Seòmar agus comataidhean

If no other member wishes to speak on this group, I will say a couple of things before I invite the cabinet secretary to come in. When we considered the bill at stage 1, the issue of game damage was discussed. There was some evidence of game damage being a problem, but the majority of people from whom we heard evidence suggested that it was not.

My problem, when we have considered the issue, has always been with the inclusion of fixed equipment, buildings and fences. I am not sure how one attributes damage to fences to game management. For example, if deer are crossing a boundary fence where there is a tenancy, it usually falls to the landlord to maintain it, so it is a responsibility of the landlord anyway. Under convention, there is a 50-50 split between the two landowners on either side of the fence. That is the way that things have always been done, to my knowledge.

Internal fences then become the issue. My struggle with the proposal is this: if deer are moving, for example, over a boundary fence from land owned by Forestry and Land Scotland and then trash an internal fence, I have a problem understanding why the landlord of the holding is responsible when there has clearly been a failure on the part of the neighbour to manage the deer within their holdings. I struggle with that.

I also struggle when it comes down to the definition of ditches. In my career I have seen very little damage to ditches due to game. I have seen more damage due to beavers, in the short time they have been moving all the way round Scotland, than due to pheasants or deer.

Turning to another issue, I am not sure that I fully understand the reasons for removing game management purely on the principle of it. Perhaps that proves that the committee does not necessarily divide along party lines, and that we are instead examining issues individually with regard to their importance, which I think that we have done throughout stage 2. I will leave that observation for those who have commented otherwise in the press.

There will be a division.

For

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)

Against

Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 275 agreed to.

Amendment 276 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

Amendment 276A moved—[Tim Eagle].

The question is, that amendment 276A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Sorry—I should say that we will come to you now, cabinet secretary. You are quick off the blocks.

Yes. I was wondering if you were going to answer the question about compensation being sought from a landlord in relation to deer that are moving from somebody else’s holding in the middle of the night, say, and then moving back to that other person’s holding before daybreak. I do not understand how the landlord can be held responsible for that if they are not in a position to control the deer. I do not suppose that the cabinet secretary is expecting landlords to sit up all night waiting for deer to cross into their land and damage their crop, when it should be the person whose land the deer have come from who should be controlling them.

As no other member wishes to speak, I will say a few words, if I may. I find this really difficult because, during the evidence session, we heard that there has been a definite slowdown in the tenanted farming sector as a result of previous changes to legislation under which contracts had been entered into and agreed by both parties. I believe that we need a thriving and stable tenanted sector for Scotland’s rural economy to survive; we do not need to see it reducing in size. Amending provisions that were agreed in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 and the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 will just exaggerate the problem of the decline in the tenanted sector. I also take the view that if the tenant farming commissioner or his predecessor—both of whom I have huge respect for and have worked with during their time in office—have made a recommendation, it is dangerous to go against them, given that their view is probably based on experience.

In my experience, resumption of parts of farmland either for the landlord or to give bits up—as I have done myself—usually involves a conversation around the kitchen table and is done amicably until an agreement is thrashed out. My problem with the amendments that are being made to both the 1991 act and the 2003 act is that they make the situation open-ended. I totally agree that the multipliers of one times the rent for disturbance and four times the rent for reorganization are completely overtaken by events, because costs have risen. That is why I tried to push for a multiplier of 15 in order to give a clear signal to both parties. If the rent on a bit of land was £1,000, a tenant in the old days would get just a £5,000 payment, whereas, under the system that I was proposing, they would get a £15,000 payment. That would be a significant uplift, which, to me, reflects the cost.

To be honest, I am also disappointed that, although I thought that one had been reached, we do not seem to have any agreement on this between tenants and landlords. The very fact that they have not agreed means that we are in a situation where neither side can work out what is best for the tenanted farming sector. What is clear is that where we are is not suitable and will cause a further reduction in tenanted farms. For that reason, I make it entirely clear that, until agreement is reached between the parties, I will vote against any amendment on this matter that I see before me at this stage, and I encourage members to vote against it, too.

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 278 agreed to.

Amendment 279 agreed to.

Amendment 280 moved—[Tim Eagle].

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 240 disagreed to.

Amendments 241 to 245 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

In relation to which amendments, Mr Lumsden?