Seòmar agus comataidhean

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 1.

The majority of committee members are content.

I suggest that we write to the cabinet secretary to indicate our views and concerns. We should say that the result of the conversation is that we think that there would be merit in the cabinet secretary considering limits on POPs, reviewing that matter and keeping the committee up to date. This was only mentioned once, but I wonder whether we would support a short-life industry working group to look at the issue to further inform our opinion. That might be a useful way to enable further scrutiny. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Jeremy Moody eloquently made that point previously and I have noted it. I am short of time, so I will move to Mark Ruskell.

We turn to agenda item 2, which is our fourth evidence session on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Our focus today is on part 2 of the bill, “Leasing Land”.

I am pleased to welcome Gemma Cooper, the head of policy of NFU Scotland; Christopher Nicholson, the chairman of the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association; Jackie McCreery, the legal adviser for Scottish Land & Estates; Mhairi Robertson, the land manager and chartered surveyor with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; and Jeremy Moody, the secretary and adviser for the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers. Good morning to you all.

A heap of questions will come your way this morning, so I will open with a simple yes or no question. [Interruption.] Before I do that—thank you for reminding me—I have to declare my interests, as I do every time. I have an interest in a farming partnership in Moray, as set out in the register of members’ interests. Specifically, I declare an interest as an owner of approximately 500 acres of farmed land, of which approximately 50 acres is woodland. I also declare that I am a tenant of approximately 500 acres in Moray under a non-agricultural tenancy and I have another farming tenancy for about 20 acres under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I should also declare that occasionally, if I can, I take on annual grass lets.

We have allowed about 90 minutes for this session and we will see how we go. I will go to my easy yes or no question, after the interesting session that we had at the Royal Highland Show on Friday. Will part 2 of the bill create more agricultural tenants in Scotland? You can give a yes/no or a simple sentence.

When writing the letter, are we happy to say to the Government that we would like reviews to be carried out and for there to be a simplified process, should we be asked to look at the matter again, so that we understand what the species are and what reviews have been carried out to determine that it is acceptable to de-list them from the invasive non-native species legislation?

Thank you. I was trying to find the list of things that are allowed. I seem to remember that when I read the bill, osier beds were in there somewhere. I did not quite understand how you would value that diversification.

The perspective that deer come from the landlord’s holding is very narrow. I think of the number of times that I have seen big herds of deer move a long way to eat rape. If 100 deer are in a rape field at night and have come out of adjacent land, under the bill it would fall to the landlord to compensate for that and to take responsibility for the fixed equipment that was damaged. I am thinking of fences that may be knocked over in the process, although a march fence, as I am sure that Jeremy will confirm, is a joint responsibility between the landowners of the two sides of the holding.

I see the principle of what you are saying if it is just an oasis or an island where the landlord—no one owns wild animals—owns the responsibility for controlling the deer and has the ability to do it, but just as the tenant could not go into neighbouring forestry, nor could the landlord if they do not own it. Jeremy, do you want to comment on that?

Sorry to interrupt. Most farmers will be submitting claims every year and they will be using a field identification system as laid out by the Government. I know from experience that somebody has walked around probably with a satellite dish to make sure that the cropping is exactly as per the holding. Is that not definitive mapping?

It is a difficult one. Christopher, do you want to add something?

Okay. Residual manual values, unexpired manual values and all the rest of that can wait until the day, but fixed equipment valuations can start earlier. That is helpful.

I will move straight to Sarah Boyack.

I have a question on the period of time after the end of the tenancy. Jeremy, you mentioned Martinmas. It might be that the hefted flock to the hill are being bought at that stage but the tup has only just gone in. If you set the date before or too shortly afterwards, you will have no idea what you are buying, as well as the crop. Is two months too tight? Where do you strike the balance?