���˿���

I have nothing further to add. I seek agreement to withdraw amendment 289.

Amendment 289, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 15 agreed to.

Sections 16 to 19 agreed to.

Section 20—Compensation for damage by game etc

Thank you, and good morning. My amendment 225A is a practical amendment to the cabinet secretary’s amendment 225, which relates to a tenant’s right to buy, which we debated last week. My amendment would ensure that the notice that is referred to is given in writing to ensure that a commencement date is noted and a paper trail is kept. That avoids the possibility of any vexatious claims and I believe that that is in keeping with what happens under current rules.

My amendment 225B would further amend the cabinet secretary’s amendment 225 and seeks to strengthen the legal language from “may” to “must” to ensure that there is an obligation on ministers to set out the period in which notice can be given.

My amendment 225C would delete from amendment 225 proposed new section 29(9) of the 2003 act. As drafted, that new power would allow ministers to make regulations and, therefore, changes to timescales for exercising a right to buy.

My amendment 543 seeks to restrict the powers that are given to ministers. Currently, section 10(2) of the bill would enable ministers to make regulations that include provisions on a wide variety of things. It would allow the Scottish ministers to modify sections 24 to 28 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and also, if they

“consider it necessary ... to make consequential provision which modifies the other provisions”

in that part of the 2003 act. I believe that the scope of those powers is far too wide and could allow for numerous unspecified changes to be made by regulations. Therefore, my amendment seeks to delete those lines from section 10(2). Instead, I invite the cabinet secretary to re-draft a narrower and more specific provision for stage 3.

I move amendment 225A.

I have nothing further to add. I wish to press amendment 225A.

It is all in my entry in the register of members’ interests, but I run a small farm in Moray. Specifically in relation to today’s discussion, I have two short limited-duration tenancies, one with Moray Council and another with the Crown Estate.

I do not know whether I can answer that right now. I think whatever you think, convener. [Laughter.]

Can I continue?

Section 14 applies to compensation for improvements under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. The bill requires a tenant to give a landlord a notice requesting consent to proposed improvements. If a landlord has not responded to a notice requesting consent within a period of 70 days, the bill also allows—where am I? Sorry, I am getting lost in my notes, convener.

My amendment 524 would provide balance in the process for the tenant. It would provide that, when notice of a proposed improvement is given by the tenant, the landlord can request further information from the tenant about the improvement. The amendment requires the tenant, within 14 days of being asked for more information, to provide that to the landlord—hang on a minute, convener. Am I in the right place? I do not think that I am.

As drafted, the bill requires notice to be given by the landlord at least a year before resumption takes place. My amendment 240 seeks to reduce that period to six months. I do not think that it is reasonable to expect landlords to provide a full year’s notice that they want to resume the land from a tenant, and requiring that could cause the landlord challenges in going forward with their intentions for the resumed land. I am really trying to stop the slowing down of rural development, which is what we all want.

I listened to the cabinet secretary’s remarks on Fergus Ewing’s amendments. My understanding is that the tenant farming advisory forum worked very hard to draft the amendments and that everybody agreed on the issue until very recently. I think that the cabinet secretary just said that, but I wonder whether there is a pressing need to discuss the issue over the summer, because a thriving tenanted sector is absolutely vital for our rural communities and it is important that we get this right.

I have nothing further to add. I seek agreement to withdraw amendment 290.

Amendment 290, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 524, 291 to 295, 518, 519 and 296 not moved.

Section 20 agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Section 23—Rent review: 1991 Act tenancies

Amendment 289 would amend section 15 of the bill, which deals with notice of and objection to diversification, and which largely amends the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003. The bill as drafted seeks to substitute the wording

“land for agricultural purposes”,

which is in the 2003 act, with

“whole of the land comprised in the lease for the purpose of sustainable and regenerative agriculture”.

My amendment seeks to prevent that change, as there is no clear definition in the bill of sustainable and regenerative agriculture. My intention in lodging the amendment is to ask the cabinet secretary whether that should have been defined in the bill.

I move amendment 289.