���˿���

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Amendment 290, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

Section 14 of the bill applies to compensation for improvements under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. The bill requires a tenant to give notice to a landlord requesting consent for proposed improvements. If the landlord has not responded to a notice requesting consent, the bill allows for a period of 70 days, after which they will be deemed to have consented.

My amendment 544 would provide balance in the process for the tenant. It says that,

“Where notice is given”

by the tenant about improvements,

“the landlord may request further information from the tenant about the improvement.”

It would require the tenant, within 14 days of being asked for more information, to provide it to the landlord. If the tenant fails to provide that information,

“the tenant is deemed to have withdrawn the notice”

that they have given for improvements.

The purpose of amendment 544 is to provide a balanced process. As the bill stands, the landlord will not be able to make fully informed decisions if the tenant is unwilling to provide information or if they delay in doing so. The bill could put the landlord in the very difficult situation of having their silence interpreted as unconditional consent.

Under the bill, the Scottish Land Court is given the ability to overrule the landlord’s refusal of consent. Therefore, it is only reasonable that the landlord should be able to ask for full details of the proposal in order to make a decision. Amendment 544 would not delay the process for more than 14 days, but it would allow the landlord to take crucial steps to ensure that they were making a fully informed decision. By providing for the provision of more clear information, the amendment is also intended to avoid the need to take proposals to the Land Court and the expense of doing so.

My amendment 535 seeks to alter section 38 of the 1991 act, which considers that compensation is not payable for certain improvements to the land

“unless the tenant gave notice to the landlord”

of their intention to carry out those improvements and of the manner in which they proposed to do so.

Section 38(1)(c) of the 1991 act brought in a new list of improvements in relation to which compensation would not be payable unless the tenant gave notice to the landlord of their intention to carry out said improvements.

Section 38(3) of the 1991 act sets out the requirements for such notice. As well as having to be given “in writing”, it must fulfil a shortlist of criteria, one of which is contained in section 38(3)(c), which requires that, for the new improvements that are listed in the 1991 act, notice had to have been provided

“not less than 3 months, before the tenant began to carry out the improvement.”

Amendment 535 seeks to ensure that, if the tenant is the relevant person to whom the duty applies, the requirement for notice of not less than three months to be provided would not apply if it would place the tenant in breach of their duty. Instead, it would mean that notice would have to be provided only

“as soon as reasonably practicable.”

Amendment 535 would also mean that, if those circumstances applied, the landlord could notify the tenant that they would carry out the improvements on behalf of the tenant.

My amendment 276A relates to section 39 of the 1991 act, which deals with compensation for certain improvements. The bill notes what the Land Court is to consider when determining whether to give permission to the tenant to carry out an improvement. Amendment 276A relates to proposed new subsection (1BA), which my amendment 544 would insert in the bill. Amendment 276A would mean that the Land Court would need to give consideration to

“whether sufficient information has been provided to the landlord”

following the tenant giving notice that they intended to carry out an improvement and the landlord asking for more information.

My amendment 540 seeks to add a new section following section 14 of the bill, which deals with compensation for improvements. Amendment 540 would modify section 14B of the 1991 act, which deals with objections by the tenant to improvement notices given by the landlord. In that section, the tenant is able to object to an improvement notice

“before the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which the tenant received the landlord improvement notice.”

That notice of objection

“must be dated and must state the tenant’s reasons as to why the improvement is not necessary to enable the tenant to fulfil the tenant’s responsibilities to farm the holding in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.”

Amendment 540 seeks to add to that provision by setting out circumstances in which the tenant could not object to an improvement notice. They could not do so when

“an item of fixed equipment subject to an improvement notice is considered by the landlord to be an economic requirement for the purposes for which the farm is let,”

or when the tenant

“is given an opportunity to relinquish the item of fixed equipment.”

Amendment 541 seeks to add a new section after section 23 of the bill. It deals with situations in which rents could increase following certain improvements being made by the landlord. It would modify section 15 of the 1991 act, which currently deals with that matter and notes that the rent of a holding can be increased

“Where the landlord of an agricultural holding has ... carried out on the holding an improvement”

in certain situations. For example, it could be

“at the request of, or in agreement with, the tenant”.

Amendment 541 would alter the conditions and mean that, following an improvement that was made at the request of, or in agreement with, the tenant, a review could be carried out

“whether or not in compliance with a duty conferred on the tenant by any enactment”.

Amendment 541 is designed largely to clarify the bill.

My amendments in this group all relate to game damage, and they follow a variety of discussions with groups that are involved in country sports and shooting. Section 20 outlines instances where the tenant is entitled to be compensated by the landlord where game or game management has caused the tenant to sustain certain damage, for example, damage to crops or livestock.

Amendments 290 and 291 seek to delete “or game management” from the proposed new section title in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 and from the reasons why tenants would be entitled to compensation. It is unclear to me why game management, rather than just game, such as deer, would contribute to damage in those circumstances. Moreover, any damage that is caused by persons and relates to game management would already be covered under common law, such as through breach of contract or delict.

Yes, certainly.

You have got me lost, convener, because I was sure that I wanted to answer the question about grass tracks.

I will move on to amendments 292 and 293. The bill as drafted states that the

“tenant is entitled to be compensated by the landlord where game or game management have caused the tenant to sustain ... damage”,

for example,

“damage to crops”.

My amendments 292 and 293 seek to ensure that that damage is damage that is directly caused. As I have set out in previous amendments, claims against landowners that are outwith direct causation potentially encompass a wide range of losses over which those landowners may have little or no control.

Amendment 294 seeks to remove “damage to fixed equipment” as a reason that would allow a tenant to be entitled to compensation if that damage was caused by game. Under the 1991 act, fixed equipment includes

“all permanent buildings ... all permanent fences ... all ditches, open drains ... farm access or service roads”

and so on. It is not possible for game to damage farm buildings, ditches, drains or service roads. Therefore, the definition needs to be narrowed to make it more appropriate for the possibility of damage caused by game.

Amendment 295 is a probing amendment on the utilisation of the broad and overreaching definition of “habitat”. The bill as drafted also includes “damage to habitats” as a reason why a tenant would be entitled to compensation if that damage is caused by game. Given the scale and complexity of habitats, it could be argued that increased biodiversity, such as more ground-nesting birds, that is caused by effective game and conservation management could cause game damage. For example, cover crops that are planted for game birds could encourage more other birds and mammals. Therefore, the amendment seeks to delete “damage to habitats” from the reasons for entitlement to compensation, and I look forward to the cabinet secretary’s explanation for its inclusion in the bill. Similarly, amendment 296 seeks to delete

“trees forming part of a shelterbelt”

from the definition of trees. That is to avoid the duplication of references to shelterbelts, which are included in the definition of fixed equipment.

Turning to other amendments in the group, I will not be able to support Emma Harper’s amendments 518 and 519, as I think that, rather than using a process of arbitration, the power to determine questions such as tenants’ entitlement to compensation should remain with the Scottish Land Court. However, I am keen to listen to Emma Harper’s reasoning.

I move amendment 290.

Sorry, yes—it is in front of me.

Amendments 219 and 220 not moved.

Amendment 221 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 222 not moved.

Amendments 511, 498, 499, 512 and 500 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9—Extension of Tenant Farming Commissioner’s functions