Chamber and committees

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Amendment 290, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

Sections 20 to 22 agreed to.

Section 23—Rent review: 1991 Act tenancies

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.

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.

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 amendment 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.