Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Agenda item 2 concerns stage 2 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill. Although the committee will not begin stage 2 of the bill until next week, under rule 9.7.4, the committee must decide the order in which the bill will be considered, unless the Parliament has decided the order. The motion in the name of Ross Finnie suggests an order of consideration. I invite the minister to move the motion formally and to make any introductory comments that he wishes to make.
I appreciate that this procedure is a little unusual. I certainly do not want to suggest that I am trying to tell the committee how to run its business; I merely crave the committee's indulgence in trying to make what I hope, after hearing me, the committee might regard as a helpful and constructive suggestion.
I propose that the committee considers the bill according to the sequence of the bill in most respects, except to move back consideration of part 2, on the right to buy, and the anti-avoidance provisions concerning the use of partnerships in part 6.
I make that constructive suggestion for the following reason. At stage 1, the committee deliberated on whether it should consider what action the Executive proposed to take in response to concerns recently expressed by tenants. Those concerns involved matters such as compensation to tenants at waygo and other issues, which are all contained in paragraphs 76 and 77 of the committee's excellent stage 1 report. I had already undertaken to consider those issues, which appear in part 2 of the bill. If the committee were to move consideration of part 2 towards the end of its consideration of the bill, that would enable the committee to consider my amendments.
The stage 1 report specifically asked me to lodge those amendments as quickly as possible. I regret that I have not been able to finalise them yet. My department has met relevant persons in groups representing those with a right to buy, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Following those meetings, considerable progress has been made not just on the detail of the drafting but on addressing the points that are summarised in paragraphs 76 and 77 of the committee's stage 1 report. I hope to be able to meet the committee's requirement to lodge amendments in that regard very shortly.
Part 6 of the bill contains the anti-avoidance provisions in relation to partnerships. The major outstanding issue concerns whether general partners within limited partnerships who are the legal tenant under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 should be eligible to exercise the right to buy. Again, I seek the committee's indulgence in moving back consideration of that issue, because we are still awaiting final detailed legal advice on the issues relating to a possible extension of the right to buy to include general partners within limited partnerships. That could fundamentally affect my decision on how to proceed, and it would greatly assist me to have just a little additional time to deal with those issues before coming before the committee.
The committee could consider both aspects in a perhaps more informed way if it had the benefit of my being able to have some additional time. Given the nature of the bill, I appreciate that such jumping about is awkward, but I hope that such an arrangement would allow me more properly to meet the requirements that were set out in paragraphs 76, 77 and 43 of the committee's report. If the committee were to agree to such a reordering, I would certainly undertake to submit suitable amendments in time for the committee to give them its full consideration.
I move,
That the Rural Development Committee considers the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill at Stage 2 in the following order: Part 1, Parts 3 to 5, Part 7, Part 6, Part 2, Part 8, the schedule.
I thank the minister for that. I should have declared my interest as a limited partner in an existing partnership agreement. Despite that interest, I am sympathetic to the reasons that the minister has given for the suggested order of consideration. My view is that the minister has asked for time to consider the serious concerns that the committee has raised, and it would be churlish of us to rush into anything when the minister is still in consultation with stakeholder groups from the industry. If agreement can be reached on matters, they will be looked upon considerably more favourably than might otherwise be the case.
I share that view. However, I want to know how soon we will be able to see the Executive amendments, which we will obviously need time to consider. Our report had some sympathy with the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group, but we held back from making a decision on the issue until we saw the Executive amendments. It would be helpful to see the Executive amendments soon, so that we can see whether they meet the needs of that group.
I am cognisant of the need for me to produce the amendments. Obviously, I am already over the time that was laid down in the committee's report. As the convener mentioned, in addition to trying to ensure that the wording of the amendments is legally correct, we have sought to draft the amendments in such a way as to achieve a consensus among the several interests that we originally consulted. That has added just a day or two. David Milne might have a rough idea of when we will be able to lodge the amendments, but we will do so as soon as possible.
I understand the situation. I am asking the committee to grant me time, so, in good faith, I must allow the committee to have adequate time for an informed discussion before it comes to a conclusion on those two important parts of the bill. I appreciate that the committee must have time to debate them, and that it is also very much in my interest to lodge the amendments as quickly as I can.
David Milne (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
The various industry groups are due to meet again tomorrow. At this stage, we cannot suggest that they will reach agreement among themselves tomorrow, but should there be agreement in principle, and a need for just a little more time to work out the legal issues, we could perhaps advise the committee at least of the policy intention.
We hope that the Christmas break has had a consensual impact on the parties.
I would not want to do anything to disturb that. As I made clear at the end of my speech in the stage 1 debate—from which the minister was, sadly, absent, for obvious reasons—anything that can be achieved by consensus should be welcomed. I remain of that opinion. If a little more time is required to reach that consensus, as convener of the committee, I would not want to stand in the way of that happening. However, I accept Rhoda Grant's point that, the sooner we can be informed, the better the input that we can make to the process.
If no other member wishes to comment, can I take it that the motion is agreed to?
Motion agreed to.
That the Rural Development Committee considers the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill at Stage 2 in the following order: Part 1, Parts 3 to 5, Part 7, Part 6, Part 2, Part 8, the schedule.
I apologise to David Milne for not welcoming him to the committee. It is nice to have him here, even if it is for a brief time. I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance and wish them a good afternoon.
I remind members that the deadline for lodging amendments for the first marshalled list, which will deal with parts 1 and 3 of the bill, is 2 o'clock on Friday 10 January. Currently, no amendments have been lodged.
We previously agreed to take item 3 in private, so I instruct the room to be cleared.
Meeting continued in private until 16:56.