at, preventing a situation where a tenant could purchase the farm at a very reasonable price and then possibly sell it on quickly on the open market, there might also be a connected resale clause to prevent an unfair profit being possible. I do think that not an absolute right to buy but a limited or qualified or conditional right to buy, however one wanted to phrase it, is something that we really do have to consider very seriously. I am frankly disappointed that, in my view, some people have shied away from addressing it. I would have liked to have seen it moving forward towards stage 3, having had a debate at stage 2, but I will leave it at that for the moment. I want to bring in some other members now, but I have indications from Dave Thomson first and Graham Day. Dave. Thank you very much, convener. This is a subject that is fairly dear to my own heart. I remember when I was first selected in 2002 to stand in Rosca in Inverness West, I went along to a meeting in the Toer hotel, which was one of the founding meetings, if not the founding meeting of the Scottish Ten Farmers Association, and I then put forward a motion to the SNP conference that year advocating a right to buy, which the conference approved by the way. That is 14 years ago, and here we are still talking about those things. Now, the big problem and the big issue, and Mike Russell alluded to it when he was speaking, is to do with ECHR. The ECHR, which is written into the Scotland Act, which set up this Parliament, very much ties the hands of the Parliament, because there is a difference between legislation having to be ECHR compliant, which is a matter of opinion untested in the courts, and for people being able to challenge legislation under ECHR. There are two quite different things. There is a wider issue that is not going to be dealt with today, and that is that the fact that it is written into the Scotland Act needs to be looked at and it needs to be removed. We have the same freedom of putting forward legislation as any other legislature, legislation that can still be challenged under ECHR, as, say, UK legislation would be in the European Court. Having said that, Scottish Tenant Farmers Association wrote to us just yesterday and they indicated that their support basically for a conditional right to buy. Mike Russell's condition is 50 years. I will be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary does have to say when he responds, but there are various conditions that they are suggesting could be applied to a right to buy to try to ensure fairness for everybody. Things such as the tenant demonstrating greater investment in the holding in the landlord during the term of the tenancy, evidence of the landlord being in breach of obligations or farming business being inhibited by the scale of land ownership or the actions of a landowner, demonstration of eligible succession, so a landlord would not have an expectation of vacant possession in the near future, clawback in the event of resale within, say, ten years, and a landlord's right of preemption if the farm was sold within ten years. I hope that all those things, along with those mentioned by Mike Russell and Claudia Beamish, would be the sort of things that would go into the pot and into the debate when this is considered in the future. I think that it must be considered in the next parliamentary session and it must be considered early. It is a boil that has been festering for many, many years now. It is souring relationships between landlords and tenants. We need to deal with it, we need to lance it, and the only way to do that is to bring in a form of conditional right to buy along the lines that we have heard being discussed this morning. I commend Mike Russell for bringing forward his amendment. My knowledge and understanding, such as it is, of the realities of tenancies is far more recent than that of Mr Russell's or indeed Dave Thomson and others. The more I learn about the tenancy issue, the more I am inclined towards enhancing right to buy provisions in certain circumstances. I would contend that, in that regard, Mr Russell's amendment should not readily be dismissed. Although I cannot help but wonder, convener, whether it would be best sat in amongst a broader package that Parliament and stakeholders had an opportunity to work through, hopefully, with constructive intent, because we are all of us too well aware of the painful consequences for some that can arise from passing legislation that is deemed to be flawed. The principles behind Claudia Beamish's amendment could also be considered in that setting, although, like Mike Russell's, it would have ECHR hurtless to overcome. Indeed, it could potentially be subject to challenge by both tenants and landlords. However, I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary in his response, which I hope will recognise that the debate that Mr Russell is so eloquently called for is one that we need to have in the near future. I thank Mike Russell for his considerable interest. I, Mike Russell, describe three categories of people when it came to right to buy, and I do not really recognise myself in any of them, to be perfectly honest. It is probably a good job that I am retiring in six or seven weeks' time, because I am quite clear that this is going to come back in the next Parliament. If I may say so, I think that that is the right place for it, if this debate has to take place, because I would have been very, very concerned, and I will be very concerned, if Mike Russell's amendment is agreed today, because if the Government's amendments on assignation are likely to end up in the courts, as I believe they will be—maybe others who disagree with that—then Mike Russell's amendment, if agreed, would absolutely guarantee it. What I am not going to deny at all is that this is going to be a continuing debate. I think that that is quite clear, but it is a debate that needs the fullness of time, if it is not going to have those who own land and have that land available to let at the moment, if they are not going to put up the shutters on letting that land and do everything they can to prevent that land being let, because if this is rushed into, if it is done in a top-down bullying sort of way, then that will be the result. If we want a truly invigorated tenancy sector, then we have to try and take as many people with us as we possibly can. I think that some members have difficulty believing that I have the interest of the tenancy sector at heart, but I do. I want to see a tenancy sector that is really vibrant and open and modern and dynamic as much as the next person. I am very worried that this legislation, as it stands, is not going to help to achieve that, but I am absolutely convinced that Mike Russell's amendment, which, with respect, is an absolute right to buy, albeit under some constraints, but it is an absolute right to buy. That of itself will have a hugely negative impact. Given five years of debate, which I hope would be a very inclusive debate of all parties involved, then there is possibly a solution at the end of the day. However, it is, as I say, I do not believe that it is for this bill or for this Parliament to determine, and I hope that that debate will be left for future years. Any other member wishes to speak? Then I intend to make a few remarks on this. I like to sit at the context of the fact that we have briefings from Scottish land and estates and the president of the National Farmers Union, Alan Bowie. Talking about, in the case of SLE, we believe that the introduction of this right to buy would not be in the long term serve the industry. Alan Bowie is saying that, from an agricultural industry perspective, there appears little justification for an absolute right to buy. That is an interesting concept, because I think that it sets the idea of farming as an industry. Indeed, probably from the point of view, as the way Pete Heatherington summed it up, it is about property development. Whereas, in the circumstances of the time that it is taken for people to find security, it is surprising over the peace how long many people have had to take. I want to take you back into the 19th century as well. I want to take you back to the time of the Crofters commission report when John McPherson, the Glendale martyr, told the Crofters commission in the 1880s. He told them that our forefathers had died in good patience and that we ourselves have been waiting in good patience till now and that we could not wait any longer, that they never got anything by their patience but constantly getting worse. In 1907, the articles were created for the tenants of Glendale to be able to buy their holdings by a Conservative Government. We are looking at the need for security for tenants today. We note that 120 secure tenancies are being lost every year. We are in a position not to agree that the idea is that it is about an agricultural industry, but indeed it is about people living and farming the land. When the NFU president goes on to say that it is clear that many of the calls are coming from a wider land reformist perspective rather than an agricultural one, I question what agriculture is for and I have done so in the Parliament before. I believe that that question has to be applied to this particular amendment. I have a lot of sympathy with what Mike Russell has said. I believe that the cabinet secretary has to take things into account given the historic precedent of the time that it has taken for people to secure security in the past and indeed for the time that it has taken for the address of this very limited condition where tenants have been tenants for over 50 years. I look forward to what the cabinet secretary has to say. I am sorry that you are so reluctant about it because we would all agree that this is a hugely important debate. I hear what the convener says and I can understand it if I do not fully agree with it. He quoted the NFUS and SLE's briefings and you may will argue that they have axes to grind, but I do not think that they have the same axe to grind as the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveys. I really do not think that. Yes, they have a vested interest, of course they do, but I think that it is a different one. This whole bill is also about creating a viable and active, tenanted sector. A briefing report by the Chartered Surveys a couple of years ago now set out that the introduction of an absolute right to buy would increase the cost of purchasing farms, decrease the quality of farms that are available to rent and decrease the number of farms to rent. We have to bear that in mind as we go forward, because if we want to create that tenanted sector of vibrancy, we have to take those things into account. I am not saying that they are right or wrong, but I think that that underlines the argument that a considerable time needs to be taken over this debate going forward. I am beginning to be sorry that I am not going to be a part of that debate now, because it is going to be a good one. However, there are not black and white issues here, is what I am trying to say, and I hope that people will bear that in mind as this debate goes forward in future years. Just a brief convener in response to the comments that Alex Ferguson has just made, my understanding is that those amendments are not about an absolute right to buy, they are about a limited right to buy in quite clearly stated circumstances. That is the debate that we need to be having here. Is the balance right at the moment? I have read all the briefings that colleagues will have read about the need for balance and the need for fairness. The point that I would come at is that we do not have that balance at the right place at the moment, so that is what I think that those amendments are testing. There is a difficulty about doing all of that in a stage 2 or a stage 3, but that clearly is part of the backdrop to whether the bill is going to be successful is where that balance and where that fairness lies. I think that this is an important debate. The amendments that have been put forward are amendments that are designed not as extreme amendments but as shifting that balance. They are quite proportionate, I think, in the way that they have been put forward. That is the spirit in which we should have this debate. I hope that that will be the way that it is viewed outside of this chamber as well. It is a part of a context, both of land reform and of how land is used in Scotland and fairness to the people that farm that land, look after that land and invest in that land. When we think about the debates that we have had over the past few months about what is happening in the dairy industry, delays and cap payments, it is a tough time. For all those involved in that process, the finances are key, but so is the place from where people are starting from. Some of the amendments will come to later on about how agricultural holdings operate. Those are key. It is wrong to dismiss those amendments as being amendments that will completely rewrite the process. What is being suggested is a shift in the balance. I think that that shift is a legitimate shift for us to be debating today. I will not come back in any way at the moment, but I think that we should hear from the cabinet secretary before we come back to Mike Russell. Thank you, convener. I have listened very carefully to the very elegant contributions of many members on the committee. In most cases, there is not a lot to disagree with that has been expressed by members. Can I say at the outset that I understand the reasons why Mike Russell has brought forward those amendments, particularly in light of the circumstances and the well-documented cases in his constituency and other constituencies in Scotland? However, the agriculture holdings review group considered the issue of the right to buy and the circumstances under which it should apply carefully. It was one of many bodies to reject the absolute right to buy as not focusing on agricultural contribution and creating a vibrant tenancy sector. It also, like many members around the table today, recognised that this area of law and its interaction with ECHR is a legal minefield. The committee has rightly emphasised that it is essential that provisions in the bill comply with ECHR and that we are all acutely aware of the importance of avoiding another Salverson vs Riddle situation, a point that was well made by the committee in your own stage 1 report. Our view is that amendment breaches ECHR and is outwith the competence of the Parliament. However, I recognise that there is a widespread belief that a conditional right to buy would be beneficial, and that is what the Scottish Government has already begun to establish in the bill. For example, the bill creates opportunities for tenants to order the sale of and then buy their holdings when the landlord is in breach of his or her obligations. Indeed, that addresses some of the points that the STFA made, which were reiterated by Dave Thompson. It also gives communities a right to buy local land when sustainable development is at risk as well, and in some of those cases that should involve tenanted farms. I therefore hope that Michael Russell will withdraw this amendment, but I am also mindful of the fact that this is not, and by any means, a static situation. The debate has certainly moved on over the past few years, and as land reform progresses in Scotland, there will be opportunities to consider whether further change is necessary and can contribute to community wellbeing, agricultural progress and sustainability of rural businesses and rural communities. I know and I believe that anybody in my position will keep that under review, just as I am sure that a number of MSPs will want to continue to press for further change. I have no doubt that the Land Commission, once established, will be very mindful of this on-going debate in Scotland and the entirely legitimate desire for tenants to have more of a say over their own destiny. Indeed, in light of the well-known cases in Ergyll in particular, including those involving constituents whom Michael Russell has introduced to me and I have met personally and other cases elsewhere in the country, I absolutely agree that it is vital that the next Parliament does review to what extent the bill has been able to deliver for such cases and to look at the issues around a conditional right to buy. In that context, and the overriding context of land reform is now an on-going process in Scotland and in this Parliament, I hope that that outlines the Government's position. Okay, I call Mike Russell to wind up and then it will be Claudia Beamish to wind up and her amendment to come first. Thank you, convener. There will be people who have listened to this debate or who are expected to listen to this debate with a sense of disappointment and I do not think that they should feel disappointed. I have been very impressed by the very high quality of the debate on every side and I think that it has been a very serious and well-informed debate. I want to say at the very outset that I think that there is a fourth category that I would put Alec Ferguson into. I will have to create that category. There is a category of somebody who is immensely knowledgeable about this, who is very passionate about it, who has an open mind about some of those issues but also has reservations because of the fears that this will impact adversely upon the agricultural sector. I fully understand that. That is one of the reasons why we have to bring this back in order to examine it properly. I will do that in a moment and I will explain how I think that that should happen in a moment. We need to be very careful, of course, that we do not get this wrong. The spectre of Salves and Riddle has been raised from this table and it is right to raise it. That has resulted not because it is a problem for the Parliament, although it is. It has resulted in real suffering for individuals. The committee has discussed that on a number of occasions. I do not want to be involved in anything that creates circumstances where individuals suffer as a result of it. That is a strong reason for me to say, okay, I want this now but let's spend some time on it. I want to say to the cabinet secretary too because, repeatedly, we have heard in this bill from ministers. I understand why I have been a minister myself, that bills must be watertight. That is true. I want to say to the cabinet secretary that sometimes the right position for a Government is to be in the courts, defending the decisions that it has made as right decisions. Simply to avoid going into the courts is not enough of a justification, not to do something. If we accept legal threat as the means by which we will always avoid things, we will make no progress. While I think that we should avoid the solvus and riddle difficulties, the difficulties that are undoubtedly in this amendment, because this amendment is drawn up with a tremendous help of the parliamentary clerks, but it has not been drawn up with the help of the Scottish Government's legal side and experienced parliamentary draftsmen who have done this for years. However, in order to avoid that, we probably need to do some more work. However, in the end, we may have to defend this and this right thing to do against those who wish to undermine it. Therefore, the legal issues persuade me that we should not proceed with this at this stage. The debate encourages me greatly, and I want to thank the cabinet secretary for his response, because this debate has indicated, right around this table, even if he disagrees with us, that this is not a dead issue. It is not done and dusted. What the land reform review group said was not the final word on this, and there will have to be progress on the issue of a conditional right to buy. This is a conditional right to buy. It is not an absolute right to buy, but it is a conditional right to buy. If we take this forward, how do we take it forward? I will not press this amendment at this stage, but I think that, at the very early days of the next Parliament, there should be consideration given as to how you managed to implement this. It is possible that that could be done by a very simple bill. One of the problems of agricultural tenancy and agricultural holdings legislation is immensely complicated, as the cabinet secretary said before. He changed one thing and another thing and it falls out at the end. It might be possible to be much more simple about this, but whatever is done should be well prepared. I would hope that there would be a constructive national debate on it, and I hope that people would realise that this is a necessary step forward, but we also need to think about it. I will certainly go away from this debate thinking about it, because I profoundly believe that it is the right thing to do, and it is not a threat. It is in actual fact a fulfilment of the next stage of enabling the people who are engaged in Scottish agriculture to do their very best and to benefit themselves and their communities. I do not think that that is what we should all have ambition for. I will not press this. I am grateful for the debate that we have moved a step on, not as far as I want to go by any manner of means, but we are still moving, and that is important. Thank you. Claudia Beamish to wind up an amendment 293A and press or withdraw. My amendment was an attempt to find a balance whereby there would be confidence from landowners and landlords. I so often have heard this argument put forward that people do not want to let land if there is any form of right to buy. Even the confusion in this debate has shown that we really need to be clear about what we are talking about. We are not talking, as I understand it, about an absolute right to buy. We are talking about a qualified or conditional or limited right to buy, depending on the phrase that one is looking at. I think that it is really important that this comes back. As someone who is reasonably new to this debate, but like all of us here, has a sense of fairness and justice, I am puzzled why it seems to have been kicked again into the long grass, and I find that disappointing. I think that there are those of us who will certainly want to take the debate forward if we are back in the next Parliament, and I am sure that there will be others who will want to if we are not. On that basis, I withdraw my amendments. I think that the words of Mike Russell, Dave Thompson and Rob Gibson have been very important in this, as has the shorter contribution of my colleague, Sarah Boyack. Claudia Beamish has sought to withdraw amendment 293A with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? Nobody objects. We call amendment 293B in the name of Claudia Beamish. Claudia Beamish has already debated with amendment 293A. Claudia Beamish, do you want to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. The question is that amendment 293A be agreed to, but are you going to withdraw it? Not moved at this stage, but I will be back at some stage. Does anybody object to this amendment 293A being withdrawn at this stage? Nobody objects at this stage. We will take a very short five-minute break, and we will try and go on until 20 past one, and then we will try and finish our report. So we are going to have a five-minute break just now. Mike Russell, to move amendment 294 and speak to both amendments in the group. The question that I am raising is simply whether there are circumstances in this bill where a tenant will get to the stage of purchase without actually knowing exactly where he or she is in terms of the purchase price. That is issue number one. The second issue is simply to ensure that the clawback process is better and more comprehensive, I have to say, than the clawback process that was in the original bill. Clawback is always going to be controversial and difficult, but I think that it is one of those areas where you need the absolute clarity within the bill of how this is absolutely to work. The specific amendment that I am proposing at 167, in actual fact, makes sure that if there is clawback after difficulties with a tenancy, the landlord who is in breach should not profit as a result of investment or action taken by the tenant. I think that that is a basic principle that those who are at fault should not profit. Both of those are simple and clear. I would be quite happy to discover that I am wrong in terms of the price issue, in which case we proceed no further. However, I hope that the cabinet secretary will be more sympathetic to the principle behind amendment 167, because it is important that those who behave badly do not profit as a result of that behaviour. Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 295 and other amendments in the group. Right, thank you convener. I would like to speak in favour of Mike Russell's amendment. I think that it is important that in this group, the point being that it refers to a scenario where the landlord is forced to sell a land due to a material breach of the obligations in relation to the tenant. Some tenants have advised me that they can become committed to the sale before the price has been determined, and that this is a pressure that they do not want to be subjected to, of course. It is a scenario where nobody looking to buy a property would normally agree to. Therefore, my amendment gives the tenant the option to withdraw from the sale for up to 28 days after the price is known. I believe that this is a reasonable and fair time for consideration. On the 28 days to withdraw under section 38f, the amendment is written on the basis that the tenant would have 28 days after learning the price to withdraw from the offer. However, my own understanding would be that the offer would not need to be made until the price was known. If the price was then not to the tenants liking, the tenant can give notice under section 38e saying that they no longer intend to proceed under section 38f. I hope that I have got that right. Do I move the amendment in my name or not yet? Not yet, no. Any other members wish to comment on this matter? No. In that case, Cabinet Secretary to respond. Can I say that I am grateful to Michael Russell and Claudia Beamish for highlighting the importance of making sure that a tenant does not have to commit to buying the land before they know the price of the land and what that will be? I am happy to go on the record to say that I can confirm that it is currently drafted. The bill already gives that protection. If the tenant decides to buy, they will make an offer under section 38f1, and that offer must be at the price arrived at under 38f2, so the tenant cannot make an offer under 38f1 until they already know the price. Once the tenant has found out the price, they are under no obligation to buy. If they decide they do not want to buy, they need to give notice of that under 38ef, but the tenant will never find himself in the position of having to sign a blank cheque. The order of events that Michael Russell is looking to make clear is the order already prescribed by the bill. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, but I would be happy to look at whether the expansion notes to the bill can be updated and improved to make sure that the position is unambiguous. If other guidance is required to be published, we would make sure that that would happen as well. Claudia Beamish's amendment could confuse matters, if she does not mind me saying so, because a tenant cannot make an offer until they know the price. Her amendment would mean that a tenant could find out the price, make an offer at that price but then withdraw the offer, which would not help the interests of any of the parties involved in the sale. Of course, there are already provisions in the bill that mean that the offer cannot be made until the tenant knows the price. I urge the members to withdraw the amendments in light of my comments. In that case, Michael Russell will wind up. I am pleased that my amendment 294 is not necessary, and in those circumstances I will not press it. It was important to have that clarified. It is on the record, and if we can have better clarity in the guidelines, we will not get into that trouble. Thank you. Michael Russell came to withdraw amendment 294 with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No one objects. In that case, I call amendment 295, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 294. Claudia Beamish, do you move or not move? Move, and apologies for any confusion. I was trying to make for more clarity wrong and confusion. Are you going to move it? No, no. Sorry, I am not moved. I will just need to take it right. Thank you. We call agricultural holdings minor and consequential. amendment 166, in the name of the cabinet secretary group of amendments 203, 205, 208, 206, 207, 212, 251, 263, 264 and 265. amendment 263 and 264, in this group, are preempted by the amendment 300, in the group retention of existing procedures for variation or review of rent. Cabinet secretary, do you move the amendment and speak to all the amendments in the group? Okay, I'll take the guidance of you, convener, if you wish me to speak to all those amendments, which are minor and consequential ones, or move on block. Possibly get to that stage of moving them on block if you can explain initially what it's about. Well, we'll have to deal with the amendment 166, however, as it's at this stage in the proceedings. Okay, I'll speak to 166 and allow the committee to guide me if you want to go through all the other consequential amendments. Amendment 166 is designed to make sure that a tenant who is exercising right to buy and the for sale doesn't lose that right to buy at the seller causes a delay. Under the bill at the moment, a tenant loses their right to buy if they don't pay for the land by the final settlement date, but the landlord might not be able to transfer the title for the land in time to meet that date, and that would mean that the tenant wouldn't be able to pay for the land in time. On a potential reading of the current drafting of section 38j, the tenant then loses her right to buy through no fault of their own, so this amendment simply clarifies that the tenant doesn't lose her right to buy in these circumstances. This is also consistent with the provisions for the community right to buy in part 5 of the bill as well. Let's go through the other minor amendments. I think that we should leave them just now, in fact. So, do any other members wish to talk about this now? Comments? No. Cabinet secretary to wind up, probably. In that case, I'll just formally move amendment 166. Thank you. The question is that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Sale when the landlord has breached, restriction on the notice to quit, et cetera, where the sale is to a third party. Call amendment 373 in the name of Rob Gibson. Sorry, 273 in the name of Rob Gibson in a group of its own, and I will move it now and speak to this amendment. This amendment seeks to protect a tenant from eviction after an enforced sale by restricting the new landlord's ability to issue him with an incontestable notice to quit. When a tenant successfully ordered the sale of his holding because the landlord was failing to meet his obligations under part 10, chapter 3, I want to avoid the new buyer being able to swiftly evict the tenant. The tenant should have a chance to bring the holding back to productivity now that the obstructive landlord has been removed, rather than the new landlord being able to take it out of production for the first 10 years. Given agricultural timescares, gales, 10 years, it was chosen as a fair amount of time when I put this forward to give the tenant some protection from significant further change that could be damaging. The land court will not be able to grant a certificate of bad husbandry. The landlord will not be able to issue an incontestable notice to quit because he wants to put the land to non-agricultural uses. The landlord will not be able to issue an incontestable notice to quit that relates to permanent pasture. I wonder whether other members wish to make any comments on those. I would like to ask a question that you may be able to clarify, convener, because if I understand this correctly and it is distinctly possible that I do not, it seems to me that this amendment could force the sale of the holding to a third party because the landlord had not complied with the lease and then allowed that third party to terminate the lease because the tenant had failed to comply with good husbandry, which failure was a result of the original landlord's failure to comply with the lease in the first place. I would seek clarification on that, if possible, because I do not quite understand the rationale or justification of the provisions in the first place. Any other member wish to contribute? No, if not Cabinet Secretary to respond. Thank you, convener. I thank you for bringing forward this amendment, which we are happy to support. I welcome the protections that we give tenants after on the for sale. It would help to make sure that the tenant has the opportunity to farm the land to a high standard again, which the actions of the former landlord had been perhaps preventing the tenant from doing. We do not identify with Alex Ferguson's concerns. My intention is to press this amendment because I do not think that Alex Ferguson's concerns are material in the sense of the protection of the tenant's rights here. I believe that it will be useful for the tenant to be able to have this clarity through the amendment that I proposed just now. The question is, then, that amendment 273 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The sale with the landlords and breach, exclusions from clawback payment after early resale, call amendment 167, the name of Michael Russell group with amendment 1678. I call on Michael Russell to move his amendment 167 and speak to both amendments in the group. Clearly, it went unnoticed that I already introduced this amendment the last time I spoke because I was getting ahead of myself, so I'll just say again, I think it's a jolly good thing, and it will work particularly well for those tenants who are put in difficult positions by a landlord that's not fulfilling their obligations. No landlord should profit from his or her failure to fulfil their obligations. I am moving it. I now call Claudia Beamish to move amendment 1678 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you. I speak in support of Mike Russell's amendment and it might seem like a quibble of language, and I have great respect for Mr Russell and his linguistic abilities. However, I would like to see the word must rather than may put into the amendment, and I think I'll leave it at that. So you're moving 1670, you are indeed. Okay, any other member wishes to comment on that? If not, Cabinet Secretary to respond. If firstly we're happy to support Michael Russell's amendment, the bill already provides that when a landlord has ordered to sell the holding because they've breached their obligations, the price of tenant pays to the landlord excludes the value of the tenant's improvements. It's only fair that the landlord shouldn't profit from improvements if the land is later resold either. The amendment would also let us make sure that the former landlord didn't profit from other factors that had increased the value of the land since the former landlord originally sold it, like diversification. So I support the policy behind Michael Russell's amendment, and for that reason we're happy to include provision and eventual regulations on that. We have some concerns over Claudia Beamish's amendment, although we very much appreciate what our amendment is trying to achieve. We don't believe that it's appropriate, because it would mean that the regulations would have to include every single type of improvement listed in scheduled 5 of the 1991 act, whether it's relevant or not. Michael Russell's amendment will mean that we have to work through the detail of which improvements are relevant to exclude from Clawback, but Claudia Beamish's amendment forced us to include things before we'd even considered whether they were relevant. So I'd ask the committee to not support Claudia Beamish's amendment or for Claudia Beamish to reconsider whether she wants to press it. In that case, Michael Russell to wind up. I think I've said all I can possibly say about it. We'll move it. Thank you very much. And Claudia Beamish to wind up on amendment 167A, press or withdraw? Or withdraw, thank you. Withdraw, Claudia Beamish seeks to withdraw amendment 167A, with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to that? No member has objected to that. So the question is that amendment 167 be agreed to. Has moved. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Thank you. The question is section 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I intend to finish consideration at this stage, which allows us a little more time for members to attend to their business, especially with this afternoon. And we will take up again next week at this point. We made some good progress today, I think, and some major points. And I'd like to thank you very much for your attention. At the next meeting of the committee, we'll consider several items, coordinate legislation, for continuing with our consideration of land reform, Scotland Bill, stage 2 day 4. As agreed at the previous meeting, the committee will now move into private session to consider a draft correspondence to the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform on wildlife time in the Scotland annual report 2014. I close the public part of the meeting and ask the public gallery to be cleared.