Seòmar agus comataidhean

This group relates to the pre-emptive right-to-buy process for small landholders and 1991 act tenant farmers. The changes align the processes for those forms of tenure and make related amendments.

Amendment 225 modifies the right-to-buy measures for secure 1991 act agricultural tenancies and enables a tenant to exercise their right to buy when a landlord takes certain steps with a view to transferring the land and then fails to notify the tenant. The amendment clarifies when the tenant can exercise their right in those circumstances and aligns the position for tenant farmers with the small landholding provisions. The amendment also enables the Scottish ministers to make regulations for the timescales in which a tenant will be required to notify their landlord that they intend to buy the land. Those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendments 221 and 309 provide for equivalent regulation-making powers in respect of small landholding provisions. Amendment 228 is related to amendment 225 and clarifies the date on which the land is valued in those circumstances. It also makes minor technical changes.

Amendments 224 and 229 make minor and technical changes to the right-to-buy measures for secure 1991 act agricultural tenancies, including the timescales in which an owner must send a copy of the extract of the tenant’s registration of interest to a creditor and any standard security.

Amendment 497 relates to small landholdings and makes a consequential change following on from amendment 488, in the group on small landholdings, which provides that the schedule does not apply to sub-leases. Amendment 497 removes the reference to excluding sub-tenants in the schedule, because it is redundant following the committee’s agreement to amendment 488.

I turn to Tim Eagle’s amendments 222 and 226, which seek to limit the powers in the bill for the Scottish ministers to make regulations for how small landowners and tenants can register their interest in acquiring the land comprised in their tenancy. We consider that the process of registering an interest in land should not be unduly burdensome and should enable transparency for parties who transact with the land. We consider that that is best achieved by working in partnership with stakeholders and Registers of Scotland to develop an improved registration process, and there is support for that from stakeholders more widely.

Amendments 222 and 226 would restrict the ability of the Scottish ministers to develop regulations in a way that meets stakeholders’ needs. The powers in the bill as currently drafted will enable ministers to give effect to an appropriate co-developed process, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 218, from Tim Eagle, seeks to limit the ability of the Scottish ministers to update the list of exempt transfers that do not trigger the small landholders’ right to buy, and would require that the list could only be expanded. The power in the bill allows ministers to take into account how the measures are operating in practice—if ministers could only add transfers to the exempt list, that would limit their flexibility to respond to any changing circumstances in the future and to make changes quickly. The power to change the exempt transfer list needs to be sufficiently wide to enable the removal or modification of any transfer on the exempt list in order to ensure that the process operates in a fair and transparent manner. I ask the committee not to support that amendment.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 227 would require ministers to consult

“organisations with an interest in agricultural holdings”

before exercising the power to make regulations regarding the registration of a tenant’s interest under the 1991 act. The power already requires ministers to consult the keeper and the other persons who are

“likely to have an interest in the registration of interests to acquire land.”

Therefore, the consultation would already take place.

Although I do not think that it is necessary, and its wording is not quite right, I am happy to work with Tim Eagle on amendment 227 in advance of stage 3 and I ask that he does not move it today.

I move amendment 497.

First, I will set out that, in November last year, we published our “Natural Capital Market Framework”, which provides the ethical framework that Rachael Hamilton is looking to establish. It sets out our six principles of responsible investment in natural capital, with actions to support their delivery. On that basis, I do not support amendment 478. However, if Rachael Hamilton would like to raise directly with me specific circumstances or issues in relation to the matters that she has spoken about tonight—whether those matters relate to my portfolio or to my colleagues’ portfolios—I will be happy to look into those further.

I fully appreciate that, and I am happy to engage with Ariane Burgess on the matter as we move forward and look to work up the model lease, because that is where we could have those conversations.

When we consider the public estate, we should have a presumption of supporting those model leases as well as the creation of small landholdings. The provisions support generational renewal for rural communities; they also support new entrants, and they allow land to be more actively managed in order to meet some of the challenges that we currently face.

While I appreciate the issues the Ariane Burgess is trying to address with her amendment 380, I ask that, on the basis that I have outlined, she does not move it, so that we can take a longer look at some of the issues that she has raised.

That is where those amendments are important. To me, they address exactly that point by bringing the legislation into one place, to consolidate it and modernise it rather than keeping the redundant provisions. I do not agree that we discounted the views of small landholders on the issue, because, ultimately, what we are doing with this set of amendments, and with our amendments in later groups, is aligning all the provisions with the small landholdings and agricultural holdings provisions. I believe that that addresses the points that you raise.

Amendments 508A and 508B, in the name of Tim Eagle, seek to amend those changes to remove indirect damage from the type of game damage that the small landholder is entitled to be compensated for where damage has been caused by game or game management. That would result in the small landholder being entitled to be compensated only for direct damage. We have heard from stakeholders about the significant losses that can be incurred as a result of indirect damage to holdings and that it is important that small landholders and tenants are fairly compensated. That is why I would ask members not to support amendments 508A and 508B.

A fair compensation process that accounts for the damage caused by inadequate game management is needed. There is already extensive guidance that parties and the court can have regard to, including Animal Health and Plant Agency guidance, guidance for the shooting industry on reducing avian influenza disease risk, Scottish Government guidance on the declaration of an avian influenza prevention zone, and the shooting industry’s standing advice on bird flu and game birds. As I have done for tenant farmers and their landlords, I intend to ensure that training on assessing game damage will be made available to small landholders and their landlords in advance of game damage provisions coming into force.

Amendment 510 consolidates and modernises the provisions for small landholders’ security of tenure and the grounds on which they can be removed from the holding. Amendments 506 and 513 concern the parliamentary procedure for regulations that are made under the powers that are provided for in other amendments in the group. Amendment 506 provides that the regulations that are created under amendment 488, which enable the Scottish ministers to vary the upper size threshold for a small landholding or the land that can be taken into account in calculating the size of a holding, are to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 513 provides that regulations that are made under the compensation for game damage provisions are to be subject to the negative procedure, which is consistent with the equivalent powers for agricultural holdings in section 20.

Amendment 216, in the name of Tim Eagle, relates to the ability of the Scottish ministers to specify by regulations the basis on which a valuer is to assess the compensation payable to a small landholder. The bill simply provides a mechanism for future flexibility, if required, and it sets out that changes would be made by regulations. The amendment would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations for every valuation, even if they were not considered necessary, which I do not think is proportionate for either party. That is why I do not support amendment 216.

Amendment 499 restates an existing provision that limits the ability of parties to contract out of the rights of small landholders under the schedule. Amendment 511 repeals redundant sections of the landholders acts and sets out which areas will continue to apply to small landholdings. Amendments 500, 509 and 512 change various definitions in the schedule, including those of small landholding and cultivation. The other amendments in the group—amendments 509, 512, 491 to 496 and 498—make consequential or minor changes to the terminology used in order to reflect the changes provided for in the other amendments in the group. Combined, the changes have the potential to reinvigorate the small landholding sector and breathe new life into smaller areas that are suitable for new entrants to access. I ask members to support my amendments.

I see that the convener is making eyes at me, as if he wants to intervene.

The key thing that we have been trying to do with the small landholding legislation is consolidate it, modernise it and repeal the redundant provisions rather than introduce anything particularly new. However, it is also important to set out that the amendments that we are introducing remove the need for the register of small landholdings, too.

You will be pleased to know that you were not far off; we believe that there are about 51 to 59 small landholdings, so you were nearly there.

I appreciate the intent of what Rhoda Grant is trying to achieve through amendment 381, which Mercedes Villalba has spoken to, because crofts and small landholdings are key parts of the mix of tenures that we need in Scotland.

However, I cannot support the amendment as it is set out today, because there are a number of issues with it. The scope of the amendment is wide and it would apply to all land and all transfers. We also run into difficulty whenever we mandate that somebody must do something with their land or property. Instead, there should be a focus on the Crofting Commission prioritising bringing all current neglected crofts back into active use and for more active use of common grazings.

It is vital that croft land serves crofting communities well, because that is key to ensuring that we have a vibrant future for crofting. Provided that land is situated in the crofting counties, or in the designated areas, a landowner can apply to the Crofting Commission to have that land or part of it constituted as a croft. That is an existing and better solution to the same issue.

In the next group, we will consider amendments on the modernisation of the small landholdings legislation, which would include the creation of new small landholding tenancies. We should give those reforms time to have effect before adding new requirements, particularly such broad ones, because the reforms that we are introducing will help to address the issue with new entrants outwith the crofting areas and ensure that the legal framework that we have is more accessible and fit for the 21st century.

For those reasons, I ask members not to support the amendments.

I turn first to the amendments that were lodged by Tim Eagle. Amendment 183 would mean that, for the purposes of the model lease, land would not be used for an environmental purpose if it was used in a way that contributed towards increasing or sustaining biodiversity. Amendment 487, as Tim Eagle outlined, would simply remove section 7 in its entirety, including the requirement for Scottish ministers to publish a model lease for the use of land for environmental purposes.

I think that it would be a backward step if both those amendments were accepted. It is recognised that we all need to do more in tackling the climate and nature crises. Stakeholders have called for the provisions in section 7 as a means of management that would help community groups looking at managing woodland, for example, or help environmental organisations.

With regard to some of the points that have been raised this evening, there would be wide engagement and consultation on the model lease. That would be vitally important to the work that we take forward—

That could well be right, but I would want to double check and clarify that before I came back to you, convener. In any case, I ask members not to support Mr Lumsden’s amendments for the reasons that I have set out.

Turning to Ben Macpherson’s comments on compulsory sale orders, I absolutely appreciate the points that he and you, convener, have made in relation to urban land reform more generally. However, the measures in the bill are based largely on the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendations and work, which identified that the most pressing issues at the time were in relation to rural areas. That is why we have introduced those measures. However, as Ben Macpherson has suggested, a range of other work is on-going that I feel could help to address some of those issues, and the bill would not necessarily be the mechanism to do that.

With regard to Mr Macpherson’s amendment 471, he outlined the progress of a similar amendment that was lodged to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, in respect of which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice announced that the Government would consult on compulsory sale and lease powers before the end of this parliamentary session. I realise that that might now fall within the remit of the new Cabinet Secretary for Housing, but I will be sure to follow up with her on that and ensure that we see progress in that respect.

The amendments that I have lodged in the group mirror those in other sections that we have already largely debated, but I will speak about a few amendments in the group. Amendments 141, 143 and 146 seek to strengthen the definition of a composite holding. Amendments 142, 144 and 148 would resolve cross-referencing errors that were identified in the provisions following their introduction. Amendment 147 is similar to amendments 49 and 127, as debated in groups 3 and 10, and would allow for non-contiguous areas of land to form a holding, provided that they are within 250 metres of each other. I ask the committee to support those amendments.

I hope that we can have further conversations about the amendments that Mark Ruskell has lodged. We have already debated the substance of his amendments in previous groups. The same applies to Tim Eagle’s amendments. Tim Eagle asked for clarification on the issues raised by amendment 426. I appreciate his intentions, but I think that the amendment as drafted would have the opposite effect and would mean that we would never be able to transfer part of a lot. It is important to highlight that element. Tim Eagle suggested that “composite” would apply to other parcels of land across Scotland, which is not the case, because of the measures that we have introduced and how we have defined that in the bill.

We have debated the substance of Ariane Burgess’s and Mercedes Villalba’s amendments, so I do not intend to rehearse those discussions, but I oppose the amendments.

I also ask Michael Matheson not to move his amendments in the group.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 429 would run counter to my amendment 147, so I again recommend that it is opposed.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 432 would exempt land that is owned by Scottish ministers from the transfer test provisions. I am interested to hear more about the rationale behind that amendment but, as the largest landholder in Scotland, the public sector has a duty to lead by example. That is why I recommend that the amendment is opposed.

Thank you very much, convener. I will try my best to work through the many issues that we have to cover.

Ultimately—and as you have outlined, convener—all the amendments that have been discussed propose many complex changes that need to be properly considered as well as consulted on. Normally, any changes to devolved taxes that we make are taken forward in tax-specific legislation; a consultation with taxpayers and stakeholders will then take place, in line with the framework that we have established for tax principles and our tax strategy; and, ultimately, the matter would be considered by the Finance and Public Administration Committee in the same way that tax-related measures are usually considered.

Inserting amendments in this way into the bill and potentially agreeing them could lead to unintended consequences if that work has not been undertaken. It is for that reason that, broadly speaking, I do not support these amendments.

I will now touch on some of my key concerns with this particular group. Accepting Rhoda Grant’s amendments, which Mercedes Villalba has spoken to, and which Ross Greer has talked about in relation to land and buildings transaction tax, would not allow for a full assessment of the policy impacts, the external consultation that we would need to undertake or the kind of partnership working with Revenue Scotland that would be essential to ensure effective administration and compliance.

Ross Greer made a general point about lodging the amendments, saying that, sometimes, there can be a frustration that many commitments are made and the work behind the scenes is either not necessarily seen or not seen to be progressing in a way that people would like. However, I would point out that, in respect of some of today’s amendments, a wide-ranging review of LBTT is already under way. The proposals that have been made in relation to that are best considered through that review and in the context of wider changes that might be made to community right to buy as a result of the review that is on-going on that matter. For those reasons, I ask Mercedes Villalba and Ross Greer not to press or move those particular amendments.

As for Ross Greer’s other amendments in the group—amendments 479 and 480—we are, as the member will no doubt be aware, and as I think he has already set out, already committed to exploring whether any shooting estates are in receipt of the small business bonus scheme, as requested, and whether that could be removed without risking a negative impact on small businesses. His amendments would prejudge any of the work happening in that space.

Again, I hark back to my earlier point about unintended consequences, particularly with regard to properties where no shooting takes place and which might therefore be eligible for local empty property relief.