 We have to make a start just now, because we have two pieces of sub-ledge. Okay, here we go. Good morning and welcome everybody to the fifth meeting in 2016 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. You will note that before we move to the first item on the agenda, I remind everyone present to switch off their mobile phones, as the IMF may affect the broadcasting system. Waith amgylch gydag i ddod, yn gyntafodog iechydol mor iawn yn gyfreidio iawn i gael osau informaeth sacrygol i gydag. Y genddol wrth hyn yn y gallu gydag'r legislationia despiru, ystafellau yna i du'r ystafellau hydrwynt. Mae gyfathau sydd maen nhw wedi'i ddweud o ffysigau gydag i Ffysigol 26, SSI 2016-12. The Water Environment, Remedial Measures Scotland Regulation 2016-SSI 2016-19. The less favoured areas support scheme Scotland amendment regulations 2016-SSI 2016-33. I refer members to the paper and ask if there are any comments on any of those. Mike Russell Ibbited Method of Fishing for the Plide Order 2016 was a specific reference to the debate that we had on the MPAs. If you look at the map that is given with the order, the areas that are involved covers all of the South Island MPAs. I had a conversation with the Cabinet Secretary of State, which he will recall, along with the Clyde Fisherman's Association, about the desirability of new science taking place to assess what the situation is with spawning cod in this area, specifically driven by a skipper from Campbellton, who was very keen to see that take place. When you read through the papers attached to the order, the argument for it is to continue what has taken place since 2002, but there is no indication of current science given anywhere in the papers. I wonder if the cabinet secretary has had the opportunity to consider this issue of some small-scale scientific activity during the new closure and during the spawning period in order to assess what is going on. I know that offer was made and the offer was also made for boats to be given, essentially, free of charge to allow that to happen. Those matters will be noted on the record, and I am sure that the Government can respond to them at that time. I note that, having seen the order twice before in this committee since 2002, that I think that Mike Russell's questions about it are pertinent and probably need to answer. At the present time, we do not wish to make any other comments, so the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to those instruments. I presume that the cabinet secretary will write to me about the matter. I presume that, since he receives our official report and cannot speak at the moment, he could respond. I was not sure what the protocol was in the case of negative instruments, but since you are here, cabinet secretary— I am 100 per cent sure of the protocol, but, given that I am here for the next item, I am happy to put in the record that, after our productive meeting with the Clyde Fishings Association organised by Mike Russell in the past few days, I very much welcome the proactive offer to work with the Government on gathering better science on the Clyde. I would be happy to speak to colleagues in marine Scotland science and write back to the committee about the potential for future scientific work in relation to that closure in the Clyde generally. Thank you, cabinet secretary. We are agreed that we do not wish to make any recommendations. In that case, we will move on to agenda item 2, about which I have to say quite a bit before we start for the record. We now move to the fourth 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 we will make as much progress as we can today, with the possibility of concluding our stage 2 scrutiny. If we do not conclude today, we will pick up where we left off and complete stage 2 at our next meeting on 24 February this year. I welcome the cabinet secretary for rural affairs, food and environment and his officials today. I note that the officials are not permitted to speak on the record in those proceedings. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced the marshaled list of amendments that sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated and the groupings that were published on Monday. There will be one debate in each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate to me or the clerk. If the cabinet secretary has not already spoken on the group, I will invite him 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 a debate. The debate on each section will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on 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 on the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw the amendment after it has been moved, I will check whether any other member objects. If any other 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, they should say not moved. Any other MSP present may move such an amendment. If 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 in 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. We now move to the issues in section 82. The Rent Review of 1991 act 10 says that rent agreement date, I call amendment 168 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 180, 183 and 184. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 168 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you. The amendments are intended to simplify the process around the date in which rent is to be agreed and to be paid. Currently, the bill makes provision for two separate dates, a rent agreement date and an effective date. The rent agreement date is the date in which the parties must agree the rent. The effective date is the date in which the new rent is to take effect. However, the land court felt that having those two dates could cause confusion for the parties, as there is limited difference between the two dates, those amendments will merge the two into a single date. The effect is that the rent agreement date will be both the date by which the rent must be agreed and the date from which the rent takes effect. Amendment 169 removes the requirement for parties to agree the rent on either martin mass or quits Sunday. We had originally specified those dates to achieve consistency on when rent should be agreed. However, on a reflection, those dates may be restrictive for some types of farmers. For instance, farmers of seasonal products like soft fruit or Christmas trees follow different seasonal cycles. The amendment will therefore allow parties to agree the rent on a date other than martin mass or quits Sunday, if that suits them better. Turning to 171.72, the bill originally provided that if the parties fail to reach an agreement on rent by the deadline of the rent agreement date, they would have 14 days to make a referral to the land court to determine the rent for them. What we are trying to achieve by giving them the extra 14 days was to prevent people lodging an application with the land court before the rent agreement deadline and then withdrawing if they did a reach agreement in the meantime. By giving them two weeks after the rent agreement date to lodge an application, we had hoped to remove the administrative burden on the land court. However, the land court requested that the 14-day period be removed. They believed that it would not stop people from lodging an application before they had reached an agreement on the rent. Amendment 172 would have the effect that, if a landlord and tenant do not reach an agreement on the rent, they must apply for a referral to the land court by the rent agreement date, rather than having it until 14 days after the rent agreement date. Amendment 172 matches that by providing that, where the parties fail to reach an agreement on rent and no referrals made to the land court, any rent review notice that has been served would cease to have an effect the date after the rent agreement date instead of 14 days after that date. I want to move amendment 168. Are there any members who wish to speak on this? If not, cabinet secretary, I take it that it is just a formal wind-up. The question is that amendment 168 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 169, 171, 171, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated by the cabinet secretary to move amendments 169 to 171 on block. Ask whether any member objects to a single question. If not, no member objects. The question is that amendments 169 to 171 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Rent review of 1991 act 10on says the powers of tenant farming commissioner and the land court. Call amendment 274 in the name of Claudia Beamish group with amendments 135 and 136. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 274 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you convener and good morning cabinet secretary and officials. My amendment 274 allows the tenant farmer commissioner to make declaration and order where a tenant or landlord claims the rent review process breached a code of practice. The amendment makes provision for appeals in the interests of fairness and the tenant farmer commissioner is not a judicial authority and the provision could be open to challenge. I understand on ECHR grounds if it gave the tenant farmer commissioner power to make a binding decision. This order can declare the review null and void and this would necessitate the rent review having to be carried out again which would mean a new notice being served for the rent review the following year. This would be suitable I believe as disputes with compliance with the code of practice are likely to be factual and evidence based. These amendments would serve to avoid referring the cases to the land court wherever possible which I believe is an important way forward and this would of course as we all know be an expensive and lengthy process which can irreparably damage the tenant and landlord relationships. If the complaint was not upheld by the TFC the dispute would have to be referred to the land court though and the other amendment which is amendment 135. It gives the power of the tenant farmer commissioner to impose wider penalties to cover non-compliance on the codes of practice during the rent review process. I understand that there are existing provisions for the TFC to inquire into alleged breaches of codes of practice but this amendment specifically is referring to rent review breaches and I would just like to highlight as as committee members know but and cabinet secretary does that rent review is one of those areas that have caused some major tensions in the past so it's looking to keep things as clear as possible and the intention of the amendment is to declare a rent review null and void if codes of practice have been breached and a complaint to the TFC has been upheld. I can understand where Claudia Beamish is trying to come from with this but I have a difficulty with it personally because I do believe that the process of a rent review is an entirely separate issue from adherence with a code of practice and I don't believe that what effectively comes down to relationship between the two parties should affect the process of the rent review and I would not be able to support those amendments on that ground. Any other members, if not cabinet secretary? Can I say at the outset that I support some elements of Claudia Beamish's amendments but I am pleased to say that the bill already does some of the things that I think she's trying to pursue through those amendments and I hope that I can offer some clarity to give comfort to Claudia Beamish on that. Section 25, subsection 7 of the bill provides that a code of practice prepared by the tenant farming commissioner can be used as evidence in any land court proceedings. So the bill already lets parties rely on any relevant code of practice in court, not just in the context of a rent review but in other situations as well. Section 25, subsection 8 of the bill also obliges the land court to take any relevant code of practice into account even if the parties haven't drawn it to the court's attention. In section 31 of the bill, subsections 2 and 3 also provide that if, following an inquiry, the TFC reports that a code and rent review has been breached, the land court has to take that into account. So the bill already provides what amendment 135 is looking for as well as some of what amendment 136 is trying to do, and I hope that that gives some reassurance to Claudia Beamish on those important points. However, it's difficult to support the other things that amendment 136 is trying to do. It proposes that the land court should be able to seek an opinion from the TFC on whether a code of practice has been breached. As the land court is made up of experts in agricultural law and agricultural matters, it does seem unnecessary for the court to seek the TFC's opinion on that. As I've said, the bill already provides that a determination by the TFC can be used as evidence in the land court. If either party feels that rent review code has been breached, they can ask the tenant farming commissioner to investigate and the commissioner's determination can be used in any land court proceedings. I think that that's a much more sensible approach than introducing the extra step of having the court seek the TFC's opinion. Also, the TFC is a public office holder. That means that they are subject to judicial review, so it would be possible for their opinion to be challenged before it even got back to the land court. So, as well as blurring the distinction between the TFC and the land court, this amendment could potentially lead to significant delays in the court reaching a decision. This amendment also proposes that if the land court decides a relevant code of practice has been breached, it can ban the landlord or tenant from asking for a rent review for up to a year. That would effectively turn the code and rent review into a binding law. I'm not convinced again that that's a sensible approach in this case, for several reasons, and those reasons underscore why we have taken the approach that we have on codes and the role of the TFC. Firstly, as with all the codes, it's likely that some of the rent review codes provisions won't be fully relevant to all tenancies. If we made it a legal requirement for parties to comply with the codes, then there wouldn't be any flexibility. People could be punished for not complying with a part of the code, even if that part wasn't relevant to their particular situation. Secondly, if the codes had the same standing as primary or secondary legislation, they would be a rival and potentially conflicting source of law to the 1991 and 2003 acts and the land court's judgments. That could cause confusion and disputes and ultimately increase the number of cases ending up in the land court. Thirdly, there would be a delay in developing and implementing the codes because each one would need to be given an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, making any adjustments to them in future would become a slower and more bureaucratic process as well, so the codes might be less flexible at responding to the needs and demands of the sector. For the same reasons that I can't support amendment 274, it proposes that if the TFC concludes that the way a rent review was conducted has breached a code of practice, it can declare the rent review void and ban the landlord or tenant from asking for a rent review for up to a year. The same arguments against this apply. In addition, the amendment would not achieve the same, because technically there is nothing in the new section that would actually make parties comply with the declaration of order and rent review that was made by the TFC under subsection 2 of the amendments. Because the declaration of order would not have any legal effect, the parties would have to go to the land court to enforce them anyway. It would just be a longer and less convenient route for them to get there. I hope that that offers some clarity on reassuring Claudia Beamish where other provisions already support what she is trying to achieve but also explaining the reasons why we can't support some aspects of her amendments and perhaps she would be willing to withdraw them in light of that. I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said. Just on the quite straightforward point in 274 of the not being penalties, I had thought that if that was an area that the cabinet secretary thought was appropriate to take forward for stage 3, I would look in discussion with him and others at penalties. That was a really probing amendment. I do understand the point that the cabinet secretary makes about the fact that the Tenant Farmers Commissioner is a public servant. Would one describe it as a public officer? Therefore, it could be subject to a judicial review and that that could slow things up. I think that some of the points that have been made have clarified the further protections that some tenants who have approached me were looking for within the bill. On that basis, I will tentatively withdraw the amendments. Claudia Beamish seeks to withdraw amendment 274 with the agreement of the committee. Does any other member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No other amendment. No member has objected, so therefore we move on. Call amendment 135, the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 274. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move? No. Call amendment 127, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 168. The question is that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 173, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 168. The question is that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 136, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 274. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move? Not move. Not moved. Call amendment 174, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 168. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 174 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Move to rent review of 1991 act tenancies procedure for regulation making powers. Call amendment 175, the name of the cabinet secretary, to group with amendments 176, 266 and 267. The cabinet secretary to move amendment 175 and speak to all the amendments in the group. The bill gives the Scottish ministers the power to define what is meant by productive capacity and standard labour requirement in an agricultural holding. Those are both key terms for determining the fair rent for a holding. Currently, those regulating making powers are subject to the negative procedure. However, having listened to concerns of this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I am pleased to bring forward this group of amendments to ensure a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny for those regulating making powers. They will now be subject to the affirmative procedure, so I wish to move amendment 175. Question is that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 176, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 175. The cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Rent reviews of 1991 act tenancies, the power of the land court to phase in increased rent. Call amendment 177, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 178, 179, 181 and 182. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 177 and speak to all the amendments in the group. The bill already gives the land court the discretion to phase in a rent increase of 30 per cent or more. The court can do this if it feels that a sudden large increase in rent would cause the tenant particular hardship. This group of amendments would give the same protection to landlords by allowing the land court to phase in decreases in rent of 30 per cent or more. Those amendments would ensure that both landlords and tenants can be protected against large changes in rent, providing fairness to both parties. I move amendment 177. Any other member wishes to discuss this? No member does. Cabinet secretary to wind up formally. The question is that amendment 177 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendments 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 and 184. All in the name of the cabinet secretary in all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move the amendments 178 to 184 on block. Any member objects to a single question being put on 178 to 184? No. No member objects. The question is that amendments 178 to 184 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The retention of existing procedures for variation or review of rent. I call amendment 296, in the name of Alex Ferguson, group with amendments 298 and 300. I draw members' attention to the preemption information that goes with the set of grouping. Thank you, convener. I'm sure that members will recall that the committee was pretty clear in its stage 1 report that while we fully supported the general principle of this chapter of the bill, we were concerned that there wasn't a greater amount of clarity of detail available on how exactly productive capacity is to be defined, calculated and applied. Those details were left to regulations that are still in the process of being worked up, but I appreciate what the cabinet secretary has just said about an affirmative procedure later on in the process. The Government's response to our report was that it wouldn't be able to provide those details before stage 2 as requested and that the modelling work would take at least another six months for the work, while also assuring us that the move to a calculation of a fair rent based on productive capacity, excuse me, would result in a more objective and transparent rent review process. We can't know that without the modelling work being completed. Even the Government has said that it's vital that we don't rush this work and that time needs to be taken to test the impact of the new approach on different farming sectors. The fact is that the modelling work has been unable to come to any firm conclusions about how it would operate successfully and has had real difficulty in coming up with a satisfactory model of rent review based on productive capacity. We are being asked to take a leap in the dark to pass legislation without any real knowledge of what its impact is going to be. I find myself wondering what the next Scottish Government might do if the anticipated outcome of the change doesn't materialise. Surely, in the complete absence of a fully worked-up alternative to the current system, it makes sense to remove this section of the bill and stick with the status quo until a genuine alternative is identified and proved to work in a way that is fair to landlord and tenant alike. I am not proposing a permanent change, but I am proposing a temporary reversion to the status quo until we have a genuine alternative about which we know the full details. The current open market value test for determining rent reviews, which is in section 13 of the 1991 act, is not fit for purpose. It is extremely complex and it is the source of many disputes between tenants and landlords. Between 2009 and 2013, applications to review rent under section 13 accounted for more than 62 per cent of the applications made to the land court. Concerns have also been raised that the open market value test can lead to unrealistic and unsustainable rents. In its final report, the review group concluded that the current open market approach is not in the public interest because it does not take account of the productive capacity of the land. It therefore recommended that the statutory way of setting rents for secure 1991 act tenancies needed to be fundamentally changed to ensure fairness and transparency. The bill takes forward that recommendation by removing the open market test and instead proposing to calculate fair rent based on the productive capacity of the holding. It is my view and the view of many people that this will lead to a more open and objective rent review system. As Alex Ferguson indicated, we have taken steps to ensure that once the regulations come forward, after the modelling is being carried out and so on, that we will ensure that this committee in Parliament has the chance to scrutinise the regulations. Those amendments from Alex Ferguson would be a step backwards, and I invite the committee to reject them. I listen carefully to the cabinet secretary and I do not disagree that we need a new system at all. I do not even disagree with the suggestion that it is possible that a rent review based on productive capacity might introduce a fairer system, but my point is that we simply do not know because the modelling has not worked out in the way that people hoped it would in the time available. We also now have a code of best practice on rent review, which I would hope is being adhered to by all participants. I hear what the cabinet secretary says about the market system that has caused a lot of problems, but that has been addressed, hopefully, to a certain extent by the introduction of a voluntary code. I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but I will press amendment because I do not like taking leaps in the dark when we do not know what the outcome is going to be. I will press the amendment if that is appropriate to do so. It is very appropriate. The question is that amendment 296 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. Those who are in favour of this please show, one of those against please show, thank you, those abstaining, zero. One for eight against no abstentions, the amendment is not agreed to. Modern limited duration tenancies, determination of initial rent, I call amendment 297 in the name of Michael Russell group with amendment 299. I draw members' attention to the preemption information shown in the groupings. Michael Russell, to move amendment 297 and speak to both amendments in the group. I disagreed with Alex Ferguson's solution to the issue of some lack of knowledge of exactly how the new system will work, but I do agree that there is and still remains some lack of knowledge about how the new system will work. The question is how to confront that. In addition, it is absolutely essential that there is clarity and equity in tenanted arrangements. Both landlord and tenant must know what they are entering into, what the basis of the rent is, and they must see that that has come to them equitably and fairly. The attempt from amendment 297, and it is a very difficult thing to do, and I am sure that there will be lots of legal reasons why it is not possible to do it in this way, but the attempt is to try and make sure that those principles of clarity and equity are established in the bill, so that there is no room for lack of knowledge and lack of confidence in how rental has been arrived at. I put this forward not in any confidence that it will be accepted, but because I want the principles of clarity and equity to be accepted and for a solution to be found in the new calculation of rent, so that there is no possibility of making what are sometimes good relationships worse and making bad relationships even worse. I understand why Mike Russell did not agree with my solution to this, and I am afraid that I do not agree with his. I am not out of any vendetta, but simply on a point of principle, because I find that this is somewhat top-down and heavy-handed in its solution. I hope that the Government will indicate that, although it would agree with the principle that both of us are trying to draw attention to, that is not the way to go about it. I comment that the independent adviser on tenant farming on behalf of the Government has been attempting to get a brief guide to rent reviews agreed between the three parties, the NFUS, the Scottish Land and Estates and the STFA. That would be updated once the bill becomes an act if it is passed, but it is having considerable difficulty in a simple case of setting out a brief self-help guide to getting Scottish Land and Estates to agree to what I have read as being a very straightforward document. I think that there was a much trumpeting of the way forward for the rent reviews by the voluntary process, and I am not pleased that one of the parties who signed up to this now seems to be sticking in the mud in terms of a very simple guide that might help the process. Therefore, I think that the questions that Mike Russell raises are all the more pertinent. I look forward to the cabinet secretary's response. First, let me make clear that I support the principle of new fair rents, and that approach has been taken as widely as possible in the sector. We think that it is right that the sector moves away from using the current open market value approach to basing rents in productive capacity. Of course, we discussed some of those issues in the previous debate. The bill clearly signals this by preventing that tenants and landlords in all types of long-term tenants can review their rent if necessary, so that it can be independently set by the land court using the fair rent test. In practice, that is likely to encourage many parties to take productive capacity into account when they are agreeing their initial rent. However, we do not want to prevent tenants and landlords and MLDTs from agreeing rent between themselves if they are both happy with a different arrangement. Those amendments will remove their flexibility to do that, and MLDTs are all about increasing flexibility for the various parties involved. There are also several practical issues with the amendments. The new fair rent test is based on the productive capacity of the holding, and it may be extremely difficult if it is not possible to calculate that at the start of a tenancy. To calculate productive capacity, you need to take into account the fixed equipment provided by the landlord, but the landlord has six months to provide that equipment, so it might not be possible to factor that in at the start of the tenancy when calculating the initial rent. Also, because of the way that they are drafted, amendments 297 and 299 would have the result that the regulations productive capacity would not be subject to any kind of parliamentary scrutiny. That is why we are reluctant to support the amendments that were put forward by Meco Russell. However, I welcome his confirmation that Meco Russell is in favour of the parties being able to take advantage of the new fair rent test. Although the bill gives tenants and landlords and MLDTs the flexibility to negotiate their own rent, it provides a legislative safety net for all tenancies, so that, if the rent they agree between themselves is not fair, the rent can be reviewed using the fair rent test. I hope that that provides Meco Russell with the reassurances that he seeks. Michael Russell, to wind up and press or withdraw. I am reassured by the cabinet secretary's remarks. I think that the principle is accepted of clarity, the principles of clarity and equity. The fair rent test that is provided should work well, so I am happy to not to move my amendment. Michael Russell wishes to withdraw amendment 297 with the agreement of the committee. Does any other member object the amendment being withdrawn? No member does, so that amendment 297 is withdrawn. Amendment 185, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 154 on day 3. The question is that amendment 185 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 186, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 154. The question is that amendment 186 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 298, in the name of Alec Ferguson, is already debated with amendment 296. Remind you that the amendment 298 preempts amendments 187, 299, 188 and 191. Alec Ferguson, to move or not to move. Remind me of the number, please, convener. The amendment is 298. Not moved, convener. Not moved. The question is that amendment 187, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 154. The question is that amendment 187 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 299, in the name of Michael Russell, is already debated with amendment 297. Remind members that 299 preempts amendment 188. Michael Russell, to move. Not moved. Not moved. And so, amendment 188, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 154. The question is that amendment 188 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The call amendments 189, 190 and 191, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated, invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments 191 to 191 on block. Ask whether any member objects to a single question being put. No member objects. Therefore, the question is that amendments 189 to 191 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Call amendment 275, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is already debated with amendment 134. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. The question is on to a new section, the Assygnation or Bequest of Agricultural Tenancy. A call amendment 148, in the name of Claudia Beamish, grouped with the other amendments shown in the groupings. Claudia Beamish, to move amendment 148 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The amendments are an attempt to widen the list of some of those who are currently excluded from Assygnation and Succession rights. Those are issues that have come up in committee in the four years that I have been involved and previous to that, I know for other members. To add to the relative's category, I propose to add the tenants' cousins, uncles, aunts, spouse or civil partner of an uncle or aunt and spouse or civil partner of a cousin. The group also ensures that long-standing employees are treated the same as near relatives in tenancy Assygnation. Those amendments require a person to qualify or to have been an employee of the tenant and to have worked on that holding and to have been engaged primarily in farm work. An example that was given to me was of a shepherd working on a tenancy over many years. This is on the assumption that none of the following should qualify a farm worker who is self-employed or employed by someone other than the tenant, for instance a contractor, an employee of the tenant who for some reason worked elsewhere and so had no particular experience of that holding or someone employed by the tenant in a non-farming capacity such as a housekeeper within the tenancy. The qualifying period can either be a continuous period of ten years or over or various periods amounting to ten years in total. There is no restriction when these ten years could have been, they could have all been at some time in the past. In terms of applying this to various types of tenancy and in each case to Assygnation and Succession I've had help with drawing up amendments to cover these areas, these issues as well, in terms of Assygnation of 1991 act tenancies, Succession to 1991 act tenancies, Succession to LDTs and MLDTs. There are no amendments to section 85 and 86 because so far as I've been advised there is no restriction on persons to whom an LDT or an MDLT can be assigned. Including these employees as near relatives I do appreciate at this stage might cause a problem but it was a way of testing the interest from the cabinet secretary in this area and if it was something that was thought to be important in terms of long service and commitment within a tenancy then possibly at stage three this might be looked at again because this was the only way that it seemed possible to find this solution at the moment. The attempt was to try to show that the landlord can only object if he or she is not satisfied that the person is of good character does not have sufficient resources or does not have or is about to get sufficient training and expertise. In relation to Succession there is no distinction for any type of tenancy according to whether or not the person liable to succeed is a near relative or not. All that is required I think is to add long standing employees to the list of people who may succeed and in relation to other amendments in the group I'll be interested to listen to what the cabinet secretary is saying about the amendments that he's taking forward in relation to spouses and I will also of course listen to my colleague Alec Ferguson's arguments for his amendment. Alec Ferguson to speak to amendment 311 and other amendments in the group. Thank you convener my series of amendments introduces the concept of a substantial connection with the holding to the Assygnation and Succession provisions in chapter 5 of part 10. I've always had concerns over the proposed widening of the categories of people to which a 91 act tenancy can be transferred and of course we have a number of amendments in the group that seek to do that. Indeed as Claudia Beamish has just described some of her amendments even remove any family tie altogether and we haven't taken any evidence on that at all and I would be unable to support those amendments but if you look at all these categories together it's quite clear that if they're accepted they will bring about a major change to current legislation in that if you put them together with with further restrictions on the grounds on which a landlord can object to a transfer any expectation of regaining vacant possession at some time however distant in the future is going to be severely impacted to the extent that there would really be no such expectation at all and what's more the change that the amendments and the bill seek to bring about is entirely retrospective in nature and that for me is what makes it very hard to ignore possible ECHR implications of this part of the bill implications that we as a committee drew attention in our stage 1 report but if we leave that to one side we've often spoken on this committee about the need for a restoration of trust between landlord and tenant in order to bring about a confidence to let land and I think this area of the bill is very important in that regard and I say that because if we ignore or substantially diminish the rights of those who own land and let it on a long term basis why on earth would they choose to do so in future even on a fixed term LDT of some sort and so I want if possible to consider these amendments of mine in that context and I think they also need to be considered along with the conversion and assignation for value proposals that the cabinet secretary is introducing because they all relate to the ability of a tenant to be able to retire with dignity when he or she chooses to do so and it's about the continuation of a family business in the tenanted farm and as I said last week I find it quite difficult to debate some of these issues sort of individually rather than collectively but it's probably no surprise that in general terms I am opposed and principle to a broad widening of succession but I do recall evidence given to us by I think it was Scott Walker of NFUS when he highlighted the situation of a tenant's family member who had been actively farming the farm for some years and yet wasn't entitled to succeed so I absolutely recognise that there are situations that need to be addressed but I believe that my amendments would do so in what I think is a more balanced way than is currently proposed and what they therefore seek to what they would therefore do is to retain the widened categories that we're looking at or that the government is looking at but also provide an additional ground for the landlord to object that ground being that the proposed beneficiary of the transfer does not have a substantial connection to the holding in question now as the cabinet secretary knows and we've actually joked about the number of times I've complained about how often the number of provisions in this bill are being left to secondary legislation unfortunately I have no time to work out the definition of substantial connection to the holding and therefore my suggestion would be that it is left till secondary legislation to determine that I hope that would accept I've had to grip my teeth while saying that but that aside I mean as the cabinet secretary said last week time is limited but the principle I think is important here because the substantial the substantial connection ground for objection that I propose would apply to lifetime assignations and leases transferred by per quest or under the rules of intestacy but it would only apply to 91 act tenancies given the fixed term nature of other letting vehicles I believe the amendments collectively would ensure the continuation of the family farming business which is the problem that was raised with us the family member who is involved in the farming business but is not currently being able to take over that business and that's an issue which has been raised many times with us and indeed has been acknowledged by the committee and finally convener I do believe that the amendments do so in a way that is proportionate and focused and fair and therefore I believe deliver a properly balanced outcome for both tenant and landlord alike thank you cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 192 and other amendments in the group thank you convener I'll speak to all 25 amendments so please bear with me starting with amendment 148 I'm pleased to confirm to Claudia Beamish that the bill already allows a tenancy to be assigned to the tenants first cousin under section 84 subsection three of the bill and 1991 act tenancy can be assigned to anyone who's eligible to succeed to the tenancy state under the succession Scotland act 1964 that includes first cousins I would be happy to have the explanatory notes to the bill adjusted to make that clear given this matter's been raised so I do believe that amendment 148 is unnecessary and I would invite her to withdraw that this also means that part of amendment 151 is unnecessary as well because under the provisions in the bill a tenant can already leave their tenancy to a first cousin in their will amendment 151 also proposes that a tenant should be able to leave their tenancy to the cousin's spouse or to a spouse or civil partner of their aunt or uncle before making a recommendation on expanding the class of a person who's entitled to succeed or be assigned to tenancy the review group considered the issues involved with care their main focus was modernising succession and asignation arrangements but they also recognised that significantly widening asignation and succession entitlement could impact negatively on the landlord's property rights and they have easy hr implications I think that's a point made by Alec Ferguson and on this rare occasion we agree on that point the government's survey of tenant farmers published in 2014 found around 20 percent of respondents said they knew someone who wanted to succeed to their tenancy but who currently wasn't eligible under the legislation of course half said that a person was a sibling a sorry of those half said a person was a sibling and a third said it was a niece or nephew under the bill siblings nieces and nephews will now all be eligible to succeed a tenancy or have that assigned to them so the bill's provisions will mean a large majority of those respondents stating that they'd know eligible successor now will have one in order to expand the classes of eligible people further we would need to have evidence that there was a case for it and we're not at that position at the moment so I can't support amendment 151 at this time turning to 310 through to 319 the same applies to Claudia Beamish's amendments to give a tenant's long-standing employees asignation and succession rights I of course have sympathy with people who have worked in a farm for many years and who have a deep sense of personal commitment to that farm the amendments we will shortly be discussing on a new process for relinquishing or assigning tenancies have the potential to open up opportunities to these long-term farm workers and 1991 act tenant could use this new process to assign their tenancy to a long-term employee who was looking to progress in farming indeed I understand that in the tenant farmers association's evidence to the committee they said that they were aware of a number of tenants who were hoping to use new process to do just that to provide opportunities for long-standing employees on their farms it would seem to me that's a much more sensible approach than extending assignations succession rights to non relatives of the tenants that would represent a big step away from the current law and the proposals in the bill that we have at the moment it could potentially have a very significant impact impact as I said before on landlord's property rights so there would need to be a very detailed exercise to gather the evidence to prove it's a proportionate and necessary proposal to address a very clear problem so we think the package of provisions in the bill will address the assignations succession issue in a proportionate and targeted way at the moment and that the case hasn't yet been made for expanding the classes further to people who aren't related to the tenants so again I asked the committee to not support those amendments. In terms of 149.150, I now come to expanding the near relative list. Claudia Beamish's amendments 149.150 proposed to add an aunt uncle or first cousin of the tenant to the near relative list. The bill already expands the list of relatives that can be classified as near relatives in order to offer those closest to the tenant greater protection from objections from the landlord. A tenant can already pass their tenancy on to a cousin and or uncle. At the moment we don't have any evidence or justification to go further than that by including aunt's uncles and first cousins in the near relative list so I must ask the committee to again reject amendments 149.150. In terms of the Government's own amendments to my amendments I can say however we are proposing to add spouses and civil partners of the tenant's children to the near relatives list as they were included in the list introduction. The review group received a number of submissions highlighting that succession and assignation rights can be discriminatory and suggesting that spouses should have the same rights as their partners. As the bill already makes provision for a child of the tenant to be classified as a near relative it's only right that there are spouses who may be making a significant contribution to the business are also afforded the same rights. So these amendments will make sure that the son or daughter-in-law of the tenant will now have the same rights as their partners and be classified as near relatives. Finally turning to Alex Ferguson's amendments they would let landlords object to a person succeeding a 1991 act tenancy or having assigned to them if that person didn't have a substantial connection to the holding. The amendments don't define what a substantial connection would be and I take on board Alex Ferguson's wish for secondary legislation to address that but even then I do suspect it would be very challenging to find a definition that worked fairly for different types of farming businesses in Scotland. Even if we had a clear definition to work with I don't believe that adding this ground for objection is warranted. The bill already protects landlords' interests by providing a fair range of grounds in which they can object to the potential as a knee or successor. Some are the same as the current legislation. Those include that a person is not of good character or that the person doesn't have sufficient resources to enable them to farm the land with reasonable efficiency. The bill also adds a new ground for objection. It requires the potential successor or as a knee to have suitable training in or experience of farming to make sure that they can farm the land efficiently. That would prevent a family member who doesn't have any knowledge of farming from being able to take on a tenancy which again helps to protect landlords' interests. Crucially I would argue that Alex Ferguson's amendments don't align with the realities of modern agriculture. Eligible as a knees and successors often need to leave the family holding to find work elsewhere because the holding can't support all of them. As amendments would place unreasonable and unrealistic burdens on potential successors or as a knees as they would require farming families to find some way to provide additional opportunities on the farm, so a son, for instance, who left the farm could be deemed as not having a substantial connection unless that was particularly defined. Am I able to do that? I am going to make two points. I undertook a national diploma in agriculture. When I was given that certificate, it in no way prepared me for a farming career. Working on the farm is what got me really for a career, and I'm really not convinced by this training qualification that is being brought in. The other point that I would make is that I would have thought that a son who happened to be away for a gap year or whatever it was does absolutely have a substantial connection to the farm from the very fact that his father or mother run it. The fact that he is from that farm gives him that substantial connection, and I don't think that that's a valid reason for objecting to this amendment. I mean clearly that was just one of many issues that I was addressing and I've got problems with the amendments, but even taking on board Alec Ferson's point, it's not actually defined at this stage in time and would have to be defined at some points in the future. For all these reasons, I've just gone through, I would urge the committee to reject those particular amendments. If I could seek a point of clarification from the cabinet secretary on my amendments 148 and 151, which I think the cabinet secretary said was unnecessary and I'm happy to withdraw, but I don't quite understand the reason why they're unnecessary in relation to... So that's 148 and 151. That is the child of an uncle or aunt of a tenant, and the spouse I think possibly is because that's in your amendment, cabinet secretary. I've just not quite clear on that. In terms of 148, the tenant's first cousin is already a blood relative and therefore eligible to succeed to the tenant's estate under the rules in the Successions Scotland Act 1964. So a first cousin is already caught by the new subsection 10A1A inserted by section 84C of the bill, clearly referring back to that. So that is covered and that's why I was making the points unnecessary in terms of that. On that basis, I would like to withdraw those amendments. In terms of the person with the long standing working on the farm, those amendments, I've gained some reassurance from the cabinet secretary about an alternative way in which those and will be considered if I understand it rightly through the new amendments that the Scottish Government's introduced. And so I would also like to withdraw those. I would like to press my amendments 149 and 150 in relation to aunts and uncles. And sorry. No, no, if you want to say anything about them fair enough, but you can... Right, I think those are important, thank you convener. I think those are important widenings, and I don't think that those in any way threaten the rights of landlords as a non... Landowners as a non-lawyer, but I would like to see that it widened in that way. And I wouldn't be able to consider supporting Alex Ferguson's amendments. And I'd like to identify myself with the remarks of the cabinet secretary about the modern age in relation to how things actually work, and that people might have to find that they work on a different farm for a considerable amount of time, or have never actually worked on the farm in question, but would like to take that opportunity up, and I think that should be available to them. Okay. Is that your summing up? Yes. So you've said you wish to withdraw amendment 148. Claudia Beamish is seeking to withdraw the amendment of the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to her amendment being withdrawn? Nobody objects. So I call amendment 310 on the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 148. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Not move. Not moved. So I call amendment 311 on the name of Alec Ferguson, already debated with amendment 148. Alec Ferguson to move or not move? I will move, convener. Thank you. Alec Ferguson, the question is that amendment 311 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No, we're not. There will be a division. Please indicate those four, two, those against, seven and no abstentions, two for seven against, therefore the amendment 311 is not agreed to. Claudia Beamish, your amendment 312, are you not moving it? Not moving. Sorry. So I call amendment 313 on the name of Alec Ferguson, already debated with amendment 148. Alec Ferguson to move or not move? Not moved, convener. Not moved. I call amendment 192 on the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 148. Cabinet secretary to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 192 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 149 on the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 148. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Sorry, convener. Can you sum me that number again? 149. Yes, move please. You want to move it. Claudia Beamish is moving amendment 149. Are we agreed? No, we're not. There will be a division. Therefore, those who are in favour of Claudia Beamish's amendment 149, please show. One, two, those against, please show. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. No objections. Two, four, seven against, that means that it is not agreed. I call amendment 150 on the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 148. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? To move. The question is that amendment 150 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. No, we're not. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 150, please show. Two, two, those against, please show. Seven, amendment 150 is not agreed to. The question is that section 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Call amendment 314 on the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 148. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Sorry, convener. Which number was that? 314. Not moved. Not moved. Call amendment 193, the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 148. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 315, the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 148. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 315 or not move? Not moved. Not moved. The question is that section 85 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Call amendment 316 on the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 148. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. Call amendment 194, the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 148. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. And the question is that amendment 194 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Call amendment 317, the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 148. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 317 or not move? Not moved. Not moved. The question is that section 86 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Call amendment 195, the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 154. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 195 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 151, the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 148. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that call amendment 318, the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 148. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? 318. Not moved. Not moved. The question is that section 87 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Call amendment 196, 197, 198, 199 and 200. All in the name of the cabinet secretary, not previously debated by the cabinet secretary to move amendments 196 to 200 on block. Moved on block. Are, does any member object to a single question being put to these amendments 196 to 200? No member objects. The question is that amendments 196 to 200 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 319, the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 148. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? 319. Sorry, not moved. Thank you. The question is that section 88 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Call amendment 320, the name of Alec Ferguson, already debated with amendment 148. Alec Ferguson to move or not move? Not moved, can be enough. Not moved. Call amendment 321, the name of Alec Ferguson, already debated with amendment 148. Alec Ferguson to move or not move? Not moved, can be enough. Not moved. Aelik Ferguson yn ymgyrch, yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn ddod i ddim yn d amendment 148, Alex Ferguson, to move or not move? We move on to 1991 act tenancy, relinquishing and assignation of tenancy to new entrants or persons progressing and farming. I call amendment 325 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 326, 269 and 271, and the cabinet secretary to move amendment 325 and speak to all the other amendments in the group. I am very pleased to move amendment 325. The amendment introduces a new process that will allow the 1991 act tenants to relinquish their tenancies in exchange for payment from the landlord or to assign the tenancy to a new or progressing farmer. That replaces the conversion process that was originally at section 79 of the bill. What we sought to do was to get to the heart of some of the key issues facing the tenancy sector in Scotland and tailor our policy to address those as strongly as we can. We all want to see a vibrant tenancy sector in Scotland and that means a tenancy sector that creates new routes into farming and provides the flexibility for businesses to grow. I would like to draw the committee's attention to ways in which we have developed and strengthened the policy to do exactly just that. Firstly, the review group was concerned that 1991 act tenants could be deterred from retiring at the moment because if they don't assign their tenancy to a family member they face having to give up their farm for only limited compensation. It can't be acceptable that some tenants feel forced to stay on in their holdings well beyond retirement age because they have no guarantee of being able to get a fair payment for all their investment in the farm over the years and they have very limited bargaining power. Of course that's not good for the sector either as it means that the land isn't available for the next generation of farmers. Our policy builds in an independent valuation to arrive at a fair price the landlord could pay to buy out the tenants. That gives clarity and certainty which doesn't exist at the moment. The tenant doesn't have to commit to leaving before they know the price. They can consider the price before they make a final decision on whether they would be willing to accept that and then depart. If the tenant confirms that they would like to leave the landlord has the option to buy out the tenancy as an alternative to it being assigned to a new tenant. It's important to remember that this is a new opportunity that landlords don't currently have. We've built it in to create a fair balance between the rights and opportunities that this process is giving to both parties. I would take issue with any suggestion that has been made that the new policy restricts opportunities for landlords because of anything that does precisely the opposite by providing new opportunities. However, if the landlord chooses not to buy then the tenant can assign the tenancy to a new or progressing farmer for market value. That is not open as a nation as some perhaps have been claiming in recent weeks and months. It is clearly limited according to that criteria. One of the key concerns that the review group identified was that there are high barriers to new farmers trying to establish themselves in the industry. We do, after all, have to track the next generation of new blood into Scottish agriculture, which is one of the biggest challenges facing farming in this country and indeed throughout Europe in the 21st century. Our new policy is targeted at increasing access to land for new and progressing farmers by making them the only, and I repeat, the only eligible asignees. New entrants have previously been effectively cut off from 1991 act tenancies, which tend to be passed down within families. That amendment creates an exciting and new opportunity for them to establish themselves and invest in a new secure holding. There will still be the option for a 1991 act tenancy to be converted to an MLDT if both the tenant and landlord agree to that under amendment 157, which the committee passed last week. Parties who want to benefit from what an MLD can offer will have the flexibility to do just that. We have developed this policy very carefully, and I should also add at this point that creating new options for those 1991 tenancies should not pose a threat to let land, as I have also been reading in some reports from certain parties in this debate, because new 1991 act tenancies are not being created in Scotland any longer. It is difficult to ascertain the exact figures, but there is a general acceptance that for many years new 1991 act tenancies are not being created. Given that this measure applies to 1991 act tenancies, it is difficult to see how it can prevent new 1991 act tenancies being created because they are not being created anyway, and they have not been for many years. That is an important point to put on the record as well. However, in developing this policy and thinking about it very carefully, we have explored the relative merits of a range of different assignations and conversion models, and we have worked to achieve a fair balance between the interests of tenants and landlords having regard to the wider public interest. The whole time that we have kept in mind the overarching objectives that I think we all share of creating secure routes into retirement for existing tenants and accessible routes into farming for your tenants. If we can find a way in which tenants can retire with dignity that at the same time opens up these new opportunities for new entrants, I think that that is a very essential and important thing to do at this point in time, given some of the challenges facing the tenant sector in particular, but Scottish agriculture in the more wider sense of Scotland at the moment. We invited input from stakeholders during this development and indeed the final amendments incorporate feedback and suggestions from both tenants and landlords representatives. I am extremely encouraged by how well this policy has been received particularly by tenant farms across Scotland and therefore I want to commend it to the committee. In terms of amendments C26169171, they are consequential. Would the committee want me to talk through them or just stop at that point? Well, C266269 and C271 are part of this group, so if you wish to comment on those as well. It is merely to say that their consequential modifications to the 1991 Act 2003 acts also create new subordinate legislatory making powers that will allow provision to be made about whether or how the new provisions apply to tenants who are in certain kinds of partnerships. C269 makes the regulation making power convert in Scottish ministers by amendment C26, subject to the affirmative procedure in the Parliament. I am aware that that is an approach that you will support to the committee. C271 finally inserts a reference to the process for relinquishing or assigning tenancies into the long title of the bill. C271, that was? No, it should have been, I think. Sorry, second. It should be C271, you were commenting on amendment 271. So, amendment C325326269 and C271. Sorry, I have just read it wrong on the figures. They should not be on that sheet of paper, so you are right, yes. Let us just clarify that that is C225326269 and C271. No problem, thank you very much. So, other members who may wish to discuss this matter. Alex Ferguson. Thank you, convener. I have taken back to the early days of this debate when we took evidence from the rent review group, who put it to us following their investigations, that if we got the rent review process right and sorted out wego, most of the problems that existed in the tenancy sector would be solved. We then had the agricultural holdings legislation review group chaired, I have to point out again by the cabinet secretary himself, which reported that it had looked long and hard at assignation and rejected it because they did not believe that assignation for value would be in the public interest. So, the first question that I would ask the cabinet secretary to address when he is winding up is just what has changed between the publication of the rent review group and the AHLRG reports. What has changed between then and now that has persuaded the Government that assignation for value is now in the public interest. Stakeholders worked for months, if not years, to develop the conversion model and progress was, I really believe, being made towards an agreement that could and would have delivered the stated policy intentions of this bill. I have said before the proposal on relinquishing assignation, which we have not, I do not believe, has been properly scrutinised by this committee, will have the opposite effect to the stated policy objectives, because I think that they will actually greatly reduce the amount of land available for let. The AHLRG saw sense in gradually, over time, through natural wastage, if you like, allowing secure tenancies to die out through conversion and other means, which would have allowed the introduction of dynamic new letting vehicles. I do not think that we really did pick up on that, on the potential of conversion in the committee, but that is what the AHLRG I think was saying. Those proposals will preserve secure tenancies for all time, while practically reducing the amount of land available for rent, and I just do not see how that fits with the policy objectives of this bill. We have talked about restoring confidence, I am afraid that this will destroy it, and that is why it will not bring more let land on to the market. Conversion, as originally envisaged, could work. Conversion is a suite of options, one of which will essentially force landowners to pay a premium to regain his or her own property, will not. I have little doubt that these amendments will end up being challenged in the courts. I do not welcome that, and I do not want to see that happen, and for that reason, if no other convener, I will not be supporting this group of amendments. Mike Russell, followed by Claudia Beamish. Those amendments have been, I think, the ones that have been most lobbied about, particularly over the last few days. Members of the committee will have had dozens, if not hundreds, of emails about those, and I welcome that. I think that it is very good that there should be an active debate about land reform in Scotland. Some have been slightly unconventional, I would perhaps advise the factor who sent six or seven in his name for a variety of companies owning the same estate, that perhaps he should also think whether that proved the case for simpler and more transparent land ownership, given that he had to do so. The basic issue in here is whether or not this measure will discourage people from letting land. I have to say that it will. I am a person who has said several times in his committee that I do not believe that the two objectives that have been declared for this bill in the sense of providing greater security and more opportunity for tenants and giving reassurance to landlords can go together in the same package. I simply agree that I think that there will be a problem in landlords being less willing to put land on the market, but that will not stop me voting for those amendments. It is quite the reverse. It will prove to me and I hope to many other people that the current system is broken. It is not broken everywhere, but it is broken. What we do need to have is a fair and equitable system of letting land, and we do not have that. We do not have that because of our history. I mentioned twice last week in the committee that we are trying to do something in the modern age that is requiring to overcome problems that have been made for us a lot further back down the line. That is not a proposal of expropriation, and any reaction to it in that sense is nonsensical. In actual fact, it is not that radical a proposal, given the number of tenancies to which this will in the end refer it, is very small indeed. It is not armageddon by any manner of means. The right thing to do in tenancy would be to get to the stage where we had freedom of contract, where people were quite free to operate in terms of how they let land, but we cannot do it because of the present system that we have. We cannot do it because of the history of that system. We cannot do it also because of practices that are sometimes carried out by landlords and others. There is an old-fashioned paternalism in some landletting in Scotland. There are also very doubtful practices from land agents, and we are going to come on to that later on in terms of a code of practice for land agents. How would we move from here to a much better situation? I think that there are two possible ways. One would be what happened in the late 19th and early 20th century in proffeting, which is a state that had to intervene to become a landlord in order to create opportunities for people to let land. That is something that would be very difficult to do, given the state of the public finances and given how the state views those things. However, it is not an impossibility, and particularly with the land commission coming into existence, there needs to be discussion as to whether that is a way forward. However, the next one is the natural fact for landlords themselves to recognise the need for change, to recognise that Scotland has changed profoundly. The natural fact is simply saying that the rights of property are absolute and cannot be interfered with is the wrong thing to do. That bill is actually helping that, too, because it is putting into the debate the issue of human rights and a wider view of human rights and a wider view of modern human rights than existed in this debate before. I am hopeful that, over a period of time, the issue will be resolved. I do not think that the bill will be resolved. I think that, inevitably now and regrettably, we will have to come back to this in the next Parliament. However, I do think that this is a step in the right direction for tenants, but it will not resolve the issue of land for being tenanted. We will have to address that issue in the future. However, I have no doubt that the minister is doing the right thing here and I am very happy to support it. Claudia Beamish, by Sarah Boyack. I want to speak in support of these amendments, like other members of the committee. There has been a great deal of emails, the majority from landowners. Mike Russell's point is valid in that some have come through from the same source for different estates. Be that as it may, I have also had some emails from tenants who are very supportive of this. The STFA has stressed that, in its recent press release on 9 February, it is an opportunity to take advantage of breathing new life into our ailing tenanted sector. Another reason that I am supportive of these amendments is because I think that it will create opportunities for new entrants, which is something that has come before this committee many times in the four years that I have been on the committee. While I understand that there are concerns from landowners, I think that if we are going to have a tenanted sector that is vibrant, we need to move in this direction. I think that a lot of the fears that are going around in the landed sector are perhaps overblown, but that is just a personal view. Sarah Boyack, followed by Dave Thomson. I am very conscious that others are discussing this amendment effectively, pretty late on in the process. I suppose that I have a plea to the cabinet secretary to get his officials to do a double check before we hit stage 3 and just to run right through this amendment and the other significant amendments, because it is substantial change and it is important change. I think that, in the light of previous changes to legislation and agricultural holdings and tenancies, it is really important that what goes through at stage 3 is going to be effective and it is going to hold together illegally, so I think that that is really important. I very much welcome the fact that there is reference not just to new entrants but to progressing farmers as well. In discussions that I have had in my region, I am very aware that once somebody becomes a new entrant, they have tipped over the threshold and it actually becomes quite difficult to get the next steps, so I think that a legal recognition of the importance of progressing farmers is really important. The third point that I wanted to make was the importance of monitoring and review. This is new. I take Mike Russell's points about its radical. We will have to see exactly how that will play out in the future, but I think that monitoring is important because of the points that Claudia Beamish made about the significant change that is coming with it. I think that, particularly with the following stage 3 instruments, it is really important that there is widespread debate on them as well so that people understand the principles behind them and they can check the detail. Once somebody comes to the committee, we do not get to amend it or whoever is in the committee. There are expertise that has been built up on the committee over the past few years, so I think that to make sure that what happens post-election is that people are actually properly involved in those discussions and that they continue to be held on the record, I think that that is quite important. I suppose that my views are a welcome to the progressing farmers inclusion. I am particularly keen that this section is monitored and that there is work with the new tenant farming commissioner, because I think that their role and the land commission will be important in making sure that we still have tenanted land available and that we do not get unintended consequences. That third point is about the accuracy and the detail of that. It is not something that is easy for committee members to scrutinise today, but I think that over the next few weeks, before we hit stage 3, I hope that the minister and others who are checking this legislation will make sure that there are any detailed amendments that we do get them in good time for stage 3. Dave Thompson, followed by Jim Hume. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. I just want to pick up on one particular point in relation to the conversion of 1991 tenants to MLDTs. It is a point that I do not think that we have heard very much about up until now, and that is that there is already a process under the 2003 act, which I believe allows for a very similar conversion. Part 1 chapter 1 of section 2 of the act provides for the tenant and landlord of a 1991 act tenancy to terminate the lease and enter into an LDT of no less than 25 years. However, I believe that that has either never been used or very rarely been used, so there is that similar provision. It would call into question in my mind the value of the ability to convert the MLDTs, but that being as it is, I think that it is an important point that we should bear in mind in this debate. The other thing is that I, like other members of the committee, have received many emails in the past few days from landowners and so on. There was a very interesting article in the Scotsman, which Scottish Land and Estates tweeted, which I read with a bit of incredulity, because there is obviously clear misunderstanding on the part of landowners as to what those provisions are going to do. Simon Hoson Crawford, who wrote the article, compared what is happening, and he must have frightened the life out of every owner of a flat in Edinburgh when he did this, with owning a flat in Edinburgh and letting it to someone who would then be able to stay in that flat forevermore and pass it on to their cith and kin. I do not know if there are many Edinburgh flats that are subject to the 91 act. There may be some that Mr Hoson Crawford knows about, but it just shows you some of the nonsensical, hysterical misinformation that is flying around. If he truly believes that, then I am afraid that Scottish Land and Estates have not been doing their job in informing their members about the reality of this bill. Land is not being let at the moment, and Mike Russell is quite right that it may well not improve that situation, but what we are actually seeing at the moment is a reduction in the number of 91 secure tenancies, a constant reduction every year of more than 100. Alex Ferguson alluded to the fact that that was required to happen. He felt that the AHLRG was talking about when it discussed a gradual decline and, eventually, disappearance of the 1991 tenants. I do not think that that would be a good thing. I think that people who have secure tenancies, who have been there for many generations, have added massive value to those farms. Alex Ferguson mentioned that a landowner would have to pay a premium to regain their property. That property will have been hugely improved by the work of those tenants and their ancestors for many hundreds of years. It is only right that they get the benefit of some of that if they are moving on. The final thing that I would say is that that type of improvement is already recognised through the way-go process and would be recognised further if we had carried out the recommendations of the rent review group. Having to pay an extra premium to get vacant possession, if the tenant asks to relinquish the lease, I would suggest a different thing altogether. I do not agree with Alex Ferguson in relation to that, but that would be that as it may. The final thing that I would like to say, convener, is that I have received information. I am sure that others have two very recent cases where tenants have had the temerity to make their views known about those issues and have had visits from factors and others questioning their right to do that and giving them a bit of a hard time. That is just totally unacceptable in this day and age. I have been agreed that that is unacceptable. I have concerned about some of those amendments. Obviously, it is three to five. It is about 13 pages long. I think that Sarah Boyack also has concerns that rust legislation might be legislation that we regret in the future. Obviously, we all want to let land, and we are concerned that the 1991 act has been 12 years since there has been a new one, so there has obviously been some decline in the numbers of there. I believe that that is because there is a lack of trust at the moment between landlords, tenants or potential tenants and perhaps Government also. I therefore probably will not be supporting those amendments at this stage, but before I vote either way, I would like to hear from the minister in his summing up what specific legal advice from whom regarding human rights that has been raised in the committee's deliberations concerns. As you know, the 2003 act was, unfortunately, successful as you can call it that, contested, so I would be interested to hear from the minister what legal advice he has had on that matter. I sat last night ahead of this session reflecting on the past months of evidence that the committee has taken and what that amounted to. I did so, as others have alluded to, in the midst of the barrage of emails from landowners telling me how this amendment would be bad for their businesses. I came to the conclusion that, without a shadow of a doubt, we should support those measures. What quenched my decision to support those amendments? Something I have given considerable thought to were a couple of emails that I received not from those landowners but from two tenant farmers in my constituency. One told me and I quote, I have seen successive generations in my family retire with very little show for a lifetime of endeavour and pride in their work. This will balance the equation between landlord and tenant whilst not infringing on the landlord's human rights. The other said, I would believe this would be good for 91 act tenancies, allowing the farmer to invest in the holding for future their generations, while allowing tenants who are looking to better themselves to buy on to secure tenancy, to provide security for their family. I know that the landowners are totally against this, but you only have to look at the dwindling number of tenants on our estate over the past 20 years to see that they are not willing to let land in any case. For those reasons and others that were put forward by tenants that this committee took evidence from in other parts of the country, I will be supporting the Government's amendments. I will do my best to briefly respond to two or three points around the table on what is clearly a very important amendment and has attracted some strong views from across various sectors as well as around the committee table. It is probably worth just reiterating the primary purpose of the agricultural holdings legislation, which is to create a vibrant sector in Scotland, and that, of course, was the focus of the review group's work as well. We face some huge challenges as a country. We do not have enough opportunities for the next generation of farmers to farm our land. We, of course, have a concentrated pattern of land ownership at the same time that has an influence on what land is available to rent in the first place, but we do have 1991 secure tenancies in this country. We have several thousands of them, and the review group looked at how we find new opportunities for new entrants to secure land that they can farm on and rent because they cannot afford to buy and they have to find somewhere to rent. At the same time, we have farmers in tenancies at the moment who are looking to leave with some dignity, and if that was enabled or incentivised, that would open up opportunities at the same time for new entrants. That is clearly what the review group looked at, what the Government has been looking at, what the committee has been looking at and what has been a huge challenge for everyone involved and who has the interests at heart of Scottish agriculture. However, the review group looked at 1991 tenancies and ruled out open as a nation, and that therefore is targeted as a nation as part of creating a balanced set of proposals, because, essentially, we are talking about 1991 tenancies where there potentially is no successor in place and therefore that land could potentially be lost to the tented sector, so we are trying to find ways that are balanced to ensure that land could be kept within the tented sector and offered those opportunities, as well as I said before, offering opportunities for sitting tenants to leave with advocate compensation and to leave with dignity, as opposed to having a position potentially where there is no successor in place and they may die in that tenancy as an elderly man or woman and that is the sequence of events. That, as I said before, could potentially open up opportunities for landlords because otherwise the centre is not there for the sitting tenant to leave, and given that it is a balanced set of proposals where the landlord will have the first option of taking back the tenancy, that is an opportunity that was not there before to the landlord, but equally it is new options and new opportunities for progressive farmers and Sarah Boyack highlighted the importance of recognising progressive farmers, as well as new entrants. Those new opportunities would not otherwise be there if we did not pass this amendment. Of course, I should also make the basic, obvious point that, at the moment, secure tenancies are secure and therefore are not available to the landlord, so we are already in that position. That still gives rights to landlords to take back the land if they want to bid to take over the tenancy and pay the agreed amount by the independent valour. We will, of course, monitor this amendment if it is passed today by the committee on how it is implementing and taking forward the impact that it has on Scottish agriculture. As Mike Russell also said, we have to contend to look for other radical options to free up land, otherwise we are not going to future generations to farmer land, to put food on their table and look after their environment because they will not have access to a farm. All of us who represent rural constituencies are aware of young people in our constituencies in particular, who simply cannot find a farm to rent. Many other measures have to be taken, not just this amendment, which is part of an overall package. There are other amendments in the bill that will help to give more security for tenancies and tenants and more confidence to tenants. We are also looking at publicly-owned farms in Scotland to make available those for rent, and the Forestry Commission has been working on that over the past few years. We have around 10 new starter units that have been created on publicly-owned land. I absolutely agree with Mike Russell that we have to explore that much further and develop more opportunities in publicly-owned land moving forward in the future. We have a working group that will seem to be reporting to us about how that could be expanded in the times ahead as well. I hope that the committee recognises the importance of this amendment. I would simply make the obvious point to Jim Heumann's response to his point that we table amendments that are legal and within the law, and that is all the amendments that come before the committee. Therefore, we think that this is a good balance between the rights of landlords and the rights of tenants, which most importantly will help to create a vibrant tenancy sector in Scotland. The question is that amendment 325 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 325, please show. The amendment is agreed to by 7 votes 2. I call amendment 326. In the name of the cabinet secretary, we are already debated with amendment 325. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 326 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. There will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Thank you. Those against, please show. There were 7 for 2 against and no abstentions. The amendment 326 is agreed. I call amendment 203. In the name of the cabinet secretary, we are already debated with amendment 166 on day 3. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. A question is that amendment 203 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We move on to a separate section on amnesty for tenants improvements, amnesty period and giving of notice. I call amendment 204 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 209 and 301. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 204 and speak to all amendments in the group. Chapter 6 of the bill introduces an amnesty period, during which a tenant can obtain clarification of what improvements they will receive compensation for at Wego. We had initially provided that this amnesty period would be for two years, however, in light of views from stakeholders and a recommendation by this committee, I am happy to say that amendment 204 will extend the amnesty period from two to three years. Amendment 301 is consequential to this. Updates a long title of the bill to reflect the fact that the amnesty period will now be three years. In terms of amendment 209, that will protect the tenants if they haven't been told that their landlord has changed and, as a result, they have served amnesty notice to the wrong landlord. The amendment will mean that, in such cases, they are still deemed to have served the notice correctly. The 1991 act already gives this protection to tenants serving written notices, like rent notices, who are unaware that they have a new landlord, so this amendment makes sure that tenants issuing amnesty notices have the same protection, and I move amendment 204. Any members wish to comment? Jim Hume? The support of this has been calling for amnesty to be extended to three years for some time, so I'm quite happy with that. Any other member wish to speak? The cabinet secretary to wind up. I'm just happy to put amendment 204 to the committee. So the question is that amendment 204 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amnesty for tenants improvements, no amnesty where improvements not consented to. Call amendments 276, the name of Angus MacDonald, group with amendments 277, 278, 279, 280, 281 and 327. Angus MacDonald, to move amendment 276 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you. My amendments in this group are designed to enable improvements for which the landlord gave oral consent to to be included at amnesty and therefore to attract compensation at Wego. Currently under the amnesty provisions, there are a number of circumstances where a tenant will not be able to serve a valid notice to their landlord, and this includes where the tenant sought consent for an improvement, as required under section 37 of the 91 act, and the landlord did not give such consent. The 91 act states that the landlord's consent must be written, so even if the landlord did consent to the improvement, if he gave that consent orally, then as the bill is currently drafted, the improvement could not be included. As we know, many interactions between tenants and landlords occur verbally, so where oral consent was given for an improvement, it is only right and fair that the improvement should be eligible for inclusion at amnesty, and those amendments deliver that. If I can also speak to amendment 281, which will ensure that tenant farmers who have carried out an improvement in a manner that was not significantly different from what they originally proposed and to which the landlord consented to will not be disadvantaged by the new provisions. Section 90 brackets 5 of the bill sets out where a tenant cannot serve notice under the amnesty provisions. One of those circumstances is where the improvement was carried out in a manner different to the manner that the landlord consented to. Amendment 281 makes the provisions less restrictive by changing the wording, so that the improvements are only excluded if the tenant carried them out in a manner substantially different to the way that the landlord consented to. Claudia Beamish, do you want to speak to amendment 327 and other amendments in the group? I would like to speak in support of Angus MacDonald's amendments and to highlight my amendment 327. A tenant is currently prevented from giving notice under the amnesty, where the landlord withheld consent to an improvement in the past. In chapter 5, there is a specification that the tenant may not serve a notice of his relevant improvement under the amnesty arrangement unless he has already sought consent under the 1991 or 2003 acts, and it has been refused and where he has served a notice under the same acts and the landlord has objected. Some of these notices may have been served many years ago when it was common practice for the landlord to object to improvements and either the tenant accepted the objection or, I understand, in some cases he or she went ahead and made the improvement. In many cases the notices will have been verbal, although the tenant could challenge the landlord's objection through the landlord court. It rarely, if ever happened, for reasons that have been well rehearsed in terms of costs and other reasons. The amendment ensures that a landlord would have to show proof of withholding consent or objection to a notice in writing demonstrating justifiable reason why consent was withheld or the notice objected to. If he cannot, the tenant should be able to claim the improvement under the amnesty. I would also like it highlighted in relation to the amendment that it both puts the onus on the landlord to prove what happened and also allows a copy of the contemporaneous written notice to serve as such a proof. That means that if the refusal of consent or objection was done in writing at the time and the landlord has kept a copy, that would be sufficient to prevent the tenant now claiming the amnesty. However, it does not prevent the landlord proving the point in other ways, perhaps by having third parties vat to what was said at the time. I have no difficulty at all with amendments 276, 278, 279, 280 and 281, but I have an issue with 277, because I do not find an oral agreement unless it has been properly recorded, which is something that you can sustain in a debate or a dispute. An oral agreement or otherwise is incredibly difficult to prove. It is very vague, and I do not think that it carries the same weight as current legislation, which requires agreement to be given in writing to an improvement. It seems to me that there is a conflict in there also with 277, because if 277 was rejected, then agreement still has to be given in writing to an improvement. If a tenant then has agreement in writing, then I do not think that you need 327, which I would not support anyway, but given that the landlord would have had to have given his consent in writing, the tenant will have that consent. If they do not have that consent, then they have not got agreement. I think that there is a conflict between the two, and I will not be supporting either of those two amendments. I would be minded to support Angus's amendment 277 on reflection. An agreement in any law can be in writing or orally, of course. It is far more difficult to prove that there was an oral agreement that you would have to have a third party or perhaps a recording of it. I would disagree with Alex Ferguson and be supportive of 277, but I do not speak to 277. Claudia Beamish you have spoken. Any other members who want to discuss this? No. Cabinet Secretary to Respond. Can I say that I support the amendments tabled by Angus MacDonald? As we are all aware, a lot of communication between tenants and landlords takes place verbally around the kitchen table, so I agree that it is right that a tenant should be able to serve an amnesty notice for an improvement that the landlord consented to orally. I also recognise that there are many practical reasons that a tenant might need to carry out an improvement in a way that was not exactly the same way that the landlord agreed to. Angus MacDonald is right that we should not penalise tenants in these particular circumstances and that, as long as the difference is not significant, they should still be able to include that at amnesty. I am happy to support those amendments, as other members have also indicated. However, in terms of Claudia Beamish's amendment, we have very significant concerns. The amnesty provisions let tenants claim for improvements that they do not have records for, and that is a principle that I think most people support. We also have to acknowledge that it has been good to encourage the broad consensus across the sectors on the amnesty provisions, and we do not really want to jeopardise that consensus. However, the amnesty is not intended to let tenants claim for improvements that the landlord did not consent to or that the landlord objected to. Amendment 327 would mean that the landlord had to prove that he had not consented to or had objected to an improvement and that he had given reasonable grounds for doing so. It suggests that the landlord does this by providing a copy of a written notice that he gave the tenant at the time, but there is no legal requirement for the landlord to give a tenant a notice written there otherwise explaining their reasons for not consenting to an improvement. The amendment would retrospectively hold landlords to a higher standard than the law held them to at the time. That clearly would not be reasonable and it would not be in the spirit of the amnesty. Changing the law retrospectively is only possible because there is a very strong justification for doing so and we do not think that that case has been made or would hold up in court. I invite the committee to reject amendment 327, if Claudia Beamish insists on putting it forward. Angus MacDonald, to wind up, press or withdraw. Okay, thanks convener. I'm pleased that the cabinet secretary is prepared to take my amendments on board and with regard to Alex Ferguson's comments, I would remind him that under Scott's law an oral agreement stands, usually albeit accompanied with a handshake. So, I would certainly like to stress that point and move the amendments. Thank you. The question is that amendment 276 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 277, the name of Angus MacDonald. We are already debated with amendment 276. Angus, do we want to move or not move? We have moved. The question is that amendment 277 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 277, please show. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Those against? One, eight in favour of one against the amendment that the staff have agreed to. Call amendment 278, in the name of Angus MacDonald. We are already debated with amendment 276. Angus MacDonald, do we want to move or not move? We have moved. The question is that amendment 278 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 279, in the name of Angus MacDonald. We are already debated with amendment 276. Angus MacDonald, do we want to move or not move? We have moved. The question is that amendment 279 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 280, in the name of Angus MacDonald. We are already ddigonwm ywSerfysig. Mae Gwneud yw Gweithredu Ieil, a chi ddweud datblygu agrydu hynny? Felly, mae'n ddigonwm heddiw hynny, ddigonwm hynny, gyda ein ddigon, i annersiolaeth cynser, yw hannogawr, eu cyfnodydd. Felly, mae'n ddigonw'r cyfnodydd ar gyfer yr aelod gyfer yr aelod gyfnodydd i annersiol, ac mae'n ddigonwm hynny, eraill yn mwngoeddu i annersiol, ac mae'n ddigonwm hynny, mae'n ddigonwm hynny, 2. Amendment 208, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 166 on day 3. Cabinet Secretary to move formally. Question is that amendment 208 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. 2. Amendment 281, in the name of Angus MacDonald, is already debated with amendment 276. Angus MacDonald to move or not move. The question is that amendment 281 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. 3. Amendment 327, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is already debated with amendment 276. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. I don't intend to move, but I will have further discussion with STFA and tenants about whether this could be slightly altered for consideration at stage 3. 2. Amendment 206, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 166 on day 3. The question is that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. 2. Amendment 207, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 166 on day 3. The question is that amendment 207 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. 3. Amendment 209, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 204. The question is that amendment 209 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. The question is that section 93 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. 4. Amendment 137, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is already debated with amendment 138, 302, 116 and 308. I point out that amendments 137 and 138 are direct alternatives. Claudia Beamish, you move amendment 137 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Arbitration is not currently an option for disputes over improvements under section 39 of the 1991 act. This is a deterrent to tenants from contesting landlords objection as the process of going through the land court can be costly, time consuming and damaging to the tenant-land owner relations. In 137, the parties would agree to a third party arbiter and in 138, in cases of dispute resolution over tenants improvements, the tenant farmers commissioner would be required to set up an arbitration or expert determination service to assess and adjudicate over landlords refuses of consent or objection to notices. There are already arbitration provisions in the 1991 act and the arbitration act, I understand, of 2010 would also apply. I quote Lord Gill below, certain cases are exclusive to other jurisdictions. The land court have exclusive jurisdiction in, for example, applications for approval of proposed improvements under section 39. The point here is that having to apply to the land court when a landlord objects to a notice to carry out an improvement has always deterred tenants from contesting an objection in the view of STFA and some others. This will inevitably be the case in the amnesty and these amendments are, I believe, important to the success of the amnesty process. The reference to the 2010 arbitration act may not be necessary, but it makes provision for more flexible arbitration, as I understand it, and decisions on whether or not an improvement is appropriate for a holding will be by and large a technical judgment. Therefore, it is important that an arbiter's decision can only be appealed on a legal error. I move amendment 137. I move amendment 302 and other amendments in the group. I wanted to lay the two amendments to ensure that we had a decent discussion about disputes resolution at stage 2. There have been significant amendments to key sections of the bill that we have passed over the past couple of weeks. One thing that would be very useful to clarify is where different types of disputes resolutions come in. My amendment was inspired by discussions with SAVA and the Central Association of Agricultural Values, which are both concerned that there is more that can be done to set out access to effective dispute resolution than we currently have at the moment. All of us will know how expensive it is to go to the land court. The time factor is significant, but also so is the financial factor. For many involved in agriculture, it is simply not a realistic option to go to the land court. Even if you go to the land court, that is not automatically the end of the story because you could end up in the court of session. It is hugely expensive. Any ways in which we can divert people from that process and give them better options needs to be explored. The different amendments in the group look at different ways in which we can do that. Alex Ferguson refers to mediation, and that is another form of dispute resolution. The point is that not all those dispute resolution options are going to be right in all circumstances and it is finding out what is the best way to proceed. That will be challenging. My amendment focuses on arbitration. We have now effectively got the 91 act, the 2003 act, this bill and the 2010 arbitration Scotland act. One of the things that would be challenging would be to know what the different options are. Going to the land court is adversarial, it is expensive, it is time consuming. The 2010 act promoted a modern statutory framework to give people alternatives to going to court. The question in my mind is exactly how that links to this bill and what practical changes will be delivered in this bill. At our consultation process at stage 1, there was general support for greater use of arbitration. I hope that the series of amendments in this grouping will give us more clarity on where arbitration is appropriate and what the different systems are that would be usable by people. The last thought that I had was that when we come to the end of this bill and when stage 3 is passed, what will be there that is an easy read to set out options so that people understand different clauses in the bill, different sections of the bill, where mediation might be worth pursuing, where arbitration is important, where services of arbitration experts might be useful and where the land court is appropriate as a backstop. I do not have a clear sense of that myself, and I suspect that it would be useful for others to really get a sense of how this bill will relate to the previous legislation, but crucially the 2010 act. My amendment is primarily a probing amendment, but there are things I would like out of having moved this amendment. The key one is clarity on all the amendments that have been raised in this group, because I think that they are all trying to do the same thing, which is to promote a better, more accessible approach to automatically resorting to the law in all cases, which we know is expensive and is not necessarily the best way forward. I thank Ferguson to speak to amendment 116 and other amendments in the group. I also started off by saying that I was also working on amendments of the nature that Sarah Boyack and Graham Day have tabled when I realised that we were all working towards the same end. I was happy to leave it to others, but I am very supportive of those particular amendments and the principle that they embrace. On this committee of all committees, we are only too aware of the need for alternative dispute resolution measures in relation to landlord-tenant relationships. Fortunately, the need for such services are rare, but as the current situation emanating from the legislation that we passed in this Parliament in 2003 highlights, when they are required, those services can play an enormous role in bringing about a resolution where it might have previously seemed impossible to do so. Personally, I have no doubt at all that this bill will lead to an increased demand for such services, but that debate is for another time and place. The sad fact is that the need for mediation and arbitration is not going to go away and I think that we should address it. My amendment simply seeks to add one more function to those that are already listed for the role of the tenant farming commissioner. That function is that he or she should have the power to provide or secure the services of mediation or arbitration between landlord and tenant of agricultural holdings as he or she deems to be appropriate. That seems to me to be an entirely logical part of the commissioner's role, and I do believe that having that power will make the role easier to undertake. All too recently, as I said, we have seen the difference that mediation can make in a seemingly irresolvable case. I will be interested to hear what the Government's view is on this particular amendment. I do think that Sarah Boyack made a very good point because it is very complicated and there is a lot at stake here. I think that we are all coming from the same angle on this, but I am not at all sure that a lot more work does not need to be done on this. I think that it is too important an area to rush through into legislation. However, as I say, I will be very keen to hear what the Cabinet Secretary has got to say before deciding whether to push my amendment or not. I have Graham Day and Dave Thompson who have indicated, first of all, that they want to speak as other members. I am pleased to speak in support of Sarah Boyack's probing amendment 302. Resolving disputes without the need for entering formal legal settings and the costs that that can entail is quite quailway desirable. In addition to which, I am conscious that we as a committee and indeed Mr Lockhead, you as the Cabinet Secretary, will throughout this Parliament have been responsible for adding to the workload of the land court. I think that it is incumbent on us today to explore where it might be possible and appropriate to provide increased opportunities for arbitration, which, as well as providing an alternative vehicle to settling disputes, lightens the load on the court. I understand that section 61 of the 1991 act in section 78 of the 2003 act provides scope for a landlord and tenant if they so agree to seek dispute resolution in a number of areas by arbitration or any other method. However, there is a list of exclusions, and having looked through those, I cannot help but think that two, possibly three of them, might easily be open to settlement in the alternative setting of arbitration. Those would be disputes that arise from a record of fixed equipment, deciding whether to give consent to a tenant carrying out an improvement that the landlord has objected to and whether to attach any conditions to that and perhaps even directing that a holding is to be treated as a market garden, which brings with it a distinct legal status, although I am not sure how common an occurrence that might be. I guess what I'm seeking here, cabinet secretary, is that just as the list of terms to be considered for wagos being updated, it might be worth looking at this list to see if 13 years on, and I suspect the 2003 list may simply reflect what was drawn up in 1991, whether it would be of benefit to have it updated in consultation with the land court, preferably before stage 3, but certainly as soon as practicable. I'm going to step into dangerous ground here and agree with Alex Ferguson. Alex Ferguson, I thought, made the point in relation to mediation very well, and it's something that I very much support and principle, and I too look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say about this. Arbitration is fine, but arbitration also, like legal proceedings in the land court and so on, can be a fairly expensive business, and it can involve lawyers too. Mediation, on the other hand, is something that is a much simpler process is getting people around the table, getting them talking, and can often lead to resolution of problems. In principle, I would always push towards the mediation side of things to make it as simple, cheap and as quick as possible. It was just to put that on the record and I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say about this. Any other member wishes to comment? No? Cabinet secretary to respond. I'll kick off responding to Claudia Beamish's amendments 137, 138, which would be direct alternatives to each other. We can't support 138, and I'll explain that in a second or two, but I am supportive in principle of 137. As the amnesty provisions currently stand, if the landlord objects to an amnesty notice submitted by the tenant, then the tenant can apply to the land court for approval of the relevant improvements. Amendment 137 seeks to give the tenant an alternative option for settling the dispute, asking the landlord to take part in arbitration. I thank Claudia Beamish for that proposal because I certainly agree that parties should be able to settle the matter by arbitration as other members have said, if they would rather do that than go into the land court. However, there is a simpler and clearer way of achieving that, we believe. The 1991 and 2003 acts already let parties agree to have matters determined by arbitration instead of by the land court. They also set out the process for that arbitration. If I can, I would invite Claudia Beamish to withdraw her amendments and we will instead work with her to consider an amendment at stage 3 to make sure that the existing arbitration provisions in the acts also apply to the amnesty provisions in the bill. That would mean that parties could use arbitration to settle the dispute on amnesty instead of going to the land court, but without people having to work with lots of different provisions in different places. I will make that offer and turn to amendment 138. We are not convinced that the benefits of placing a duty in the tenant farming commissioner to select an arbiter. That would be a pretty significant departure from the current situation, which leaves the parties free to agree an arbiter themselves. There are some practical issues to consider. For example, it does not set out a timescale for the commissioner to select an arbiter or to make it clear if the parties would actually be bound by the decision of the arbiter who has been appointed by the commissioner. I would invite the committee to reject amendment 138, but as I said previously in response to Claudia Beamish's amendment 137, we would be pleased to consider how we could bring something forward at stage 3 on that particular aspect. If I can turn to amendment 302 and 38, I thank her for bringing forward those amendments and her support. I have definitely heard the strong calls from the committee, as well as stakeholders, for there to be wider access to statutory arbitration as an alternative to taking disputes to land courts. Again, I just want to outline the provision that already exists. Under the 91 and 2003 acts, land laws and tenants are already free to settle any matter by arbitration, mediation or any other method of resolving the issue instead of going to the land court, unless it is one of a handful of things that is specifically excluded under the acts. That was an issue that Graham Day referred to in his remarks. Those of the things that are excluded from arbitration are to do with fundamental rights in relation to the tenancy, including whether the tenancy can be terminated completely. I believe that it is extremely important that the landlords and tenants still have that right if all else fails to go to the land court to have these fundamental issues decided. However, I am happy today to give a commitment that we will look carefully at the list of exclusions in light of the comments from Sarah Boyack and Graham Day on that particular point, and consider whether we could sensibly remove any items from that list so that disputes on them could be decided by arbitration or mediation instead. If there is anything that we can do here that would reduce the burden of the land court and give tenants and landlords more flexibility without damaging their rights and interests, I would certainly be in favour of that. Generally, I certainly understand the desire to resolve disputes without having to go to court, and we all want to see that happen more. However, as I have said, the parties can already agree to use arbitration instead of land court to come to settlement in most issues. I also remember that the tenant farming commissioner's central role is to improve relationships between landlords and tenants and promote good practice. I hope that that will reduce the number of cases that will have to go to the land court or arbitration in the future. I hope that members will withdraw their amendments in the context of what I have just said. Finally, I want to come to Alex Ferguson's amendment. As I have mentioned, landlords and tenants can already agree to settle most matters by arbitration or other means instead of going to land court. If the parties agree to go to arbitration, they are free to appoint an arbiter themselves. Alternatively, they can nominate someone to appoint an arbiter for them. The same goes to other forms of dispute resolution such as mediation. We do not see the benefit of giving the tenant farming commissioner a function of providing or procuring arbitration services as Alex Ferguson's amendment proposes. That would not change parties' existing ability to go to arbitration, nor would it change the range of issues that they can choose to have settled by arbitration. It is also not clear what the financial implications of Alex Ferguson's amendment would be. Landlords and tenants currently meet the cost of arbitration themselves as parties in all sectors do across society. If Alex Ferguson would have the TFC providing arbitration services, it begs the question of whether that means that public funds would have to be used to pay for that. It is difficult to see what the justification would be for that in this case, given that it is not the case across other sectors in Scotland. It could potentially lead to state aid issues if there was a call on the public purse for that. I invite the committee to reject Alex Ferguson's amendment that is insistent on pursuing it. I would be pleased to withdraw amendment 137 in view of the remarks of the cabinet secretary about working towards an appropriate arrangement prior to stage 3. The amendment 137, the agreement of the committee, does any other member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No amendment. No member does. I call amendment 138 to the name of Claudia Beamish, which I have already debated, and Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Question is that amendment 1, section 94, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Question is that section 95, be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 282 in the name of Claudia Beamish, which I have already debated with amendment 272 on day 3. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Not move. Not move. The question is that amendment 280 is the, so I call amendments 210, 211 and 212, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I call amendment 210, 211 and 212, on block. I move amendment 210, 211 and 212, on block. I think that we have just taken clarification. 211 and 212. 211 and 212. 211 and 212. 211 and 212. 211 and 212. 211 and 212. Are they not withdrawn? Sorry, but you have corrected it. Sorry, okay. We are correct. No, that is okay. You have moved them on block. Yes. Thank you. Any member objects to a single question being put on 210 to 212? No. No. If no member objects, the question is that amendments 210 to 212 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. The question is that section 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The application of a repairing standard to agricultural tenancies. This one and the next one I think would allow us to have a break after that. But let's see if we can hurry along. So, call amendment 152 in the name of Claudia Beamish group with amendment 153. Draw the member's attention to the preemption information shown on the groupings. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 152 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 152 applies to all types of tenancies and I have lodged the amendment to the schedule as well to ensure that MDLTs are treated the same as the other three types of tenancies. This would provide a new chapter within part 10 of the bill and an amendment to remove an extension to that exemption for MDLTs. Under the 2006 act, a tenancy includes occupation of living accommodation by a person under the person's terms of employment but does not otherwise include any occupation under an occupancy arrangement. That's the end of that quote. An occupancy arrangement also means an arrangement other than a lease under which the person is entitled by a way of contract or otherwise to occupy any land or premises. Simply removing the existing exemption would only benefit those tenants who live in so-called tied accommodation, not tenants who have a separate arrangement with the land or to occupy a house on land. The amendments together would ensure that all four types of tenancy, the housing, the house that the tenant lived in, the repairing standard would apply. That does not affect other exemptions under section 12 of the 2006 act, which relate to Croft, as I understand. Yesterday I received an email from a tenant farmer, Louise Kerr, stating in relation to the repairing standard. The farmhouse that my family currently resides in is damp. The water comes in through the roof and the windows regularly during bad weather. The windows are single glazed and rotten. There are alarming cracks over the upstairs ceilings and there is no central heating. It very often falls to single figures in degrees Celsius inside during the winter. The annual fuel bill has accounted for as much as a third of the farm's income in the past. The land agent who we deal with has shown no interest in this. I cannot emphasise enough the difference that having a 1991 act tenancy properties fall within the basic housing repairing standard would make to my family's quality of life conditions that most people in Scotland now take for granted. That is the end of that quote. While I understand that, of course, there are many houses on a tenanted land, which tenants live in as their homes in reasonable repair, that is not an isolated case, as the Rural Affairs Committee heard of which I have been a member for four years, on a succession of visits throughout this Parliament. I have looked with Kerr at the Cabinet Secretary's official letter of 9 February, which was very helpful in setting out where we are now likely to be going on this important issue. Given the mix of the existing arrangements, the complex interfaces with other areas of legislation and policy, and the potential scale of the issue, thorough research is needed in order to build up a clear and comprehensive picture of the problems facing agricultural housing and the solutions needed to robustly address them. I do understand that. However, I think that, from that letter, I would take issue with the fact that, as the house is fixed equipment, it falls within the category of fixed equipment that there would be possible compensation at Wago. I do not believe that this is the solution and the way forward. There is also the issue of energy efficiency and the regulation of energy efficiency in the rented sector. The REAP's consultation has been delayed. That is something that I took forward arguments about in the past in a housing bill in this Parliament, which I will not go into now, but I understand that that will come forward soon in the next Parliament. I do believe that we have to work towards legislative change, and this is a probing amendment, but it is important that people are able to live in homes that actually meet the standards where they can have a decent quality of life. I have got two members indicated so far—Jim Hume and Mike Russell. I would be supporting Claudia Beamish if she pushes this amendment to date. I have brought up and heard many cases across the south of Scotland region, which is very rural. I am sure that that has effect in other parts of Scotland. 51 per cent of rural properties, rural households, are in fuel poverty. We all know of places that are not to the standards that you would expect when you are tenetting a property. At the moment, we know that properties within homes that are deemed to be commercial properties, but those are homes. Wego compensation may be fine and dandy, but it may be 50 or 60 years before you are leaving your tenetting, so you are going to have 50 or 60 years in a cold, drafty house. Residential tenettings should already have standards that we would all think are acceptable. I cannot see any argument on why you would not want to bring properties that are part of a tenancy up to the same standards that people with short-sured elects in other parts of Scotland do not get. I would be very supportive of Claudia Beamish with her amendment. I hope that she does push it. Mike Russell. The greatest sympathy for this amendment is that it tackles a very important issue, which the committee discussed at some length. We saw evidence of that in some places that it visited. There is further evidence of that in a range of tenancies that I have experienced. However, I suspect that it is an issue that requires a more detailed and more considered legislative response than can be done in an amendment to the bill. However, I hope at the very least that the cabinet secretary will indicate that the issue of agricultural housing and housing on tenant farms has to be considered as a priority. The committee also heard, I seem to recall from a factor in one of its visits, that a house was simply a benefit that was added to the lease and there was no obligation on the landlord. That bizarre view needs to be overcome if necessary legislatively. Alex Ferguson, followed by Sarah Boyack. I absolutely agree with every word that Mike Russell has just said and what I am going to say does not in any way, I hope, undermine where Claudia Beamish is coming from or what she seeks to achieve here. There is a problem, it needs to be addressed, but I am afraid that I do agree that there is a lot more preparatory work that needs to be done here indeed and consultation. I just wonder if there aren't easier ways to solve this problem, one of which might be just to remove the house from agricultural tenancy and let it separately under private residential tenancy when it would already come under different forms of legislation to require a decent standard. As I say, I absolutely sympathise. I accept there is an issue, it needs to be addressed and it should be addressed, but I think that it needs to be done with just a little more thought and preparation. Sarah Boyack. Thank you very much, convener. Like other colleagues during our visits on the stage 1 discussions last summer, we did see farms that people lived in that just were not acceptable and wouldn't be acceptable in urban situations. It's farmers, it's also their families and it's people who work in the land. We know, as Claudia Beamish said, that fuel poverty is particularly acute in rural communities, so there's the condition of buildings, the cost of heating them and there's also the lack of choice that many people have. People who are tenant farmers are working on the land, they don't have a lot of options and for many of them it's an unsatisfactory choice and it's not acceptable. It's also not a new issue, I think that that was a thing that really struck us when we were dealing with the stage 1 in this debate. I accept that there may be issues, there are always issues about how amendments are worded, but the question is how long do tenant farmers and workers in our rural communities have to wait? When will the legislation be, where is it coming over the horizon and where is it on the list of the Scottish Government's priorities? Because this has been an important issue for us to raise in the context of this bill, but it isn't a new issue. I would really like to hear from the cabinet secretary something a little stronger than it's something we're aware of and we accept something needs to be done. Thank you cabinet secretary to respond. Thank you. First of all I fully understand the reasons why Claudia Beamish would want to highlight issues she has highlighted in relation to agricultural housing through these amendments. Currently housing provided under 10 year for tenant farmers, crofters and small land holders all has to meet the tolerable standards set out in existing housing legislation. This requires houses to be structurally stable, free from rising damp, have satisfactory lighting, ventilation, heating hot cold waters and satisfactory thermal insulation as well. I would hope that we could get to positions where people are not leasing out homes and farms that they're not prepared to live in themselves and they should reach that standard. The tolerable standard is a lower standard than the repairing standard, which Claudia Beamish's amendments propose to apply to SLDTs, LDTs and 1991 act tenancies. And the new modern limited duration tenancies as well. It's also worth noting the amendments to discriminate against tenants of the new repairing tenancies and crofters and small land holder tenants who have a house as part of their tenure so that other people in these situations as well. Currently, unless the house on a tenant farm is let out separately using a short assured tenancy under general housing legislation, houses forming part of an agricultural tenancy are part of the fixed equipment on the holding. This includes all of the farm cottages included within the lease and not sublet under the housing legislation. This is important as it means there are part of the rent review system and affects how they are looked after. In many agricultural leases, the tenant farm is responsible for the maintenance repair and replacement and renewal. In theory, the tenant should be maintaining the house and the landlord should be replacing worn fittings such as central heating bathrooms and windows, etc. Of course, as members around the table have highlighted today, we all know that the situation is much more complex than that. I am sure that we all know of cases that have been highlighted again. I certainly do my constituency where either party has not met their legal requirements. As a result, the house has suffered. We have seen tenants' farm houses in terrible states that we want our own families and children living in and, as I reiterate, no one should be leasing out homes so that they would not be prepared to live in themselves. The new rent review system and the amnesty provisions in the bill will provide the first important steps in clarifying responsibilities and investment in the houses on the holdings. By using those tools, tenant farmers and landlords will be able in the future to better consider how houses should be treated within the tenancy. Those are only the first steps and I fully accept that. I also agree that there is a need to address the state of repair of housing and how that forms part of agricultural holdings. To do that properly, we need to thoroughly research the number of those affected and the scale of the problems facing those houses again, as members have also suggested. A number of steps need to happen to achieve the successful, sustainable solutions that we want to see in terms of the quality of agricultural housing in Scotland. We need qualitative and quantitative research that has been undertaken to enable the Scottish Government to assess the range of issues, including costs, to bring houses affected up to the same standard as other rural housing across the country. Then we should consult on the range of possible solutions and that will enable us to bring forward legislative change that is fair and equitable to all those affected by the current exclusion from the repairing standard to ensure that their homes are fit for purpose in the 21st century. There are significant steps that have to be taken and I know, as you have again irritated and reiterated around the table, that that will require time and resources to deliver those commitments. I do agree that that is something that we have to do in the short term. I would be happy to take today's comments and meet the housing ministers as well to see how we can put a plan of action in place for early in the next Parliament to improve the quality of agricultural housing in Scotland, reflecting on the comments around the table today. I am sure that other committees in the Parliament also want to take a close interest in the quality of agricultural housing in rural housing in Scotland as well. I can give that commitment to you today because I do agree that it is an extremely important subject and needs to be hired up to the agenda and the work that I have referred to does have to kick off pretty quickly so that we can get some of the potential solutions and invite the committee in that context not to take forward those amendments so that we can work together to take that forward. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Claudia Beamish to wind up and press her withdrawal. Amendment 152. Thank you, convener. Can I just seek clarification from the cabinet secretary about whether, if I withdraw the amendment today, in view of the facts, the points that have been made about the need for further research to see the best way to take this forward, would that have to be primary legislation or would it be... How would the cabinet secretary see this going forward early in the next Parliament after a consultation? I think that it is too early to say whether it would be primary or secondary legislation and where the legislation would have to be brought forward. I think that what is important is to have a road map in terms of the work that has to be carried out. I got the sense that that was the assurance that the committee was looking for, that this is something that is going to be addressed pretty quickly and I would be happy to speak to housing ministers so that we could mutually agree with housing ministers the best way to take this forward as quickly as possible. The outcome of that work would determine which legislation would have to be amended or created to deal with this issue. Right. Before making my decision about whether the cabinet secretary would agree to those members of the committee who may be returned in the next Parliament to have an interest in this, being involved in discussions with yourself and the housing minister. I will certainly give that some thought and it would clearly be my intention to write back to the committee and no doubt jointly with the housing ministers on the way forward. Right, thank you. To sum up, I believe that this is a completely unacceptable situation as do other members of the committee and I thank Jim Hume for being prepared to support the amendment if I was intending to move it. I think today that I am going to withdraw it although I will have further discussion with those who have the serious concerns, not least those living in properties that are a completely unacceptable standard before stage 3, but I will withdraw the amendment at the moment and look forward to the road map which the cabinet secretary has highlighted in relation to the future for tenant farmers. I would also say that Alex Ferguson's point of the suggestion that possibly the house might be removed from the actual tenancy but the house is not fixed equipment. It is somebody's home or potentially somebody's home in often, as Sarah Boyack has said, a very isolated area sometimes where there aren't other opportunities and where it has been highlighted to me that the security of the farm could be jeopardised if somebody wasn't actually living on it as well. I think that there are a lot of issues to take into account and that is something that I believe very determinedly that it must be resolved for the sake of the future of the tenant sector. I withdraw the motion. Claudia Beamish is seeking to withdraw amendment 152 with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object the amendment being withdrawn? No member objects the amendment being withdrawn. We move on to the use of agricultural land diversification. Amendment 283, in the name of Graham Day, group with amendment 284. Graham Day, to move amendment 283 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and I'll begin by moving amendment 283 in my name and speaking to both amendments in reverse order, if I may. Section 40 of the Agricultural Holdings Scotland Act 2003 sets out the current procedure whereby a tenant under a 1991 act tenancy or a limited duration tenancy may notify the landlord of the intention to use the land for a non-agricultural purpose, i.e. the intention to diversify. The Agricultural Holdings legislation review group found that landlords could severely delay approval of a tenant's request to diversify by making repeated requests for additional information. Diversification cannot begin until 70 days after the landlord's latest request, so it can be postponed indefinitely if he or she makes repeated requests. The review group recommended that, I quote, if objecting to a diversified activity on a tenant's holding, the process should be limited to only one notice of objection by the landlord. Amendment 284 addresses this by limiting the landlord to just one request for additional information. The current objection process also slows down diversification. Under the 2003 act, if a landlord objects to a tenant's notice of a diversification, then the land cannot be used for the diversified purpose. However, the act does not specify a time period that would oblige the landlord then to proceed promptly to the land court to have his or her objection considered as valid or not. In practice, that can mean that the burden of court proceedings falls on the tenant who would have to raise appeal proceedings against the objection in the land court in order to have a chance of being allowed to diversify. Amendment 283 shifts the responsibility to the landlord. Under the amendment, if the landlord objects to the diversification, he or she must take that objection to the land court within 60 days, otherwise his or her objection falls and the tenant can then proceed to diversify. Thank you. Any other member wishes to discuss? Alex Ferguson? A brief request for some clarity in this because I'm fairly sympathetic to where this is coming from and I think that the idea of a landlord being able to just indefinitely postpone any request by continually asking for information or whatever it might be is wrong, but I can envisage a situation where the original request for information leads to a further request for information which would not be enabled if only one occasion to request information is given which is what I think the amendment is stating and I just wondered when summing up if Mr Day could perhaps look at that and see whether that is actually his real intention here. We go to the cabinet secretary first and then Graham Day to wind up and respond. Can I just say a welcome in these amendments which should help to avoid unnecessary delays to a tenant being able to diversify? It doesn't seem right that at the moment a tenant has to go to court to try to prove the landlord's objection to diversification is unreasonable. That's why we do agree with Graham Day's proposal that the owner should be on the landlord to justify their objection, taking it to land courts within a set timeframe. Graham Day's second amendment was, of course, a recommendation by the review group just to point out who recognised the severe even indefinitely delays the current process can potentially cause and limiting the landlord to one request for information should streamline the process for a tenant applying to diversify so we support the amendments. I agree with Graham Day to wind up and press her withdrawal. As we all know, it can be hard enough for tenant farmers to finance some diversification projects without being further hindered by unreasonable delays in seeking agreement from their landlords. To answer Alex Ferguson's point, this is not designed to create difficulties. I would suggest that, in accepting these amendments, it will lead to a better environment in which the tenant and landlord would be operating. One would, of course, hope that a reasonable request for additional information would get a reasonable response. It's not about preventing something like that. It is about preventing a scenario where delay after delay occurs and derails the diversification project. That's what the amendment is seeking to achieve. I hear Mr Ferguson talking about unintended consequences. It's indicated that it will support the amendments. I'm sure that the Government will give consideration to whether there is any potential for unintended consequences. I don't think that there are. I will press my amendments. The question is that amendment 283 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The name of Graham Day is already debated with amendment 283. Graham Day to move or not move. Amendment 284 be agreed to. Amendment 302 in the name of Sarah Boyack is already debated with amendment 137. Sarah Boyack to move or not move. Not move. Not moved. That takes us to the end of part 10 in the bill. I think that we should have a five-minute break just now and try and press on to complete the work today if at all possible. A very short break. We will now move on to the functions of tenant farming commissioner. Promotion of good relations between landlords and tenants. Amendment 304 in the name of Claudia Beamish group with amendments 214 and 306. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 304 and speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 304 creates a duty for the tenant farming commissioner to create codes of conduct and amendment 306 gives details to govern the way in which the codes of practice might be implemented. I see that the cabinet secretary has alternative amendments and I will listen to those with care. Thank you. Thank you. Cabinet secretary. Pardon me. Claudia Beamish's amendments 304 and 306 require the tenant farming commissioner to prepare codes of conduct on eating at committees and various other standards of behaviour. To revert to the serious topic of this amendment prepare codes of conduct on the standards of behaviour that landlords and tenants can expect from each other. She suggests that this could include a code in politeness and mutual respect to give some examples. I appreciate the sentiments behind Claudia Beamish's amendments but I think that it is very challenging for Parliament to legislate on topics such as politeness and mutual respect. We have to hope that landlords and tenants can work together and treat those issues seriously where there are exceptions to that. The tenant farming commissioner's work and encouraging good relations and supporting best practice in the sector is already aimed at addressing some of those issues. On a practical note, the amendments do not provide for parties to be able to report breaches of the codes of conduct or for the commissioner to investigate these breaches. There will not be any consequences to parties for ignoring the codes although it is difficult to see how you could enforce some of the issues that Claudia Beamish suggests should be subject to the codes. I invite the committee to reject amendments 304 and 306. Amendment 214 in the Government's name and my name. The bill brings forward a range of radical changes to land reform clearly and also agriculture holdings in Scotland. We are encouraging and supporting responsible and diverse land ownership. We are increasing transparency of land ownership in Scotland and we are helping to ensure communities have a say in how the land in that area is used. We are also addressing issues of fairness, equality and social justice around access to land and the use of that land in our country. Finally, we are taking action to underpin a thriving tenant farming sector which is the main topic of the amendments. Encouraging good relations between landlords and tenants is central to making sure that the sector thrives and that is the fundamental purpose behind establishing a tenant farming commissioner. That was the vision of a review group and it is one that we share. Amendment 214 bills and suggestions made by the community land advisory service in their stage 1 written evidence felt that we should make it explicit that encouraging good relations is not just something that the commissioner does but something that underpins everything that they do. That amendment will require the commissioner to exercise all of their functions with a view to encouraging good relations between landlords and tenants of agricultural holdings. That also means that the commissioner has given new functions in the future. Those functions will need to be consistent with the objective of encouraging good relations between landlords and tenants. OK, thank you. OK, fine. In that case, any other member to comment? Very briefly, I have no intentions of opposing 214, but I think I am right in saying in a previous debate this morning that the cabinet secretary said that it was already a core function, a core purpose of the tenant farming commissioner to promote good relationships between landlords and tenants. I would agree with that, but surely something like encouraging good relations between landlords and tenants is an objective, an aspiration and I find it difficult to see how it can be enforced through legislation. If we are talking about building a vibrant sector, which she already mentioned in this debate, I don't see how drafting a code on being polite to each other is necessarily going to help in that regard. I'm not going to oppose it, but I just find it a strange thing to be legislating on. Which you may or may not wish to comment on when summing up. Thank you. I support the amendments in Claudia Beamish's name, but my amendment 214 is more about being explicit about the purpose of the tenant farming commissioner, as suggested to this committee and Parliament by the community land advisory service at stage 1. Thank you. Claudia Beamish. Oh, any other member. Sorry, Sarah Boyack. I think it is good that we've had a discussion at stage 2 on this issue two alternative ways to go here. Whether or not you'd want to have polite and mutual respect on the face of the bill that certainly would be something that we would seek to achieve. The whole issue that's been a backdrop to this element of the bill about good relationships and about power relationships and mutual respect is where we want to get. It's been really useful that Claudia has specified so that we can have a debate around it, that there are aspirations. I think that the point that's in amendment 214 means that this is in the bricks of the tenant farmer commissioner's work, so I think that's really helpful. I think that encouraging good relations is a good aspiration. We all know where you've lost good relationships that it becomes really hard to rebuild them in the discussion that we had earlier this morning about arbitration, about mediation. To that extent, there's a good relationship on both sides. I think that these are helpful amendments to get this debate going and to make sure that it's on the record. Claudia Beamish to wind up and presser withdrawal. Thank you, convener. My amendments were really probing amendments and I do acknowledge that it would be difficult to prove or to identify what the level of politeness and mutual respect should be, but we all really know what that should be in all sorts of relationships. Especially as my colleague Sarah Boyack touched on in relationships where the balance of power is often on one side and not the other. I will withdraw my amendments and I'm somewhat reassured by the Cabinet Secretary's amendment 214 in relation to encouraging good relations although encouraging good relations isn't always enough. If I'm honest, I don't see how we can enforce the code of conduct. If somebody breaks the law by offensive language or by anything that is against the law then that's a separate issue but the code of conduct was a probing amendment. Thank you. I seek to withdraw amendment 304 with the agreement of committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No nobody objects to that. Functions of the tenant farming commissioner review of the schedule of improvements I call amendments 285 in the name of Rob Gibson grouped with amendments 288, 289 and 298 and I will now move amendment 285 and speak to the amendments in the group. The tasking of the tenant farming commissioner to recommend an updated list of improvements that will be eligible for compensation and make consequential amendments to the schedule updating the list can apply to all tenancy types and indeed in section 5 of the 1991 act it sets out a list of improvements that are eligible for compensation and should be modernised the agricultural holdings law reform group further work should be undertaken with relevant industry bodies and revise the current list of improvements so we want to make sure that once an updated list has been agreed it can be enacted as soon as possible and under the existing legislation ministers can already make orders to update the list for 1991 tenancies LDTs and SLDTs and the repairing lease provision will give them the ability to update it for repairing leases this amendments provides that they can also update the list for new lease types of MLDTs to provide a clear and fair process for agreeing an updated list of improvements the amendment also gives tenant farming commissioner the function of working with stakeholders to agree the new list and then submit that list to ministers will be able to implement it it is important to note that once the list has been updated it can only apply to improvements made from that point in time onwards it is not possible to apply it to improvements that have already been made because that would be retrospectively changing the terms of the lease and agreement and basically breaches ECHR so I move amendment 285 in my name any other members wish to speak to that no, cabinet secretary to respond my thank you, convener, for bringing forward these amendments which I support it's important that agricultural holdings legislation is fit for the 21st century yet the list of improvements that are eligible for compensation at Wego hasn't been updated since 1978 so I think the approach of asking the tenant farming commissioner to work with tenants and landlords to agree a modernised list is a sensible way forward and as ministers will then be able to update the list through orders we won't need to wait for a suitable primary legislation to put the new list in place for all types of leases so that the sector will be able to benefit from the updated lists sooner thank you so I would be happy to press this amendment the question is that amendment 285 be agreed to are we all agreed we are agreed codes of practice published by tenant farming commissioner enforcement call amendment 305 in the name of Claudia Beamish grouped with amendments 147, 223, 224, 286, 225, 287 and 307 Claudia Beamish to move amendment 305 and speak to all the amendments in the group thank you, convener the first of these amendments is an advanced consequential amendment to tee up the new role of the TFC in section 24 currently under the bill the tenant farmer commissioner's inquiry functions limited to cases where an application is made usually by a landlord or tenant to him or her and it is for the tenant farmer commissioner to decide how many inquiries to carry out and how frequently to report the report should be published but there is a provision to ensure that individual landlords and tenants can't be identified to promote their cooperation with the TFC getting tenants to come forward with complaints has been a major problem Andrew Thin is acutely aware of this and has found it frustrating that even though he was well aware of what was going on encouraging a tenant to complain was often difficult providing the TFC with the means to initiate random audits on the way in which rent reviews and other practices are carried out I believe would help immeasurably thank you thank you cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 223 and other amendments in the group if I can start with Claudia Beamish's amendments 05 and 307 unfortunately we don't believe they are workable there are no powers attached to the audit function her amendments create so people wouldn't be under any obligation to provide the tenant farming commissioner information to let them carry out an audit more fundamentally perhaps I don't believe an audit function is necessary because the bill already contains provisions that make sure progress in the sectors kept under review and that individual cases can be investigated where there are issues under sections 18 of the bill the TFC is required to report every year on their performance in carrying out the functions those functions include promoting observance of the codes of practice and inquiring into alleged breaches of the codes so the TFC is already required to report on the outcomes of exercising these functions that report must be published in the Labour for Parliament under section 27 of the bill parties can report breaches of the codes and ask the TFC to inquire into them the TFC can then carry out an investigation and publisher report setting out their determination if nobody is alleging that a code has been breached it's difficult to see the justification for the TFC auditing party's behaviour the TFC isn't intended to be an auditor their core function is to promote good relationships in the sectors that have been discussed in the previous amendments but I hope that this will give Claudia Beamish some assurance that the bill already provides for problems to be investigated and reported on and hopefully she will be persuaded to withdraw her amendments in terms of amendment 147 which proposes to any person a code of practice that applies to has a duty to comply with it that's a blanket and hugely wide ranging provision a person will have to read all the codes to comply with them it won't be clear to people if they're actually subject to this duty or not and if it isn't clear to them it probably won't be clear to the party who wants to hold them to account for breaching the code and even if they do know any requirements the codes contain might not apply to everyone in every situation and to top it all off this amendment isn't workable because it doesn't contain any way for the duty to be enforced so again I would invite the committee if I can turn to Jim Hume's amendments 286-287 which seek to enable the tenant farming commissioner to impose a monetary penalty for breach of a code of practice that would have the effect of turning the codes of practice into binding law I've already outlined the reasons that that wouldn't be a sensible approach and I can assure the committee and Jim Hume that we thought long and hard about the issues at the heart of both Jim Hume and Claudia Beamish's amendments introduced Jim Hume's amendments would also create an odd situation where a tenant could be fined for not complying with a code but go to the land court and win against the landlord an issue that underpinned the dispute in the first place this seems to be quite complicated to say the least when the land court is already there to perform the judicial function so I would invite Jim Hume to either withdraw the amendments or for the committee to reject 286-287 as I've said before the commissioner's office isn't to be another regulator it's to promote and encourage good relationships and behaviours in the sector underpinned by codes of practice and we need to give that a chance to work I believe that is why I've put forward amendments 215 and 216 to enable a review of the commissioner's powers and duties to be carried out after three years we will then be in a position to evaluate how the role of the commissioner's work is working in practice and decide based on evidence of changes needed at that point I will also ensure that that review includes looking at the case for enforcement powers or the issues around that to make sure that it's fully explored in terms of the government's own amendment 223 if I can just talk through our own amendments the bill currently says that a person may apply to a tenant farming commissioner to inquire into a breach of a code of practice of course when someone is asking the commissioner to investigate they don't necessarily know that there has definitely been a breach they may have the very good reason to believe there's been a breach but it's for the commissioner to inquire into this and of course then reach a decision so amendment 223 modifies the wording slightly to make it absolutely clear that an applicant doesn't need to know there has been a breach before the investigation into the breach has been carried out indeed they're asking the tenant farming commissioner to inquire into an alleged breach of a code of practice the community land advisory service suggested this change under stage 1 evidence we agree that the change is sensible so we have brought forward this amendment to implement it in terms of 224 section 281b of the bill says that a tenant farming commissioner can only investigate an alleged breach of a code of practice if they can unsatisfy themselves that the application to investigate contains and I quote the details of each person with an interest in a relevant tenancy the intention behind this was to make sure that the commissioner had all the information he needed to proceed with her inquiry however in our stage 1 evidence the community land advisory service made the point that the wording of this section could cause difficulties the person making an application might not be aware of every individual with an interest in a tenancy so he wouldn't be able to include their details similarly the commissioner might not know of everyone with an interest in a tenancy and so could find it challenging to satisfy themselves the details of every relevant person were indeed included in the application so we believe the simplest way to address his concerns to remove section 281b from the bill and that's what 224 does section 281c the bill already requires the commissioner to be satisfied that an application I quote contains sufficient information to proceed to an inquiry that will already include the details the commissioner thinks are necessary on those people who have an interest in a tenancy so this amendment would not compromise the commissioner's ability to get all the information on an inquiry in terms of 225, as the bill stands there is a double sanction on someone who asks a tenant farming commissioner to investigate a breach of the codes of practice but then doesn't provide the additional information the commissioner requires the first sanction is that the commissioner can dismiss their application for investigation the second is that the commissioner can find them up to £1,000 this doubling up of sanctions wasn't our intention and we believe it's unfair so amendment 225 removes the financial penalty on applicants who don't provide information requested by the commissioner under section 292 the commissioner will still be able to find other parties who don't provide information they request or who fail to provide a response to the application but the important difference is that the fine is the only sanction in these cases this amendment ensures that there is likewise only one sanction against applicants who don't comply with the commissioner's requests thank you sorry Jim Hume first any other member thank you just regarding amendments 286 and 287 I've obviously already heard the minister's views on them the cabinet secretaries I think that we would probably agree that the TFC must be proactive and ensure where bad practices do exist that there are real remedies there that should prioritise an early point resolution so that amendment was to tie in the essential role of the TFC in providing support and assistance to individuals involved in disputes and also provide additional information and I would have given the TFC more powers regarding 287 which of course would mean that land agents would have to be properly regulated as we know in the private tendency market with legislation that's coming through previously it was only landlords that was legislated in the future it looks like that it will be the letting agents as well in that world and that has been warmly welcomed by even the letting agents we know that of course most land agents do abide by codes of practice of course they would have nothing to worry about by with this amendment therefore I had seen no problem with it as I said we've already heard the cabinet secretary's views that he's pushing his fellow members members here to not support it therefore I would withdraw at this stage but reserve the right to bring back at stage 3 after some deliberations okay other members wish to comment on any of these amendments if not I call Claudia Beamish to wind up and press a withdrawal amendment 305 thank you convener and in view of the cabinet secretary some comments I wish to withdraw amendment 305 Claudia Beamish wishes to withdraw amendment 305 with the agreement of the committee does any other member object to the amendment being withdrawn? no no member does move on to the tenant farming commissioner functions under other enactments call amendment 213 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group of its own cabinet secretary to move and speak to the amendment convener, the committee earlier agreed a new process for tenants to relinquish or assign their tenancies amendment 213 arises from that it makes sure that tenant farming commissioners functions will include the ability to appoint a valuer as part of that process there may well be other functions that we want to give the TFC in future the list of functions each time amendment 216 says that the TFC's functions include any other functions placed on the commissioner by legislation any member wishes to comment if not to cab sec to wind up just to move it the question is that amendment 213 be agreed to are we all agreed we are agreed to call amendment 116 in the name of Alec Ferguson already debated with amendment 214 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 304 cabinet secretary to move formally the question is that amendment 214 be agreed to are we all agreed we are agreed review of tenant farming commissioners functions I call amendment 215 in the name of the cabinet secretary to move or not to move not to move at this stage having listened to the comments of the cabinet secretary amendment 215 in the name of the cabinet secretary to group with amendment 216 cabinet secretary to move amendment 215 and speak to both amendments in the group this committee has emphasised that it is important that we make sure that the tenant farming commissioner has the powers that they need to carry out their work effectively the TFC's central low as we have said many times today is to promote good relationships and behaviours in the sector and I think that the powers of the bill gives the TFC an appropriate and proportionate for that work and I have brought forward those amendments to create a clear and early review point so that we can assess how well the office of the TFC is working in practice and whether additional powers are indeed required those amendments require the commissioner's functions to be reviewed within three years rather than the five years that the bill originally said and under these amendments as part of that review the commissioner will report whether they have sought enough whether they actually have enough powers to carry out their work effectively and evaluate the position once there is evidence of how the role of the new commissioner is working and then take necessary action if necessary Thank you Any member wish to comment on this? Mike Russell There is some movement on this this is I think a belief that the tenant farmer will be able to do all the things that are expected of them is as I said the other day in the networks of Dr Johnson the triumph of hope over experience I think the reality in the situation is that the tenant farming commissioner will find that those who do not wish to behave in a reasonable fashion will go on behaving in an unreasonable fashion My concern about these amendments I just give the cabinet secretary some notice that I think further amendment is required at stage three it is not just the views of the tenant farming commissioner of importance in this review this amendment invites the tenant farming commissioner to give opinion on what has happened and to see whether his powers are sufficient and I think it will be important to have a wider group of stakeholders who are saying what they think of the powers of the tenant farming commissioner and that would apply to the tenants themselves so I would ask the cabinet secretary to consider whether this amendment needs amended at stage three and I'd be happy to have that discussion Thank you Cabinet secretary to wind up on amendment 215 Just to respond to Michael Russell's point clearly we would envisage the opportunity for all stakeholders to input to that process and I'll reflect on whether or not that needs to be reflected in the face of the bill Thank you The question is that amendment 215 be agreed to Are we all agreed We are agreed Call amendment 216 The name of the cabinet secretary are ready to debate it with amendment 215 CAB SEC to move formally The question is that amendment 216 be agreed to Are we all agreed The question is that sections 23 and 24 be agreed to Are we all agreed We are agreed Move to section 25 tenant farming commissioner code of practice for land agents Call amendment 217 The name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 218, 220, 221 and 222 CAB SEC to move amendment 217 and speak to all amendments in the group I have listened to the concerns of stakeholders and this committee of course about the behaviour of some land agents and I have lodged these amendments to send a clear message to the industry that land agents aren't exempt from the tenant farming commissioner's code of practice The amendments add a code on agents conduct to the list of the commissioner's codes in the bill They also make it explicit that all of the codes are directed to agents not just at landlords and tenants All of those amendments refer to agents rather than land agents This is consistent with existing legislation but it also means that the amendments will cover other people acting on behalf of landlords or tenants as well like surveyors or solicitors I want the set of amendments to signal a step change in the relationship between tenants, landlords and land agents I know that's an issue many of the committee members feel strongly about Many agents are of course doing excellent jobs and professional jobs but it has been concerning to hear about widespread dissatisfaction with agents conduct in some cases making sure that the commission's work extends to land agents is an important measure to help change the culture and change that situation but it may well be that we need to go further and so I plan to bring forward a stage 3 amendment to require the commissioner to look carefully into the issues, the sector experiences with land agents and report on what action is needed to ensure that there is meaningful oversight and conduct including effective procedures for addressing problems where they arise and then we could potentially take those forward appropriately in due course so I move amendment 217 Any members wish to comment on this at the moment? Graham Day, Mike Russell Very very brief, we can very much welcome these much needed amendments and I even welcome even more so the commitment to bring forward a further amendment Mike Russell It is very important that the sector sees that there will be a code of practice for agents but the question of further enforcement of the code of practice for agents may lie with people other than the tenant farming commissioner because the tenant farming commissioner will not have the statutory powers of enforcement so I hope that any review of the circumstances under the previous amendment will include the possibility of reviewing the involvement of other bodies in this because it is absolutely essential that the malpractice and abuse from some agents, some few agents but those agents is stopped and the way to stop is to have not just a code of practice but a code that has legal enforceability Graham Day, Mike Russell No other member wish to comment Cabinet Secretary to wind up I think I've made the case and I know this is an issue that's of concern to many people in Scotland and I'll reflect also on the comments made by members on the amendment 117 Are we agreed? We are agreed. Move on to the tenant farming commissioner requirement to prepare codes of practice on certain topics. Amendment 139 in the name of Claudia Beamish group with amendments 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145 and 146 Claudia Beamish to move amendment 139 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you convener. Members will be relieved to hear that although there's a quite a string of amendments that I'll be fairly brief because it's the general point of principle that I want to make about these amendments. The argument is that I would like to see that the tenant farmer commissioner must prepare codes on certain aspects of the bill rather than may and the reason that I have asked for this is because in relation to rent reviews, tenants improvements succession and assignation and wego compensation I believe that all these issues are points of possible flash point and I think that it's very important that the tenant farmer commissioner is obliged to prepare these codes. So amendments 143 to 146 remove these from the list of voluntary codes and 139 to 142 make it a compulsory obligation. Are you moving 139? Yes, please. Cabinet, any other members to comment? Cabinet secretary to respond? As the committee knows, under the bill of tenant farming commissioner must prepare codes of practice to provide practical guidance to landlords and tenants and now land agents as well. We haven't dictated what the code should be instead we've set out key areas that the codes should cover but we've left the commissioner with the flexibility to decide exactly what codes they prepare. That approach means the commissioner can prepare codes to respond to the top priorities of the industry, some of which may require immediate attention rather than bound to prepare a set of prescribed codes. So I certainly don't dispute that the areas identified by Claudia Beamish are important but I am reluctant to create a two-tier hierarchy of codes with the commissioner to prepare some but not others. I can't say a clear rationale for that kind of hierarchy approach and I feel that we shouldn't be too prescriptive. The commissioner and the stakeholders that they work with will have first-hand experience of the topical issues affecting tenants, landlords and agents. They are really best placed to decide what codes of practice should be produced and what priorities given to each of those. So I invite Claudia Beamish not to move her amendments or for the committee to reject them. Claudia Beamish to wind up and press her withdrawal. Thank you convener. I've listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary is saying but I disagree because I think there is a clear rationale for having a hierarchy whereby the tenant a farmers commissioner must prepare codes on the four areas that I've highlighted because those have been flash points in the past and I think it's sent a clear signal to landowners and to tenants that these are issues that will be robustly dealt with by the tenant farmer commissioner. The others which he or she may take forward I believe are not such potential flash points and perhaps not quite so complex as something like a rent review and so I intend to press my amendments. The question is that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote. Those in favour please show. One, two. Those against please show. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Two, four, seven against and no abstentions the amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 140 in the name of Claudia Beamish or I debated with amendment 139. Clawdy a Beamish Ng Bagel Call amendment 140 the name of Claudia Beamish I've debated with amendment 130 9 Clawdy a Beamish is Do not move That question is. I've debated with amendment 140 9 Clawdy a Beamish I've debated with amendment 130 9 Clawdy a Beamish The call amendment 140 In the name of Claudia Beamish Amendment 344 ynbonell i'w miwr, a gwasanaethwyr a'r cwlau'r byw i'r geidwyr, a gwasanaethwyr ynbonell i'w miwr, a gwasanaethwyr a'r grannu ynbonell i'w miwr a'r geidwyr, a gwasanaethwyr a thank you so much and that's going on. Amendment 145 by Claude Abymes is already debated with the amendment 139 by Claude Abymes to move or not move. Amendment 146 by Claude Abymes is already debated with the amendment 139 by Claude Abymes to move or not move. Amendment 219 by the Cabinet Secretary is already of the amendment 154, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 219 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Call amendments 220, 221 and 222 on the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. Fight the cabinet secretary to move amendments 222, 220 to 222 on the block. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 147, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 2305, Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Call amendment 306, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 304, Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Call amendment 223, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 305, cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 223 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 224, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 305, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 224 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are The question is that section 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Call amendment 286, in the name of Jim Hume, already debated with amendment 305, Jim Hume to move or not move. Call amendment 225, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 305, cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 225 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 287, in the name of Jim Hume, already debated with amendment 305, Jim Hume to move or not move. The question is that section 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 3233 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 288, in the name of myself, already debated with amendment 285. I move amendment 288. The question is that amendment 288 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 307, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 305. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. The question is that section 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We move to, before section 98, a right to buy for small landholders. Call amendment 303, in the name of Michael Russell, group with amendment 309. Michael Russell to move amendment 303 and speak to both amendments in the group. Convener, this is a matter that has been on the agenda of the Parliament for some considerable time. Small landholders who are defined in statute have great difficulty in exercising any rights at all and indeed have found themselves in the position where the landholdings have been extinguished or have been almost impossible to pass on. This is a long-standing problem, as I have said, and it is time to do something about it. I have raised this issue in sessions of the committee before. I have been assured that some consideration will be given in the future to it, but I think that this has been going on for too long. I am now looking for a specific timetable for action. I do believe that this amendment could be passed as it is, and I would at least begin the process of change. If there are reasons why the amendment cannot be passed as it is, I want to hear from the minister if he possibly can do so a commitment to a timescale for action on those small landholders and an indication of what will take place over the next few months to ensure that those small landholders, at last, get the benefits and rights that are accrued to crofters well over 100 years ago, which are now accruing to tenant farmers but which leave them out in the cold. That is wrong and it is unfair, and it is something that we should take action on without further delay. Without even going into the rights and wrongs of this debate, it is not something that the committee has worked on. It is not something that we have taken evidence on, and it is a right to buy full stop. I think that we agreed at last week's committee meeting that discussions surrounding further right to buy should be left until the next Parliament. That is where I believe that that debate belongs, and for that reason, if no other, I would not support those amendments. I would just like to say that I have been involved as a Highlands and Islands member, and less so as a constituency member, with regard to small landholders who missed out on crofting status because of the change in the 1955 act that constrained crofting to the crofting counties. They have lost out for a very long period of time, and their condition has got worse. It is not the first time that this has been discussed. It is certainly something that needs to be tackled. There are people who can make a contribution to farming, and it is something that previous parliaments have tried to find a route to help, without much success of moving small landholdings into the crofting legislation. We need to take that further, and I would back up what Mike Russell says just now. I look forward to what the cabinet secretary has to say. I absolutely agree with Mike Russell that action is needed to address issues that are faced by small landholders in Scotland. The current situation is clearly not good for individuals or their local communities, and it has been over 80 years since legislation for small landholders was updated, so it is sorely out of date. There is only a limited number of small landholders act tenancies remaining across Scotland. The agricultural census and the recent Scottish Government survey of small landholders, undertaken in response to the review group's comments, have highlighted that some small landholding tenants are still unclear as to whether or not they have a small landholding or some other kind of tenancy. Our most recent estimate is that there are around 74 remaining. I know that other people will think that there is more than that, and that indicates the need for more work to identify that. Those within the crofting areas can convert into crofts, but, in practice, they have not been able to because the conversion process is, as committee members have previously pointed out, too bureaucratic. They also do not have a pre-emptive right to buy, so they are disadvantaged compared to other types of tenant. I am indeed determined that small landholders should enjoy equal rights and treatment. We did say in a response to the committee stage 1 report that we need to fully explore the issues that are facing small landholders and how best to address those. There is a range of possible solutions that the sector and the Scottish Parliament need to consider, and, soon, the review group recommended that consideration should be given to giving small landholders a pre-emptive right to buy their holdings if they come up for sale. It is certainly one option. Another option could be to give small landholders the ability to convert their tenancies to another type of agricultural tenancy so that they gain the rights that go hand in hand with those tenancies. No doubt there will be other alternatives that are worthy of consideration as well. If a solution comes forward, we need to work in a way that is fair to all the small landholders across the country, from Aberdeenshire to Arran and everywhere in between. Therefore, subject to the election, we will be carrying out a consultation on this issue in the new Parliament later this year. If the consultation confirms that the solution that small landholders need requires legislative change, we will do our utmost to bring forward that legislation as quickly as possible and deliver that fairness that Michael Russell and others want to see delivered for that group of people. I am reassured that there is now an intention, subject to the election, to bring forward a consultation in legislation. I do not have a Pavlovian response to the issue of right to buy. I think that right to buy is perfectly reasonable and, in these circumstances, would be perfectly reasonable. However, given that the cabinet secretary says that there are other options and I do accept that there are other options, I think that a further year might be tolerable. However, just to draw attention to one thing that the cabinet secretary says, it is 80 years since legislation was last looked at. In that length of time, a great deal has changed. It does mean that certain individuals—there are more than 74, I think that most people accept that—certain individuals are being badly disadvantaged. As long as we redress that in a reasonable period of time, I think that we will have made some progress. I will not move, so you withdrawn it. Michael Russell wishes to withdraw amendment 303 with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object the amendment being withdrawn? No member does. In which case we call amendment 96, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 15 on day 1. Michael Russell to move or not move. As far as I remember, it is not moved. Therefore, we call amendment 97, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 15 on day 1. Michael Russell to move or not move. Moved. Moved. So, amendment 97A, in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 15 on day 1, Sarah Boyack to move or not move. I would like to move, convener, with an excellent discussion on the day and some very positive responses from the minister, so I hope that we can support this today. The question is that amendment 97A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. I think that you said that you are not agreed, so there will be a vote. Those who are in favour of a 97A, please show. Those against, please show. Those abstaining. There is eight for none against and one abstain, so therefore 97A is agreed. Michael Russell, you want to presser with draw amendment 97. The question is that amendment 97 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a vote. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. None and one abstention. So, eight for none against one abstention, so amendment 97 is agreed. I call amendment 117, in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 15. Sarah Boyack to move or not move. Not moved, convener. I got the clarification on the record that I was seeking from the minister. Thank you. The question is that section 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 69, in the name of Graham Day, already debated with amendment 103, on day 1, Graham Day to move or not move. My memory is slightly better than Michael Russell, so I am definitely moving it. You are moving it. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 98, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 14, on day 2. Michael Russell to move or not move. I have absolute clarity of recall on this amendment, and I remember that the minister made a commitment to ensure that the guidance was able to be opened up to take account of these issues, and therefore I do not move. Not moved, thank you. Call amendment 118, in the name of Alec Ferguson, already debated with amendment 114, on day 2, for Alec Ferguson to move or not move. I have absolutely no recollection of this at all, convener. So I will not move it. Not moved. Call amendment 132, in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 128, on day 3, Sarah Boyack to move or not move. Again, not moved, I have a meeting arranged for the minister to take it from her. Not moved. Call amendment 226, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 157, on day 3, cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved, thank you. The question is that amendment 226 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 308, in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 137, Sarah Boyack to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. Call amendment 309, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 303, Michael Russell to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. Not moved. The question is that section 99 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Question is that section 101 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. Call amendment 70, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 44, on day 2, cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 102 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 71, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 44, on day 2, cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 227, through to 250, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. Invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 227 to 250 on block. Moved on block. Moved on block. Any member object to a single question being put? If you dare. So, no member objects. The question is that amendments 227 to 250 are agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. In that case, we call amendment 289, in my name, already debated with amendment 285. I will move it. Question is that amendment 289 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 290, in the name of Rob Gibson, already debated with amendment 285. I move the amendment. Question is that amendment 290 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendments 251, through to 261, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. Invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 251 to 261 on block. Moved on block. Any member object to a single question? No. If no member objects, then the question is that amendments 251 to 261 are agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 153, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 152. Remind members that if amendment 153 is agreed to, you cannot call amendment, I won't be calling amendment 262. Claudia Beamish to move, or not move? Not move. Not moved. Question is that call amendment 262, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 2154 on day 3. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Moved. Question is that amendment 262 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 300, in the name of Alec Ferguson, already debated with amendment 296. Remind members that if amendment 300 is agreed, you can't agree to amendments 263 and 264 on preemption, which are preempted. Alec Ferguson to move, or not move? Not move. Not move. And then we move on to call amendment 263, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 166 on day 3. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Question is that amendment 263 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. We are agreed. Call amendment 264, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 166 on day 3. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Question is that amendment 264 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 265, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 166, on day 3. Cabinet secretary to move formally.aye, 15 manj шyf na yw cweightwch ddweinyd Captain FFgrons. Arnau Oeib Galtham, ar hyn o boi enw? Cadw du'i gwirio mwy agorau fy enw. MEIL Mŷrff The next question is the amendment 3-3-0 in the name of Alex Ferguson. Already debated with the amendment 1-4-8, Alex Ferguson to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendments 266, 267, 268, 269, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. Invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 266 to 269 on block. Moved on block. Does any member object the single question being put? The question is that amendment 266 to 269 are agreed, are we all agreed? The question is that the schedule should be agreed to. The name of Patrick Harvie is already debated with amendment 129, and day 3 is not here to move it, so it will not be moved. amendment 4, in the name of Michael Russell, will be debated with amendment 119. Michael Russell to move or not move. The question is that section 103 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. The question is that section 104 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 99, in the name of Alex Ferguson, already debated with amendment 94. Alex Ferguson to move or not move. Call amendments 270, 271 and 301, all in the name of the cabinet secretary all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments 270, 271 and 301 on block. Okay, on block. I ask whether any member objects to a single question. No one does. The question is that amendments 270 and 271 and 301 are agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that the long title be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. At the end of the next meeting of the committee, the kitchen cabinet, we will consider several items of subordinate legislation and some responses to correspondence here. This is the kitchen cabinet, I guess, but I close the meeting formally and thank members for their perseverance and co-operation.