Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill. For the first part of the stage 3 proceedings, members should have a copy of SP bill 62A, as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list and the groupings. Members should also have a separate sheet containing a manuscript amendment in the name of Fergus Ewing, which was distributed with the groupings. Additional copies are available from the reference point at the rear of the chamber.
I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the division following the debate on the first group of amendments. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate on a group. All other divisions will be of 30 seconds duration.
Section 1—Application of the 1991 Act
to agricultural holdings
Group 1 amendments concern the application of Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. Amendment 43 is grouped with amendment 44.
I have not lodged some 25 amendments to the bill because I have developed a sudden, desperate political interest in agricultural holdings. That said, I had some experience in the field of agricultural leases in my time as a solicitor. All my amendments originated from the Law Society of Scotland. In most cases they were lodged to seek clarification of and, in some cases, improvement to the bill. I declare an interest as a member of the Law Society of Scotland and as a solicitor, albeit that I am not currently practising. If the Executive can answer some of the concerns that the Law Society has expressed, I may not need to press some of the amendments.
Amendment 43 seeks to preserve the status of section 2 leases that were current at the commencement of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. The intention behind the amendment is to provide a transition period for leases of less than a year to a year that were entered into under section 2 of the 1991 act. This is a saving provision, as it is not clear from the wording of section 1(3) what will happen to such leases that are extant at the date on which the bill comes into law. If the minister can answer that point it may not be necessary to press amendment 43.
My colleague Alex Fergusson wishes to address amendment 44.
I move amendment 43.
The Executive understands the intention behind amendment 43. I wish to assure Murdo Fraser that the policy is for existing section 2 lets to be allowed to continue until the end of their current term. In the context of the bill as drafted, we believe that we should rely on the general interpretative provisions to that end. Amendment 43 is not consistent with other provisions of the bill. We do not make savings elsewhere in instances when we repeal provisions. I am grateful to Murdo Fraser for raising the point, but with the assurance that I have just given, I hope that he will withdraw amendment 43.
Amendment 44 is a consequential, technical amendment. I hope that it will not cause difficulties.
I declare an interest, which declaration I hope will see me through the rest of the day. I am involved in a limited partnership in a hill farm in south Ayrshire.
Does the minister intend that all the provisions relating to the 1991 act that are covered by amendment 44 should apply not only to secure tenancies, but to any other form of tenancy under the 1991 act? I think that I am right in saying that the implication of the amendment is that the provisions would apply to grass parks. Murdo Fraser and the minister have referred to section 2 leases, but I think that the minister will find that grass parks and other arrangements are also affected.
I find it hard to believe, and I know that most people in the industry find it impossible to believe that the Executive's intention is to extend the provisions of the bill to grass parks. I welcome his clarification of the issue. If I do not get it, I will have to oppose amendment 44.
I must confess that I am not aware that amendment 44 has that ramification. I do not believe that that is the case, but this is the first time that the matter has been raised.
I should say that it was not my own tactical brilliance that led me to the discovery. The matter was brought to my attention by one of the major stakeholders with whom the Executive has worked over the past months.
My interpretation of the provision is that it applies to the principal tenancy and not to lets subsequent to it. If that is the case, we are not talking about grass lets. I do not believe that the provision applies to those lets.
I would like to be able to take the minister's word on that, but I find it slightly worrying that we have such a prolonged, pregnant pause at this stage. I have to ask whether that is not a consequence of the somewhat belated amendments that the Executive lodged last Friday, to which Fergus Ewing drew the chamber's attention. I am afraid that the uncertainty surrounding the provisions of amendment 44 means that I will have to oppose the amendment.
I am not sure whether you want a further cut, Mr Finnie.
I apologise. The point that Mr Fergusson made is technical and I do not think that in any way it casts doubt on amendment 44. As Mr Fergusson very kindly admitted, the point was not immediately apparent to him. Amendment 44 seeks to amend section 1(4)(a) of the bill, by inserting a reference to tenancies under the 1991 act. Because the amendment refers only to subsection (a), that excludes the point that Mr Fergusson made. It is clear that amendment 44 does not apply to grass lets.
Amendment 43, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 44 moved—[Ross Finnie].
The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 75, Against 11, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 44 agreed to.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There seems to be a problem with the temporary cards. I have been trying dutifully to vote, but my vote has not been registering. I wonder whether some inquiries can be made into the matter.
Yes, of course. You have made the point on the record and, in the meantime, we will look at your card.
Section 2—Conversion from 1991 Act tenancy to limited duration tenancy
Amendment 4 is grouped with amendments 45, 5 and 46 to 48. I must point out that if amendment 4 is agreed to, amendment 45 is pre-empted.
Amendment 4 seeks to clarify the provisions in section 2(1). As drafted, the wording of that subsection seems to imply that the landlord and tenant cannot, by agreement, bring to an end a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 unless they enter into a 25-year limited duration tenancy. However, at the moment, tenancies are often terminated by agreement without notice being given. Amendment 4 seeks to enable 1991 act tenancies to continue to be terminated without the landlord and tenant having to enter into a fresh lease.
I move amendment 4.
What I am about to say will—[Interruption.]
I should say to the chamber that we are considering a bill this morning. A lot of chuntering and private conversations are going on. I would be so grateful if members who wished to engage in such activities would do so outside.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. We are about to discuss and debate some very complex and technical matters, and a degree of silence in the chamber would be useful in that regard.
I want to preface my remarks by pointing out that my colleague Ross Finnie and I will be saying consistently that, after further consultation with the industry since stage 2, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group have argued that it remains too easy for an unscrupulous landlord to attempt to coerce a tenant into agreeing to convert a 1991 act tenancy into an LDT. That is despite the fact that the minimum term of a new LDT created in such a way is 25 years, instead of the usual 15 years. I should also make it clear that that industry consultation took place before the Executive amendments were lodged, which partly explains the earlier comments on that matter.
Amendments 45 and 46 reflect a suggestion by tenants groups that a cooling-off period should be introduced to offer greater protection for 1991 act tenants who agree to convert their tenancy into an LDT. As a result, the amendments introduce a period of 30 days after a conversion agreement has been entered into for the parties to withdraw without penalty. Although that right will apply to both parties, we expect that it will be particularly helpful for tenants.
Although amendment 5, in the name of Fergus Ewing, is similar in scope, it seeks to provide for an extended three-month cooling-off period. I should point out that the 30-day period reflects a time frame that the STFAG suggested to our officials. It also compares favourably with cooling-off periods in other circumstances. For example, where a person signs a regulated consumer credit contract in their own home, the cooling-off period ends five days after they receive a notice of their cancellation rights. Furthermore, where a person signs a timeshare agreement in this country, there is a 14-day cooling-off period during which the debtor can cancel the contract and any related credit agreement. As a result, I ask Fergus Ewing to give way in favour of amendment 45.
Amendment 47 seeks to build on section 2(3), which entitles the tenant to compensation at waygo for improvements. The amendment seeks to ensure that any such compensation that the tenant receives at that time can include compensation for improvements that arise out of non-agricultural activities. Amendment 48 is simply a technical adjustment.
Amendment 4 seeks to clarify that section 2(2) must be followed where a 1991 act tenancy is converted into a 25-year LDT. However, we cannot support it as it would conflict with amendment 45, which is more substantive and better fits the bill. As a result, I ask Murdo Fraser to withdraw amendment 4 in favour of amendment 45.
I should begin by declaring a potential interest as a member of the Law Society of Scotland. However, I never quite had the courage to practise in the area of agricultural holdings law because, as the minister has pointed out, it is one of huge technical difficulty. I am sure that members will understand my approach in that regard.
In amendment 45, the minister has proposed a cooling-off provision that differs from the provision in my amendment only in the length of time involved. I lodged amendment 5 because last week I was unsure whether the Executive was going to lodge such an amendment, although I had understood that it would do so. I am happy not to move amendment 5 and will support the Executive amendments in this regard.
Throughout today's proceedings, the SNP will argue that tenants have had a poor deal over the past period and that they should have a better deal. Our approach is to ensure that that happens, which is why we will oppose the Conservatives' amendment 4. Such a pattern might well emerge throughout the day.
I should begin by declaring an interest. My family have been tenants on the Bute estate on the isle of Bute for 230 years.
I support amendments 45 and 47, because I believe that a cooling-off period is vital. Over the past 20 years, a number of tenants—almost 30 per cent on our estate—have converted from full-blown tenancies to partnership agreements. I am not sure that many tenants realised what they were signing away. As a result, it is essential that tenants have a cooling-off period to allow them to reflect on the matter and to give them a chance to withdraw.
We also need as much information as possible to go out to both sides of the arrangements—to tenants and landlords—to make it clear what the bill's provisions will mean in practice. On too many occasions in the past, tenants have signed away their rights under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 without knowing what they were doing. They need better information about their rights, particularly those that they will have under the bill, which will strengthen the tenants' side of the argument.
Amendment 47 is also an excellent amendment, which would ensure proper compensation if tenants invest in diversification projects. Amendment 47 is welcome, and my party and I support it.
I thank Fergus Ewing for withdrawing amendment 5 because that saves me from speaking against it. That trend will become more apparent, because of my reaction to his amendments, as the debate goes on.
We welcome amendments 45 and 46 and the proposed provision of a cooling-off period. We will welcome almost all the measures that were proposed by the cross-industry stakeholders group, which worked so hard during the bill's earlier stages.
I do not know whether you want another cut, Mr Wilson.
I do not want to interfere in the private squabbles of the Opposition parties.
In that case, I ask Mr Fraser whether he is pressing his amendment 45.
I was a bit confused by Fergus Ewing's approach because it seems to me that amendment 4 is purely technical and would make no policy difference or provide any advantage to landlord or tenant. I cannot understand why Fergus Ewing opposes amendment 4.
The minister said, if I remember correctly, that my amendment 4 addressed a legitimate point but, because it conflicted with the wording of Executive amendment 45, the Executive would not support amendment 4. I ask the minister, in all seriousness, why on earth the Executive did not take any conflict into account when it lodged its own amendments, which were lodged subsequent to the amendments that I lodged. If there is a serious point to be addressed, it is a pity that the Executive did not take that conflict into account when it became apparent that the wording of my amendment 4 sought to cover the same points as are covered by amendment 45. The situation is rather unfortunate.
As I said, we think that our amendments 45 and 46 better reflect how we envisage the bill acting in concert with existing legislation. It is unclear how section 2 would work alongside—dare I say it—section 21 of the 1991 act, if amendment 4 were agreed to. That is why we ask Mr Fraser to withdraw amendment 4 in favour of Executive amendment 45.
I press amendment 4.
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 11, Against 77, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Amendment 45 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 5 not moved.
Amendments 46 to 48 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Assignation, subletting and termination of short limited duration tenancies
That takes us to group 3, which contains amendments to provisions for the assignation, subletting and termination of short limited duration and limited duration tenancies. Amendment 6 is grouped with amendments 7 and 8.
Amendment 6 would insert the phrase
"Unless otherwise agreed in writing,"
at the beginning of section 6(1). The effect would be to give landlord and tenant the freedom to contract out of the provisions in section 6, which I believe are too restrictive and for which flexibility should be provided. Amendment 6 would give flexibility to both parties to contract out of the statutory provision, if they so agree.
Amendment 7 would require the agreement between a landlord and a tenant to terminate a short limited duration tenancy on a date that is different from the originally agreed termination date to be "in writing", because a degree of formality is surely preferable. Putting the agreement to terminate in writing would provide clarity and certainty and would enable the easier resolution of any disputes that might arise.
Amendment 8 would ensure that a tenant must give a landlord at least 60 days' notice of any intention to assign a lease. The bill as drafted specifies no such notice period. A 60-day notice period is a practical time scale, which would allow for the 30 days in which the landlord is entitled to object under section 7(4) and for a further period that would allow any dispute to be resolved before a proposed assignation took place.
I move amendment 6.
As Murdo Fraser said, his amendment 6 would provide for a tenant in an SLDT to assign their interest or sublet the land, and his amendment 7 would require any termination to be in writing. I am reluctant to make changes at this stage on matters for which there has been no demand for change from the tenants and landlords who were involved in the inclusive process of developing the bill. I share Fergus Ewing's view that the thrust of the bill is to improve the balance between tenant and landlord. A feature of the NFU Scotland and Scottish Landowners Federation agreements was that SLDTs should not be assignable, and a tenant should not be able to sublet their interest in an SLDT. We have received no calls from the industry, including tenants, either against that proposal or in favour of the proposal that the termination of SLDTs be in writing. Accordingly, I cannot support amendments 6 and 7.
I am also not persuaded by the case for amendment 8, which is unnecessary because it does not affect the 30-day period that section 7(4) provides for a landlord to withhold consent to a proposed assignation. If a landlord does not respond within that time scale, either to withhold consent or to acquire the tenant's interest, there appears to be no point in delaying further the tenant's ability to assign. Crucially, I understand that we have received no expressions of concern—other than from the Law Society of Scotland—about either that issue or the grounds on which a landlord may withhold consent under section 7(3). If landlords are comfortable with the existing provisions, I can see no reason for extending them.
I oppose amendment 8 because Murdo Fraser seems to be slightly unbalanced—perhaps that is not so strange for him. However, amendment 8 would unbalance the bill. Murdo Fraser was happy with and did not oppose the 30-day notice period that amendment 45 proposes. As the minister said, a landlord will have 30 days in which to register his objection, so the proposed 60-day notice period is unnecessary and rather unbalanced.
I do not agree that there is a case for amendments 7 or 8. However, amendment 6, which is sponsored by the Law Society, raises a serious point to which there cannot be any possible objection: if both landlord and tenant agree, an SLDT should be capable of being assigned. Amendment 6 would create the facility for that to occur, but it could not occur without the agreement of both parties. For that reason, we support, on this occasion, the Law Society's amendment 6, which is in Murdo Fraser's name. However, I do not promise that we will break the trend too frequently during the debate.
I have nothing to add. The relevant sections were drafted as part of the NFUS-SLF agreement. The clear indication was that SLDTs should not be assignable and I am not persuaded that we have had evidence to back any proposed change at this stage.
I listened with interest to the minister's comments, on the basis of which I have decided not to press amendment 8. However, I believe that amendments 6 and 7 would provide some clarity in the law and, as it is the view of the Law Society that they would improve the bill, I intend to press them.
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 55, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 12, Against 73, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 disagreed to.
Section 7—Assignation and subletting of limited duration tenancies
Amendment 8 not moved.
Amendment 9 is grouped with amendments 10, 49, 11 and 12. If amendment 10 is agreed to, amendment 49 is pre-empted.
Amendments 9, 10 and 12 serve the same purpose. Section 7 provides for the assignation and subletting of limited duration tenancies and the amendments deal with the issue of the landlord's consent to any proposed assignation. It is important that, under the new vehicle of limited duration tenancies, tenants should have the freedom to assign their interests to another party. That is a freedom that is enjoyed, by and large, by commercial tenants of shops, offices and other commercial premises. The SNP simply believes that what is right for such businesses should also be right for the farming community and that we should not unduly constrain the tenant.
The effect of the amendments would be to ensure that the onus of proof in relation to the vital commercial issue of withholding consent to an assignation should plainly rest on the landlord and that the landlord should be in a position to thwart the assignation of the tenant's interest under a limited duration tenancy only if there is clear evidence for doing so.
Currently, the landlord can withhold consent if they are not satisfied on various issues. That is a subjective test. If the landlord declares that he is not satisfied, it is up to the tenant to demonstrate that the incoming tenant, or assignee, has the ability to pay the rent and maintain the land, and that they have the skills and experience required to maintain the land. I do not believe that the onus of proof should be on the tenant.
Furthermore, such issues can be used as negotiation tools in relation to other matters, and it would be wrong to give landlords that extra power. Equity demands that the tenant should have as wide a degree of freedom as possible in matters relating to the assignation of limited duration tenancies. My three amendments would achieve that.
I move amendment 9.
I note what Fergus Ewing has said about amendments 9, 10 and 12. He is seeking to adjust the basis on which a landlord can withhold consent to a proposed assignation so that the onus is on the landlord to demonstrate that the tenant would not have the ability to pay necessary costs or did not have the necessary skills and experience. However, we cannot support the amendments. Our approach is characterised by a desire to redress what we perceive to be the imbalance in the relationship between the landlord and the tenant in favour of the tenant, but to do so within a wider context of industry agreement.
I do not think that even Fergus Ewing would suggest that a landlord would voluntarily let land to a person whose skills, experience and ability to pay their dues were in doubt. However, his amendments could bring about a situation in which a landlord had to accept as a new tenant an assignee whose qualities could reasonably be questioned. I fail to understand why, in such a situation, a landlord would have to prove that the person to whom the lease is to be assigned has the ability to pay the rent, the ability to pay for adequate maintenance and the skills and experience to manage and maintain the land, when all those facts are within the knowledge of the tenant-to-be. The effect of the amendments would be to ask the landlord to prove a negative, when, all the while, the tenant-to-be would have the answers at his or her fingertips.
The provisions have been the subject of on-going consultation. We have not been aware of any concerns expressed by tenant representatives about the landlords' grounds for withholding consent under section 7(3).
I am not persuaded of the case for including amendment 11. That amendment is unnecessary because it does not affect the 30-day period that section 7(4) already provides for the landlord to withhold consent to a proposed assignation. If the landlord does not respond in that time—either to withhold consent or acquire the tenant's interest—there would appear to be no point in further delaying the tenant's ability to assign. Crucially, I understand that we have received no expressions of concern on this issue or on the bases on which a landlord may withhold consent under section 7(3), other than from the Law Society. If landlords are comfortable with those grounds, I see no reason to extend them further.
Amendment 49 is a drafting amendment that clarifies that the landlord may withhold consent from assignation if not satisfied that the proposed assignee will be unable to pay and so on.
Fergus Ewing drew a comparison with the commercial lease of a shop or factory premises. Of course, in such leases, it is always the case that the onus is on the tenant to prove the case of an assignation—that was my experience of commercial law, at least.
Amendment 11 would add an additional provision to ensure that the assignee's ability to meet any of the tenant's other obligations under the lease was a further ground on which the landlord could object to the assignee. The reason for that is that the lease might have other clauses, such as a residence clause, to be complied with as well as the requirement to pay the rent due and to maintain the land adequately. The landlord should not have to accept the assignee if he does not believe that the assignee would be capable of fulfilling the terms of the lease. The amendment deals with an important point and would provide clarification.
With regard to the minister's comments, it may well be the case that landowners have not expressed concerns about this matter, but the fact is that the Law Society has. The Law Society represents solicitors who, on a daily basis, are involved in disputes between landlords and tenants and who advise landlords and tenants on aspects of the law. The minister cannot discount the Law Society's opinions out of hand. After all, it represents those who will have to deal with the bill when it is enacted—they will have to seek to interpret it and work with it daily. It is therefore important that the Law Society's views are taken into account, notwithstanding the fact that the landowners may not have picked up on technical points in the bill.
I oppose amendments 9 to 12. It was interesting to hear Fergus Ewing talking about a negotiating chip. He and Murdo Fraser are each, from their own perspectives, trying to unbalance the bill. The provisions that we are debating are about allowing the landlord to
"withhold consent to the proposed assignation if there are reasonable grounds for doing so".
The test of reasonableness is the key.
Murdo Fraser wants to take the provisions even further in the landlords' favour. The curiosity is that the Scottish Landowners Federation is quite content with the provisions.
Fergus Ewing wants to appear as the bastion of the anti-landlordism party in the Parliament—it seems to me that he is trying to carve out that niche for himself. If he does that and amendments 9, 10 and 12 are successful, he will unbalance the whole bill, which is carefully crafted to get the right results to free the tenanted sector in Scotland. I therefore oppose amendments 9 to 12.
I am stunned by Mike Rumbles's supposition, which seems to be that, just because one body does not approve something, another body is not allowed to bring it up. It seems astonishing that Murdo Fraser is not allowed to lodge perfectly reasonable amendments on another body's behalf just because Mike Rumbles does not agree with them.
It will surprise nobody—certainly not Fergus Ewing—that the Conservatives will not support amendments 9, 10 or 12, because they reverse the onus of responsibility where the assignation of a lease is possible. It is well established—and has been established already in this short debate—that a tenant who wishes to assign a lease should demonstrate that their successor is able and competent to fulfil the lease's terms, not, as Fergus Ewing's amendments 9, 10 and 12 would mean, that the landlord should prove to the contrary. I am not being in any way judgmental, but it makes perfectly practical sense that the onus should be on the outgoing tenant and his successor.
I was interested in Alex Fergusson's comment that I said that Murdo Fraser should not have been allowed to lodge amendment 11. Does he accept that the interest groups and stakeholders have come up with the correct response to the process and that the Executive reflects that in the bill?
They have come up with an agreed response, but that should not prevent others from challenging it if they feel that there is a challenge to be made. I cannot see any reason for Mike Rumbles's intervention on that point. He is obviously feeling touchy about some of the issues that we are discussing today. No doubt we will see more of that later.
As I said, I am not making a judgmental point, but it makes perfectly practical sense that the onus should be on the outgoing tenant and his successor. After all, the successor will take on responsibility for, and the future good management and husbandry of, the landowner's investment. It is only right that the successor should be competent to do so. As Murdo Fraser pointed out, that applies to a shop tenancy every bit as much as to a farm tenancy.
We will not support amendments 9, 10 or 12.
Does the minister have anything to add?
I see no reason to intervene in that internecine strife between the landed gentry.
The minister misrepresented the effect of amendments 9, 10 and 12 rather crassly. He said that, if those amendments were agreed to, the landlord would have to accept as an assignee someone whose financial standing he doubts. That would not be so. The landlord would have the right to establish that an assignee is not of the financial standing to be able to pay the rent or does not possess the capacity or the necessary skills and experience to maintain the land adequately. It is not a question of doubting or having to accept; it is a simple reversal of the onus of proof so that it rests on the landlord. I regard that as a step forward for the tenant. We will press amendment 9.
The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 20, Against 72, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9 disagreed to.
Amendment 10 not moved.
Amendment 49 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 11 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 11, Against 81, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 disagreed to.
Amendment 12 not moved.
Amendment 50 is grouped with amendments 51, 52 and 13.
Section 7(5) allows the landlord to acquire the tenant's interest in the tenancy on terms that are
"no less favourable to the tenant than the terms upon which the proposed assignation was to have been made."
Amendment 52 will ensure that, where the landlord acquires the tenant's interest in place of a proposed assignee, the terms under which he or she does so relate to any reasonable terms that a proposed third party might have offered. I note that amendment 13 in Murdo Fraser's name seeks a similar purpose. I hope that the action that we propose in amendment 52 will allow him not to move amendment 13.
Amendments 50 and 51 are drafting amendments to better reflect the standard terminology that is used on interests under leases.
I move amendment 50.
The purpose of amendment 13 is to ensure that any proposed assignation must have involved a bona fide third party. That is intended to avoid the possibility of collusion between assignor and assignee with a view to inflating the price. However, I listened with interest to what the minister said and, in view of the wording of amendment 52, I will not move amendment 13.
Amendment 50 agreed to.
Amendments 51 and 52 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 13 not moved.
Amendment 53 is grouped with amendments 68, 69, 107 and 108.
At stage 2, the Rural Development Committee accepted amendments from my colleague John Farquhar Munro that prevent the eviction of a tenant "on grounds of irritancy" for reason of their non-residence on the farm. I undertook at that stage to lodge further amendments to reflect landlords' legitimate interests, and the package of amendments that we have lodged in this group tidies the issue up. Some of the amendments relate to section 17, which applies to limited duration tenancies and to short limited duration tenancies. Other amendments adjust section 57, which applies to tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991.
Amendment 53 is a technical adjustment, which adds a definition of "good husbandry" to section 7. Amendments 68, 69, 107 and 108 clarify for the avoidance of doubt that a landlord cannot use the fact that a tenant is undertaking diversified activities—which are of course permitted under the bill—as a ground of bad husbandry, which would enable the landlord to irritate the lease.
I move amendment 53.
Amendment 53 agreed to.
Section 8—Continuation and termination of limited duration tenancies
Group 7 is on the provision of notice for termination of limited duration tenancies. Amendment 54 is grouped with amendments 55 to 57.
Amendment 54 deals with the question of notice for the termination of limited duration tenancies. Amendments 55 to 57 are all consequential on amendment 54, and the effect of the amendments, read together, is to require a minimum period of notice to be given by the tenant and to eliminate the requirement for the landlord to give two notices to bring the LDT to an end. The aim is to simplify the proposed legislation in relation to the termination of LDTs. As they currently stand, the procedures in section 8 are unnecessarily complex, as they require a double notice to be given by landlords. They are also inadequate in that they make no provision for a period of notice to be given by the tenant. My amendments seek to turn that situation round and to make the law clearer and simpler.
I move amendment 54.
As Murdo Fraser says, the effect of his four amendments would be to delete the requirements for a double notice to quit under an LDT. However, I am unable to accept any of the amendments. The procedure for a double notice to quit under section 8 has a clear purpose: to give the tenant a long planning window to plan their next steps and to provide an opportunity for the landlord and the tenant to discuss the future of the lease.
I accept that some landlords might prefer it if only a single notice were required, but we must be clear that the current drafting was agreed under a fundamental agreement with the NFUS and the Scottish Landowners Federation. With such industry backing for the current provisions, I must ask Murdo Fraser to withdraw amendment 54.
I will press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 11, Against 77, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 54 disagreed to.
Amendments 55 to 57 not moved.
Section 9—Review of rent under limited duration tenancies
Group 8 concerns rent review for limited duration tenancies. Amendment 14 is grouped with amendments 58 and 15. If amendment 58 is agreed to, amendment 15 is pre-empted.
Amendment 14 would add a new subsection after section 9(2), which states when a review is deemed to have taken place. Amendment 14 seeks to add clarification as to whether a rent review has in fact taken place and to determine exactly the circumstances under which one will have occurred.
Amendment 15 seeks to delete "lease" and insert "tenancy" in section 9(3). The purpose of that is to ensure that it is the terms of the tenancy, not just of the lease, that should be considered when the provisions under that subsection are applied. The lease will be only one of several pieces of documentation that will constitute a tenancy. A tenancy may be set up by a lease and other subsequent memoranda and informal writings. In the interests of clarity and certainty, it would be more accurate to refer to a tenancy, as that would ensure that the terms that are referred to in subsection (3) cover not just the lease but the additional documentation.
Having said all that, I note that the wording of the Executive's amendment 58, which will supersede amendment 15, contains "tenancy". In view of that, I therefore do not intend to move amendment 15.
I move amendment 14.
In response to a number of concerns that were raised with us by tenants, we undertook at stage 2 to lodge amendments at this stage to cover outstanding action to implement the industry-wide agreement on the matter. One of those issues concerned the rent review formula for LDTs. At stage 2, the Rural Development Committee approved Executive amendments relating to tenancies under the 1991 act. Those provisions give greater weight to economic factors, which is what tenants wanted us to do. They make it easier for either party to use a wider range of comparable evidence for the rent review process. That should help to address concerns over the availability of suitable evidence, particularly for tenants, on how rents change in response to prevailing economic conditions.
Amendment 58 introduces corresponding amendments to section 9, which sets out the rent review process for LDTs. Section 9 does not apply to SLDTs, which are subject to rent reviews only where they are specifically provided for in the lease. That is recognised and agreed industry-wide.
As Murdo Fraser said, amendment 14 is designed to clarify whether a rent review has taken place. Our position is that the fact that a rent review has occurred would usually be apparent from the fact that there had been an alteration to the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord; that would be a de facto change. At this late stage, I am reluctant to change section 9 in a way that would not be consistent with the position that has been reached by the industry group on the rent review process. As is the case with similar amendments, we have not been made aware of any general concerns on that point by landlords or tenants.
As Murdo Fraser said, agreement to amendment 58, which I anticipate, will mean that there is no need for amendment 15, and I am pleased that he welcomes the reference to "tenancy" in amendment 58.
The SNP supports amendment 58 and opposes amendment 14. We support amendment 58 because it leaves intact the important provision under section 9(4)(d) that, when there is a rent review under the new vehicle of limited duration tenancies, it will be possible to take account of
"the current economic conditions in the relevant sector of agriculture."
That is a major step forward for the tenant and I hope that it will address the serious matter that emerges from an analysis of the Scottish Executive's own statistics about the relationship between rent and farm incomes over the past eight years, as is repeated in the relevant paper from the Scottish Parliament information centre, prepared by Tom Edwards. On page 10, the paper shows the relationship between rent and farm incomes between 1995 and 2001. It has emerged that, while rentals rose by a third in those years, farm incomes dropped by 60 per cent—more than half—over the same period.
Although the Executive's statistical data on this topic may not be complete, it appears from the available data that there is a complete dislocation between the amount of rent paid and the amount that a farmer can make from the farm. If the current economic conditions are taken into account, that dislocation can and must come to an end. That is why my party supports the tenant in this matter.
I should also like to echo what Fergus Ewing said about taking economic conditions into account in a rent review. To my knowledge and from my experience in farming, rents have always gone up and have never come down. I suspect that my father's generation would say the same because the costs involved made it virtually impossible for a tenant to go to arbitration to seek redress. Therefore, when times were hard it was especially difficult to secure a reduction in rents through the 1991 act. I welcome the fact that the current economic conditions will be taken into account.
However, I ask the minister to address one particular matter in his summing up. Seeking out information on comparable rents is a problem in any rent review. It is almost impossible at times to discover the comparable rents in one's area, or indeed in the wider Scottish context. John Dale, a leading tenants' lawyer, provided me with evidence that a landlord had used a short-term grass-let rent as a comparable rent. Of course, it was nonsense to take that into consideration in a rent review. Will the minister address the concern about how tenants discover the comparable rents in their area?
I, too, welcome the inclusion of the economic conditions as a key step forward in improving the lot of tenant farmers in Scotland.
Before I call Mike Rumbles, I point out that the knife falls at 10.52 and I must get through group 9 by then. I ask members to keep their speeches tight.
I shall keep my speech very short, Presiding Officer.
Amendment 58 is an indication of the real and radical reform that this Parliament supports. I am delighted that the SNP is supporting the Scottish Executive's moves on the matter.
My colleague George Lyon talked about the difficulty in finding comparable rents. The amendment refers to what the tenancy would reasonably be required to fetch in the open market, which means that farms on the open market can also be used as a comparator. That is another string to the bow. I warmly welcome the amendment.
I welcome the support from the chamber for amendment 58. As has been outlined, the new provisions will give greater weight to economic factors and will make it easier for either party to use a wider range of comparable evidence. That should help to address concerns that George Lyon expressed about the availability of suitable evidence, particularly for tenants who in the past have often been unable to obtain helpful comparative information to support their case.
Briefly, I am happy to advise that the Conservatives are content with the wording of amendment 58, and we will support it.
As far as amendment 14 is concerned, it is not satisfactory for the deputy minister to continue to parrot that, because the landlords and tenants have agreed, we do not need to worry about the detailed provisions of the bill. The Law Society of Scotland has expressed concern about the wording in section 9. Rent reviews can take place where there is no formal documentation of them and disputes can thereafter arise as to when the rent review took place and what the level of rent was. I am sure that anybody in legal practice is aware of such circumstances. Amendment 14 would provide a useful clarification of the law, which would make matters easier to deal with if the bill is passed. Therefore I press amendment 14.
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 12, Against 81, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
Amendment 58 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Group 9 relates to the meaning of improvements. Amendment 59 is grouped with amendments 60, 61, 80 and 82. Members should note that amendment 80 is pre-empted by amendment 23, which will be debated in group 17, which relates to factors to be considered in valuation.
Amendments 59, 60, 61, 80 and 82 introduce to the bill the definition of improvements that is set out in schedule 5 to the 1991 act. They build the definition into the bill and make related tidying changes.
I move amendment 59.
I am perplexed by amendment 82. At times like this, I wish that I had a legal background, rather than an agricultural one. I have read the amendment several times and am instinctively opposed to it. Is it right that a tenant can farm in a way contrary to a landlord's wishes—indeed, to what the tenant and landlord have agreed in the lease—that could result in a coincidental increased value for which the landlord must provide compensation? If that is the case, is legislation in this area really necessary? The provision appears to remove any flexibility from the arrangements for compensation. I would be grateful if the minister would clarify those points.
Amendment 82 must be read as a whole. The first part of amendment 82 does exactly what I have described. It inserts in the bill the definition of improvements that we agreed needed to be included and that is set out in schedule 5 to the 1991 act. Paragraph (b) of the new subsection inserted by amendment 82 relates to that.
Alex Fergusson is puzzled by the amendment, but I am puzzled by his comments. Paragraph (b) refers to
"the continuous adoption by the tenant of a standard of farming or a system ... more beneficial to the land than the standard or system required by the lease or, in so far as no system of farming is so required, than the system of farming normally practised on comparable agricultural land".
That must be read in the context of paragraph (a) of the new subsection, which introduces the standard that is set in schedule 5 to the 1991 act. Given that there has been no disputation about that standard, its application is perfectly reasonable and does not give rise to the problem that Mr Fergusson perceives. I hope that that addresses his point.
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Amendment 60 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 10—Increase in rent: landlord's improvements
Amendment 61 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
After section 11
We come to group 10, on the landlord's obligations on fixed equipment. Amendment 62 is grouped with amendments 63, 64, 64A, 16, 89, 90, 137, 100, 100A, 29, 30, 101, 128 and 131. If amendment 64 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 16, on the basis of pre-emption.
This is a large group of amendments. I will endeavour to be as quick as I can, but it will take time to work through the group.
The Rural Development Committee made clear at stage 2 its concerns that tenants should be able to ensure that landlords fulfil their obligations under the terms of an agricultural lease statute or common law. As we explained then, a range of remedies will be available in instances where a landlord has failed to comply with a decree of the Land Court. I make it clear that a tenant can obtain those remedies in the Land Court rather than in the sheriff court.
Nonetheless, given the attention that was paid to the subject at stage 2, we have developed a new enforcement option, which is targeted at the specific issue that concerned committee members at stage 2—that is, non-compliance with a decree of specific implement or order ad factum praestandum in relation to the landlord's obligations in respect of fixed equipment. Amendments 62 and 101 provide for that.
Where the landlord has failed to comply with such an obligation within the time period ordered by the Land Court, the tenant will be able to apply to the Land Court for authority to carry out the works necessary to do so. The Land Court will also have the power to authorise the tenant to consign rent payments with the court, instead of paying them to the landlord. With the court's authority, the tenant can then use the consigned funds to pay for the reasonable costs of the corrective action. The landlord can apply to the Land Court to have the order terminated, but in considering such an application, the court must take into account whether any remaining works require to be done and whether the tenant has been reimbursed for the expenses incurred.
On terminating the order, the court will divide any remaining funds between the tenant and the landlord as it considers equitable. In order that the remedy will be available to all tenants, irrespective of the terms of the lease, any attempt to contract out of the provisions will be of no effect. In addition, the tenant's exercise of the remedy will not trigger irritancy of the lease.
Amendment 128 amends the power of the Land Court to grant orders of specific implement or orders ad factum praestandum, so as to require the court to set a date by which the order must be complied with. Landlords who attempt genuinely to comply with the court order are not penalised by the scheme. Where it can be demonstrated to the court that the landlord intends to comply, but requires more time to do so, the landlord can obtain an extension from the court.
Throughout stage 2, we made it clear that any power for the tenant or court against a recalcitrant landlord should maximise the prospects of the tenant's getting the necessary works to the land and buildings undertaken and, equally important, should be accessible to tenants regardless of their means. We believe that the new option meets both those objectives. As I said in our various debates on the subject at stage 2, that could not be said for simply allowing the tenant to withhold rent or allowing the Land Court to give the tenant a right to buy from the landlord.
Members of the Rural Development Committee will remember that I undertook at stage 2 to consider the impact of an amendment that was lodged by John Farquhar Munro to delete section 15(3). As it stands, section 15(3) deems that the tenant accepts the condition and suitability of fixed equipment when an LDT or SLDT is entered into, but that clashes with the terms of section 5(2) of the 1991 act, which is applied by virtue of section 15(4).
Section 5(2)(a) of the 1991 act requires the landlord to put fixed equipment into a thorough state of repair at the start of the tenancy or as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter. As it stands, section 15(3) requires the tenant to accept the condition of the fixed equipment, even though the landlord might not yet have put the fixed equipment into the said thorough state of repair.
The NFUS and the Scottish Landowners Federation both accept the need for adjustment to be made to section 15. However, they had hoped that a way could be found to maintain the principle, for the purposes of certainty, that neither party should be encouraged to question the standard of the fixed equipment at the start of the lease if a dispute arises later during the term of the tenancy.
Having given further thought to all that, I believe that the principle cannot be retained without cutting across the landlord's obligation under section 5(2)(a) of the 1991 act. As a result, amendment 64 will delete section 15(3). The effect of the change is that the landlord's duty to put the fixed equipment into a thorough state of repair at the start of the tenancy, or as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter, is maintained. The opportunity is also then taken to reflect sections 5(2) and 5(4) of the 1991 act in the bill, rather than by simple indirect reference.
Amendment 100 provides an outcome in relation to the concern that was expressed by tenants on the use of terms in post-lease agreements to transfer responsibility for renewing fixed equipment from landlords to tenants. As we stated at the Rural Development Committee on day 2 of stage 2, we were unable, because of the time available, to provide for an amendment in that respect at stage 2, but we undertook to lodge such an amendment at stage 3. The repeal of section 5(3) of the 1991 act, allowing future use of such terms, is therefore moved to this provision from part 4 of the bill.
Although the agreement refers only to barring terms that prohibit transfer of responsibility for work from landlord to tenant, we believe that it is within the spirit of the industry agreement for terms that make the tenant liable for expenses incurred to the landlord in fulfilment of the responsibilities also to be debarred. Amendment 100 does that. Amendment 100 also adopts the agreed industry approach that the tenant should have a unilateral right to revoke the terms in bringing the land either into a reasonable state of repair or to a standard no less than when they assumed responsibility. If it could be argued that the standard was not reasonable, they bring it into a reasonable state of repair.
Fergus Ewing's amendment 29 has a similar effect to amendment 100. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able not to move his amendment.
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) indicated agreement.
Amendment 100 is more detailed and protects tenants' interests more effectively in certain ways. I will cut out some of what I was going to say about amendment 100.
Fergus Ewing has also lodged amendments 64A and 100A, which aim to make the landlord responsible for provision, improvement, replacement and renewal of fixed equipment as may be required by any enactment, not just of agricultural holdings legislation. We cannot accept that principle. Surely it is for the Parliament to decide, on a statute by statute basis, the persons on whom it will place such responsibility. It would not be the job of this bill to determine that.
Just in case I misled the minister, I confirm that we will not proceed with amendments 29 and 30.
That is fine.
Amendment 89 fulfils part of the industry agreement about the payment of compensation at waygo to a tenant for improvements. In respect of existing agreements, the general position is that the statutory compensation formula should override the terms of a write-down agreement where the improvement was one that the landlord should have carried out under his or her section 5(2) duty. Section 37A provides for that. However, as I signalled to the Rural Development Committee at stage 2, the industry forum agreed that regard should be had to the terms of the write-down agreement where, and to the extent that, the improvement went beyond the section 5(2) responsibility. Amendment 89 gives effect to that agreement.
Amendment 90 deletes the repeal of section 5(3) of the 1991 act, which is moved from part 4, on compensation under agricultural tenancies, into part 5, on miscellaneous amendments to the 1991 act, by virtue of amendment 100.
We believe that amendment 16 is unnecessary, given that the terms of section 15 were closely scrutinised by the industry forum in deciding on the landlord's duties under section 5(2) of the 1991 act. Fergus Ewing's amendment 137 is also unnecessary, given that the write-down agreements that are entered into in the future to which the amendment refers would be outlawed by amendment 100.
I move amendment 62.
I will refer briefly to amendment 62, which deals with the new remedy for the tenant of retaining rent where the Land Court has held that the landlord is in breach of his obligations. My colleague Richard Lochhead pressed that at stage 2, when he argued for a right of retention as a remedy.
I welcome amendment 62, and the SNP will support it, but I wonder whether the minister, in his closing remarks—or now if he wishes—could clarify one important point. The new remedy will apply only where the landlord has been declared legally to be in breach of his obligations by the Land Court. That means that the tenant has to make an application to the Land Court, which will involve an element of expense and delay. In the case of Alexander v the Royal Hotel (Caithness) Ltd, Lord Gill found in favour of the tenant. I referred to that during stage 2, at column 4090 of the Official Report of the Rural Development Committee. Lord Gill stated:
"when a tenant defends an action for payment of rent by asserting a right of retention, his liability for payment of the rent is not in issue but is on the contrary admitted. All that he is doing is inviting the court to exercise in his favour the discretionary equitable power".
Under common law, the tenant has a recognised right to withhold rent. That right exists before it has been judicially declared by a court. If a landlord is not fulfilling his part of the bargain, the tenant is entitled not to fulfil his part of the bargain in exchange. Does that common law position remain in force, or will it be in any way diluted or amended by amendment 62?
My amendments 64A and 100A bring us to the important topic of slurry towers. The amendments relate to dairy farmers who are required by enactments of law to purchase and have constructed slurry towers. That may be because the farms are located in nitrate vulnerable zones, or because of other requirements in relation to purity of water. I understand that current practice is that the tenant farmer almost always has to pay the cost of the slurry tower, and that there may or may not be a grant of up to 40 per cent. That law is already in force. There is no provision, as I understand it, that the landlord must make a contribution towards meeting that cost. However, I believe that under section 5(2) of the 1991 act, the landlord may already be under a legal duty to provide that as fixed equipment in the sector in which the farmer is farming—in this case, the dairy sector. I am not sure that that has been judicially considered and determined; the practice is that the tenant, not the landlord, meets the burden.
The effect of amendments 64A and 100A would be to make it clear that the landlord must pay for the costs that are required because of our commitment to environmental standards. I would welcome the minister's comments on that serious issue. I gather that my colleague Stewart Stevenson will make further reference to the matter.
My other amendments—29, 30 and 137—were lodged before the Executive amendments were lodged. They were designed to achieve the purposes that the minister has described; I will therefore not move them.
My colleague Alex Fergusson will address in more detail the amendments in the group. In the light of what will be substantive changes to the wording of section 15, it is not my intention to move amendment 16.
With this group of amendments, we start to get to the nitty-gritty of the bill. Within the group there are examples of what I believe to be the best, and the worst, amendments that are before us today.
Amendment 62 is a good example of a productive and progressive amendment. Some members might be surprised by my saying that, because the amendment paves the way for a tenant being able to withhold payment of rent. However, given that the circumstances that would allow him or her to do that would arise only when the landlord had breached an instruction to remedy, the amendment seems reasonable and fair. I understand that any rent so withheld would be paid into the Land Court, which might subsequently repay the tenant for work carried out by him or her that the landlord should have done. Given that—[Interruption.]
Please put your microphone back in place and continue.
Given that that would be work that the landlord was obligated to undertake, we will not oppose the amendment—if the machinery bears with me.
What does Alex Fergusson do when he opposes an amendment?
The minister will find out shortly.
Amendment 64A is one of the poorer amendments to the bill. It would require the landlord to fund the entire cost of any improvements, which might be brought about even by future changes in legislation—about which more will be said later—irrespective of any alteration in either the purpose or period of time for which the holding is let. I also have considerable difficulties in accepting amendment 64, despite the fact that it is in accordance with the consensus that was achieved by the stakeholders working party, which has worked hard to achieve consensus on a number of contentious issues that relate to the bill.
My difficulties with amendment 64 stem from the fact that I believe that it will increase the cost of tenancies and the amount of rent that is paid under any new tenancies that are entered into. That would contravene the bill's stated aim of reinvigorating the tenanted sector; the Conservative party very much welcomes that aim, but we do not believe that the bill will achieve it. We will resist any amendments that will, in effect, make tenancies in the future more exclusive.
Amendment 64 would also militate against circumstances in which a person is keen to let land on which the fixed equipment has, for one reason or another, become less than perfect, but where there is a perfectly willing prospective tenant—perhaps a neighbour who wants to expand. I cannot see the landowner being willing to let such a property if the amendment is passed. I therefore view the amendment as overly restrictive, because it will tend to reduce the amount of land available for rent, rather than increasing it as we should be trying to do.
We welcome amendment 62, which is fair and reasonable, but we will oppose amendments 64, 64A, 137, 100, 100A, 29 and 30 as being exclusive and against the reforming principle, which the bill purports to embody.
I draw members' attention to the fact that I have a three-acre field, which is let at no consideration to a local hill farmer. I understand that if I did get a rent, it would be £15 a year, so it is hardly worth collecting.
I speak in support of amendments 64A and 100A. It is always interesting what one discovers when one gets into technical areas. I did not know previously that a dairy cow could produce 10 gallons of slurry per day. With the introduction of new regulations on nitrate vulnerable zones, the amount of slurry that can be stored on a dairy farm over the winter is substantial. That creates a pungent argument for amendments 64A and 100A.
Members may recall that we debated at stage 2 an amendment that would have permitted the Land Court—after due warning and in the most extreme circumstances—to grant to the tenant the right to buy their property when the landlord's behaviour had become entirely unreasonable. I regret that Parliament has not progressed with that proposal; it was clear that there was not support for it at stage 2, so we have not brought it back at stage 3. Nonetheless, amendments 64 and 100 represent substantial moves forward and we very much welcome them.
However, a practical difficulty remains; I return to the slurry towers and the pungent arguments. The cost of those towers is likely to be substantial, even after the provision of grants, and it may well be that even if rent is withheld, or rather consigned to the courts—so the tenant is still paying it—it may take some time to cover the capital cost of providing new slurry towers.
Nonetheless, amendments 64 and 100 are welcome. Many farmers in my constituency will experience substantial costs in the nitrate vulnerable zones along the Moray firth; my colleague Margaret Ewing will be in a similar position in her constituency. We are happy to support the amendments.
I speak in support of the Executive amendments, which go to the heart of the bill.
The good work that was done by the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group in lobbying for the changes has been listened to by ministers, who have responded to concerns that were raised by the Rural Development Committee at stage 2. I welcome the amendments that have been lodged at stage 3. Clearly, ending the abuse of contracting out through post-lease agreements and write-down agreements is fundamental to improving the lot of tenant farmers in Scotland.
Let me give an example of the write-down agreements that are currently in force on my estate. Before erecting a £50,000 shed, the tenant must seek permission from the landlord that the improvement can go ahead. One of the conditions for getting the landlord's agreement is to sign a write-down agreement. The write-down agreement—of which I have many examples that I could show members—says clearly that the value of the shed is to be written down over 10 years and that, at the end of that period, the landlord will take ownership of the shed for the sum of £1 and then seek a rent review of the property that is now his, which is the shed that the tenant has constructed.
That is how the iniquity of write-down agreements has left tenant farmers in the difficult position of having to make decisions on whether to make improvements. They have been faced with investing huge capital sums that would be subsequently written down much faster than the real value of the building. Tenants have also found themselves having to pay rent on those improvements at the end of the 10 years. That is an utterly outrageous abuse of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991.
Post-lease agreements are another example of how landlords have invalidated the whole of the 1991 act. Under post-lease agreements, before the tenant can enter into an agreement for an extra bit of land, the tenant is required to sign an agreement that results in the tenant being left to carry responsibility to repair and renew the property. Post-lease agreements have allowed landlords to contract out to the tenant all their responsibilities under the 1991 act. I am delighted that the minister has responded so well to the proddings and lobbying of the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group on that issue.
The third, and most important, issue that I want to mention is that tenants will at long last have the power of redress. We will now be able to go to the Land Court and withhold rent if the landowner refuses to make the farm fit for purpose. Clearly, it would be outrageous if public sector organisations such as housing associations or councils could contract out of their legislative duties and let flats that were not fit for purpose. The same principle should surely apply to the renting out of agricultural land.
Fergus Ewing posed a good question about the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's requirements on farmers to make improvements for the purposes of pollution control. Will the minister confirm that, under section 5 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, "fixed equipment" will include pollution control measures such as slurry towers? At the moment, the provision of such buildings is the single biggest investment that tenant farmers are faced with. Such improvements are on-going because the requirements—whether they come from the bathing water directive or the recently passed Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill—are becoming ever tighter. The pressure will be on to improve the collection and control of slurry and effluent produced on farms. I ask the minister to address that fundamental issue when he winds up and to respond to the very good question that was asked by Fergus Ewing.
At stage 2, the issues relating to this group of amendments caused us some concern, so I am absolutely delighted that the Scottish Executive has decided to put the details on the face of the bill.
Fergus Ewing pointed out that the common law already provides tenants with a right to withdraw rent, but I believe that it is an important principle that, on such a fundamental issue, the Scottish Parliament should decide what is in the law rather than leave it to the interpretation of the courts. I am delighted that the ministers have lodged amendments 62 and 64.
At stage 2, we asked what powers the Scottish Land Court would have. Amendment 62 states clearly that the Land Court has the power to authorise the tenant to carry out such work as the landlord is supposed to carry out. More important, amendment 62 will also provide in the bill a right for tenants to withhold payment of the rent payable to the landlord, provided that the tenant pays that money to the Land Court.
Alex Fergusson commented that the stakeholders group agreed with amendment 64, which the group thought was important. I, too, think that amendment 64 is important. The amendment requires that the landlord will
"at the commencement of the tenancy or as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter, put the fixed equipment on the land into a thorough state of repair and will provide such buildings and other fixed equipment as will enable an occupier reasonably skilled in husbandry to maintain efficient production".
That is what amendment 64 is all about, so I was astounded to hear Alex Fergusson say that the Tories will not support it. We want a sustainable economy in rural Scotland. We want our tenant farmers to have the fixed equipment on their land in a thorough state of repair.
Does Mike Rumbles acknowledge that the situation to which I referred—albeit a hypothetical situation in the context of this debate—could, and perhaps does, exist? Of course everybody wants the fixed equipment to be in good working order, but there are conditions. Not all landlords are loaded—as some members would have us believe—and not all fixed equipment on farms is in tip-top condition. Does not the member agree that amendment 64, if it were agreed to, would restrict the amount of land that could come on to the market for let?
I do not agree at all. Alex Fergusson says that not all landowners are loaded; of course they are not. People from other parts of the political spectrum have a go at landowners as if they were all bad, but not all landlords are bad either. We need a balance.
We must be focused on sustainable development in rural Scotland and on getting the best out of our tenant farms. Amendment 64 makes it absolutely clear that the fixed equipment must be in a thorough state of repair. We want to end this business of dilapidation, but that is exactly what we would have if amendment 64 were thrown out, as the Tories desire. Many of our tenant farms would continue to have dilapidated equipment and dilapidated holdings generally. Amendment 64 is an excellent amendment, and I am disappointed that the Conservatives do not recognise that. Given the fact that the Scottish Landowners Federation and all the stakeholders want the amendment, for goodness' sake why do the Tories oppose it?
Mr Rumbles is disappointed, but he should not be surprised at the Conservatives' intransigence. As George Lyon said, the amendments in this group will give effect to the aims and objectives of the bill, which are to transfer power back to the tenant and redress the imbalance between the landlord and the tenant that was introduced by the Conservatives in 1991. That is why the Conservatives oppose amendment 64.
On amendment 64A, let me simply reiterate that responsibility for carrying out and paying for statutory improvements is, and will continue to be, set out in each of the relevant statues. I see that Fergus Ewing shakes his head, but he may wish to know that the representatives of the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group, whom I met last week, have acknowledged that a tenant should have a duty to pay rent based on any increase in the value of a farm from such improvements. That dialogue is continuing.
On Fergus Ewing's substantive point about common-law rights, amendment 100 very much reflects my personal view—as he knows, I took a personal interest in the matter—about how we should redress the imbalances. A common-law right to withdraw rent exists but it is not absolute. The landlord's breach must be material and, without a court action, the tenant must make a judgment—as we discussed at length at stage 2—on whether that right exists. The tenant risks potential exposure to the claim of irritancy if he gets it wrong. Common-law rights, therefore, are not affected by amendment 100.
Amendment 100 adds a new right, which cannot then be contracted out of, to withhold rent. The amendment will build on the tenant's common-law rights and give succour and support to tenants, because—as we discussed at stage 2—many existing leases contract out of the common-law right to which Fergus Ewing referred and by which he set so much store. Amendment 100 will build on those common-law rights and provide an absolute right from which there can be no contracting out.
Schedule 5 to the 1991 act does not make tenants responsible for slurry towers. Its purpose is to list the types of improvement that a tenant can choose to make and receive compensation for. The 1991 act imposes no objection about slurry towers.
We have had a great debate about the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords. We have also talked about remedies and the Land Court and there was a suggestion that the Land Court does not have the range of remedies available to it to enforce its will and to ensure that tenants get justice. We asked Lord McGhie, the chairman of the Land Court, to advise on those issues. He has advised that, to date, the Land Court has not had to have recourse to the provision because parties have complied with the court's orders as far as he is aware; there has been no requirement for sheriff courts to raise a case against a so-called recalcitrant landlord who has failed to act.
Nevertheless, we have added a new weapon to our existing armoury, as we were asked to do. That weapon is targeted on non-compliance and the recalcitrant landlord, whether or not he is a mythical figure. We have made provision to slay the mythical beast. Amendment 62 gives added power to the Land Court's existing armoury and so it should be welcomed by all parties, even the Tories, who I am sure would not want to side with recalcitrant landlords.
Amendment 62 agreed to.
Section 12—Written leases and the revision of certain leases
Amendment 63 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 15—Fixed equipment
Amendment 64 moved—[Allan Wilson].
Amendment 64A moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 64A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 22, Against 72, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 64A disagreed to.
The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 80, Against 12, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 64 agreed to.
Amendment 16 is pre-empted, so we move to group 11.
Section 16—Resumption of land by landlord
Amendment 65 is grouped with amendment 66.
At stage 2 we undertook, in response to a number of concerns that were raised by tenants, to return at stage 3 with amendments that would cover outstanding action to implement the industry-wide agreement. One of the key concerns that was raised recently by tenant groups related to tenants' ability to prevent a notice to quit when the landlord intends to take land back for non-agricultural purposes. Amendments that had cross-industry support were introduced at stage 2 in relation to 1991 act tenancies.
Amendment 66 will introduce parallel changes with respect to SLDTs and LDTs. The effect will be that a landlord of a SLDT or LDT will be able to resume tenant land for a non-agricultural purpose only where that purpose requires planning permission and such planning permission has been obtained. Amendment 65 will clarify that those are the only circumstances in which land can be resumed. Section 16(1)(b) will allow the parties to contract out of section 16 so that resumption would not be allowed even where the landlord required and obtained planning permission for a non-agricultural purpose.
I move amendment 65.
Despite what the minister said, I seek further clarification as to why the word "if" needs to be followed by the words "and only if"; I remain unconvinced that they are necessary. It is entirely clear to me that the landlord may resume land if the resumption is for a non-agricultural purpose. To state that the landlord may resume land "if, and only if" that resumption is for a non-agricultural purpose seems to be unnecessarily prescriptive and somewhat irrelevant. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise, but I am currently unconvinced about the necessity for amendment 65.
I am sorry—I disagree with Mr Fergusson. We wanted to be absolutely clear that we are dealing with a situation in which a landlord may resume land only if he has planning permission to use it for a non-agricultural purpose. Amendment 65 will make that clear. Amendments 65 and 66 will introduce parallel changes to SLDTs and LDTs and amendment 65 will clarify the only circumstances in which land can be resumed.
Amendment 65 agreed to.
Amendment 66 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 17—Irritancy of lease and good husbandry
Amendment 67 is grouped with amendment 102.
At stage 2, the Rural Development Committee accepted amendments from my colleague, John Farquhar Munro, that would prevent the eviction of a tenant through irritancy for non-residence on the farm. I undertook to lodge further amendments to reflect landlords' legitimate interests. Amendments 67 and 102 seek to tidy up that issue.
From discussions that officials have had with the industry since stage 2, it is apparent that tenants' main concern is that such grounds used for irritancy would prevent tenants from making another person responsible for the farm in their stead. That is reflected in a case that John Farquhar Munro cited at stage 2 where a son faced losing succession to a tenancy because his father had broken the residency clause by having to spend his declining years in a Kirk Care Housing Association Ltd home. Landlords argue that they have used the condition to ensure that the tenant is able to exercise proper standards of husbandry, animal welfare and security, which are legitimate objectives.
Amendment 102 seeks to amend section 54A. It applies to existing 1991 act leases and to any new 1991 act leases that are entered into after the bill comes into force, and which include a term that would enable a landlord to irritate the lease owing to a tenant's non-residency on the farm. The amendment's effect would be to replace such terms with a more general obligation for the tenant to ensure that someone with suitable skills and experience resides on the holding in their stead. That should give tenants the freedom they have asked for and it should enable landlords to use if necessary any such irritancy term, but in a responsible way that reflects their legitimate interests.
We have lodged separate amendments to section 54B, which will be discussed later and which will allow tenants who have 1991 act tenancies to assign their interest to a member of their family. We will come to that in due course.
The Scottish Law Commission is reviewing the law of irritancy in leases of land as part of its "Sixth Programme of Law Reform 2000-04"; the review includes irritancy of agricultural leases. The commission's discussion paper on the issue—number 117—was published in October 2001 and I am reliably informed that the commission is on schedule to submit its report to the Scottish ministers in the first half of 2003.
Amendment 67 will provide that any term of an SLDT or LDT that provides for the lease to be irritated solely on the ground of a tenant's non-residence will be of no effect. The amendment will not incorporate into such leases a term that will require non-resident tenants to ensure that a suitably qualified person resides on the farm simply because no such leases will be entered into until after the bill comes into force. As the parties will know that a term that requires the tenant to be resident will be of no effect at that point they may, inter alia, make other contractual agreements.
I move amendment 67.
The minister's latter remarks have clarified the difference between amendments 67 and 102, which is accepted. We will support both amendments.
I would like clarification of amendment 102, which will allow tenants to live away from a farm provided that they
"ensure that a person who has the skills and experience necessary to farm the holding in accordance with the rules of good husbandry resides on the holding."
Given that one general objective of the bill is to encourage diversification, is not amendment 102 too restrictive in requiring tenants to put a farm worker or farm manager into the house? The tenant might have decided to buy a house and might wish to use the farmhouse for other purposes. Should we be so restrictive? If the minister wants to encourage diversification, he should not move amendment 102.
I take issue with the Executive on amendment 102. At stage 2, the Rural Development Committee removed the requirement on tenant farmers to live in the house on the farm. We did so on the ground that, as George Lyon suggested, removal of that requirement would aid diversification and increase personal choice in the 21st century. In his summing up, I want the minister to convince me one way or the other on the issue. Should not the test be whether the tenant farmer's job is done appropriately and whether the land is farmed properly? The issue should not be about where the tenant farmer lives. What would happen if a tenant farmer moved out because of a problem at home, but his wife was not capable of running the farm? In that situation, the farmer would have to find somebody to manage the farm. The situation could result in the farmer being thrown out of his lease.
As I said, amendment 102 reflects agreement in the industry and takes on board John Farquhar Munro's point that non-residency should not be sufficient ground for irritancy. The proposal also takes into account landlords' legitimate interest in the good husbandry of agricultural holdings. Regardless of the diversification of a holding in the course of a tenancy, the property will revert to agricultural usage thereafter. Amendment 102 will build on the skills base of the farmer, as implied by diversification, and will ensure that the basic skills of good husbandry remain. The amendment will maintain the landlord's legitimate interest in the future agricultural usage of the land, while ensuring that the lease cannot be irritated as a consequence of simple non-residence.
Surely, in the 21st century, we should not dictate where people live. The only test should be whether the farm is managed properly.
Indeed. The legitimate test that the landlord will apply is whether the tenant has for sound agricultural reasons placed a suitably skilled person in the property. On the question of telling people where to live, amendment 102 will address some of the issues of rural depopulation that were mentioned at stage 2 and will give new impetus to repopulation in rural areas and diversification of agricultural holdings.
Amendment 67 agreed to.
Amendments 68 and 69 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 19—Section 16 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964
Group 13 is on the transfer of interests in a tenancy to a legatee or successor. Amendment 17 is grouped with amendments 18, 19, 70, 20, and 71.
Sections 19 and 20 deal with the technical issues of succession to leases. Amendments 17 to 20, which originate from the Law Society of Scotland, seek to provide clarity in the bill's treatment of those issues.
Amendment 17 would allow executors to transfer SLDTs only to one of the deceased tenant's intestate heirs. The reason for that is that SLDTs are short and, under section 6(1), are not assignable. To permit the executor to assign to any person would give him powers that the tenant did not have in life. Surely such powers would conflict with the personal nature of SLDTs and with the approach that has been taken elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment 18 would delete the proposed new section 16(4E) in the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, which raises the issue of the termination being in the best interests of the deceased's estate. The Law Society's view is that an executor is under a general duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the estate and that, if he does not do so, he will be personally liable for damages to the beneficiaries. That matter is purely between the beneficiaries of the estate and the executor.
New section 16(4E) of the 1964 act would introduce into the relationship with the landlord domestic issues that relate to the deceased tenant's estate, but surely those issues are not the landlord's concern. If the landlord receives notification from the executor of the termination of the lease, or of his acquisition of the lease from the acquirer following a transfer from the executor, the landlord should be able to rely on that and should not subsequently find that it might be invalidated because of a dispute among the tenant's heirs. Amendment 18 seeks to clarify the bill on that important point of law.
Amendment 19 would ensure that the grounds of objection to a proposed legatee of a limited duration tenancy are the same as those for an objection to a proposed assignee. The reason for that is that a legacy is a form of assignation. Because the tenant of an LDT has a qualified right to assign, it is right that the basis on which a legatee is or is not recognised as a successor tenant should be the same as for any other assignee, particularly given that the right of assignation is at large and is not confined to members of the family. Amendment 20 deals with the same point in relation to section 21.
We have no difficulties with Executive amendments 70 and 71.
I move amendment 17.
I read Murdo Fraser's amendments carefully and I listened to the arguments that he adduced, but I am unable to support his amendments.
Section 19 of the bill provides that, where a tenant of an SLDT or an LDT dies without leaving a will; or a bequest of the lease is rejected; or the Land Court, on upholding an objection by the landlord to the person to whom the lease was bequested, declares the bequest to be null and void, the executor—notwithstanding any term of the lease prohibiting assignation—may assign the lease to a member of the deceased's near family or to "any other person". A member of the deceased's near family is defined as any person who is
"entitled to succeed to the deceased's intestate estate"
under the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964.
Amendment 17 would restrict the application of new section 16(4B)(b) of the 1964 act to LDTs. Under amendment 17, although an executor would be able to assign SLDTs and LDTs to a member of the near family of the late tenant, in the circumstances that I have just described, only LDTs could also be assigned to "any other person". We see no reason in principle why a right to assign SLDTs on death should not be available to benefit the estate of a deceased tenant.
Amendment 18 would delete subsection (4E), supposedly because that subsection would introduce into the relationship with the landlord domestic issues that related to the deceased tenant's estate, which should not be concerns of the landlord. We believe that the provision in subsection (4E) is valuable. It reflects the tension that can emerge from the interrelationship between the laws of agricultural holdings and the laws of succession. It clarifies that the executor's duty remains directed to the estate, regardless of the existence of the landlord. The provision is important in signalling to the courts that, in any case in which conflict arises, greater weight is placed on the executor's duty to operate to the benefit of the deceased tenant's estate. It also builds on the executor's duties under the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964.
The argument behind Murdo Fraser's amendments 19 and 20 is that a person to whom a lease that constitutes an SLDT or an LDT is bequested should be treated as a kind of assignee and that a landlord's objections to such an acquirer should be restricted to the same grounds on which he may withhold consent to an assignation in life. We disagree with that. The assignation rights for the executor are based on those for an executor who transfers the interest of a deceased tenant under a 1991 act tenancy. In that situation, that is a more appropriate parallel than the assignation of LDTs by living tenants.
Section 7 of the bill, which deals with a tenant's right to assign their interest in a limited duration tenancy, allows the landlord either to challenge a proposed assignee on the basis of their qualities to work the land, or to acquire the interest. Section 19 of the bill will amend the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 to enable the executor to assign the deceased tenant's interest in an SLDT or an LDT to a near family member—any person who could succeed to the late tenant's property on intestacy under the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964—or to "any other person". As the bill stands, the landlord can challenge the proposed assignee on the basis of that person's capabilities as a tenant farmer, but cannot acquire the deceased tenant's interest in the tenancy.
Amendments 70 and 71 address that issue. They seek to allow the landlord to acquire the tenant's interest. It is important that that right will be available only when the proposed assignee is not a near family member—in other words, when it is someone who could not succeed to the late tenant's property on intestacy. That will ensure that succession rights are not affected.
Amendments 70 and 71 will build in landlords' rights without impacting on the rights of the deceased tenant's family. Indeed, being able to assign the interest straight back to the landlord could assist the executor in concluding affairs relatively quickly in situations in which a family successor to the tenancy cannot be found.
I listened with great interest to the minister's comments. Although I understand the arguments that he makes, I feel that amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20, which originally came from the Law Society of Scotland, would make the law work better. Therefore, it is my intention to press the amendments.
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 81, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17 disagreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 12, Against 78, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 18 disagreed to.
Section 20—Bequest of lease
Amendment 19 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 11, Against 82, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 disagreed to.
Section 21—Right of landlord to object to acquirer of tenancy
Amendment 70 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 20 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 11, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 20 disagreed to.
Amendment 71 moved—[Ross Finnie].
The question is, that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 74, Against 21, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 71 agreed to.
Section 26—Transfers not requiring notice
Amendment 72 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 72 replicates an amendment that was lodged during stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. As drafted, the bill would trigger a right to buy where land was transferred on separation from one spouse to another as part of the fair sharing of matrimonial assets. If, however, such a transfer were ordered by the court in an action of divorce, it would fall within section 26(1)(c) and would not trigger a right to buy.
Public policy is obviously aimed towards encouraging spouses to agree wherever possible to fair sharing of their matrimonial assets on separation. Amendment 72 will allow parties to reach such agreement, rather than force them to seek in a divorce action an order for the transfer of land. That is something that one would obviously not want to do at such a period of personal stress to the individuals concerned. We do not want restrictive pressures in section 26 to get in the way of people who are in that unfortunate circumstance negotiating a fair and equitable distribution of their assets in a divorce settlement. Amendment 72 will, therefore, allow for transfer of property between spouses on separation to be excluded from triggering the right to buy under part 2 of the bill. The amendment also mirrors an amendment that was lodged on the previous occasion on which we discussed land reform.
I move amendment 72.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Section 27—Right to buy
Amendment 73 is grouped with amendments 21 and 74.
Amendment 73 clarifies that a tenant's right to buy exists when their interest in acquiring the land is registered at that particular point in time. I have looked at amendment 21, and I note Murdo Fraser's apparent concern—if I have understood his position—that the inclusion of the subsection might make it difficult for the landlord to enter into free discussions about a possible sale. He clearly believes that amendment 21 is required to address that problem.
I assure Murdo Fraser that part 2 of the bill does not commit the landlord to sell land to a sitting tenant simply because they have entered into negotiations with a third party. A landlord who does not want to sell land, even after having entered into discussions with a third party, will not be compelled to sell against their will. The tenant can exercise the right to buy against the third party purchaser only if and when the selling landlord has sold the land without giving the tenant the statutory opportunity to exercise the right to buy—a right that is provided by virtue of section 28(3). I fail to see how there can be any risk of a breach of article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
We must also ensure that the statutory right-to-buy process can operate smoothly for the benefit of both landlord and tenant. It is important that any undertaking that could reasonably result in the transfer of land should trigger the right-to-buy process. That will enable the tenant to take the necessary preparatory steps to ensure that the exercise of the right to buy does not unduly slow down the sale process. That is a feature of part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. It is also worth highlighting the fact that neither ministers nor officials have received expressions of concern from landlord representatives on the issue. For all those reasons, I urge Murdo Fraser not to move amendment 21.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group asked that the period of time that tenants have to indicate whether they intend to exercise the right to buy be increased from 14 to 28 days after receiving notice of the landlord's intention to transfer the land. We have considered that matter further. Clearly, it is important that the right-to-buy process should operate as quickly as possible to minimise delay in selling land for landlords. However, we recognise that circumstances will arise from time to time in which a tenant would genuinely be unable to respond to a notice within a period of 14 days—for instance, if they are on holiday when the notice arrives. To extend the period by a further 14 days should not prove unduly burdensome for landlords. That is why we have lodged amendment 74, which extends the period for a tenant to respond from within 14 days to within 28 days.
I move amendment 73.
Amendment 21 seeks to delete subsection 4(b) of section 27, which prevents the owner of land, or the creditor in a standard security with a right to sell the land, or a person acting on behalf of the owner or the creditor, from entering into
"negotiations with another person with a view to the transfer of the land".
The bill as drafted provides no sanction against the owner of the land in respect of any breach of subsection 4(b), as the tenant is protected by virtue of section 28(3), as the minister observed.
The Law Society of Scotland's concern was that that might breach article 10 of the ECHR, and that subsection 4(b) was somewhat superfluous. However, in the light of the minister's comments—and I note the effect of section 28(3)—I intend not to move amendment 21.
I thank Allan Wilson for his letter on the cost of registration, in which he indicates that it is to be of the order of £50 to £100. In doing so, I simply observe that I shall hunt him to the ends of the earth should the cost be more than that £100 limit.
It is probably fair to say that my sympathy is with the minister on that one.
We are obliged.
I seek clarification from the minister, because I am not absolutely convinced of the relevance of the phrase, "for the time being". It may be a legislative requirement that I do not fully understand, but it seems to me that it could introduce an element of doubt into the existing clarity of the bill. At the moment, the bill is worded:
"Where a tenant's interest in acquiring land is registered under section 24".
That seems a perfectly clear and unambiguous precondition. Why is the issue to be clouded by introducing the rather vague and confusing phrase, "for the time being", to that equation? Good legislation should be simple legislation. On that ground alone, it is my instinct to oppose amendment 73, but I am sure that the minister will try to persuade me otherwise.
On Alex Fergusson's point about "for the time being", I say to him and to Murdo Fraser that we recognise that situations will change. Interests will be registered and situations may change. There may even be different tenancy arrangements. We are simply trying to take account of the reality on the ground that might exist at any one time—that is what we are trying to reflect. I hope that the amendment does not muddy the water, but allows us to take account of changing circumstances. We must ensure that sections 27 and 28, and the right to buy, will reflect the actual situation at any one time. That clarifies, rather than muddies, the waters.
Amendment 73 agreed to.
Amendment 21 not moved.
Section 28—Exercise of right to buy
Amendment 74 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 30—Appointment of valuer
Amendment 75 is grouped with amendment 76.
Amendments 75 and 76 are straightforward technical amendments, which clarify how the process of right to buy will operate, particularly the interrelationship between the provisions concerned.
I move amendment 75.
Amendment 75 agreed to.
Section 31—Valuation of the land and price
Amendment 76 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 77 is grouped with amendments 22, 78, 79, 79A, 23, 81 and 24. I draw members' attention to the fact that amendment 79A is a manuscript amendment, which is reproduced on the additional sheet that was made available along with the groupings this morning. I also remind members that, if amendment 23 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 80, which has already been debated, as it will be pre-empted.
The valuation process in the bill closely reflects the process that applies to the community right to buy in part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Amendments 77 and 78 reflect amendments that Parliament agreed should be made to that act so that the valuer is required only to assume that the buyer and seller are willing to conclude the transaction and not necessarily that they are "knowledgeable and prudent".
Murdo Fraser's amendment 22 strives to ensure that the valuer should have regard to the personal circumstances of the parties in assessing the price that is to be paid. I am not able to accept that approach. We believe that, if a valuer were to take account of such factors, an unfortunate element of subjectivity would be introduced, making the task of valuation more difficult and increasing the risk that the determined value would be appealed against. It would also be intrusive for the parties concerned. Under such an approach, factors such as the strength of the landlord's marriage, their tax affairs or the fact that the long-standing tenant would be prepared to pay more to buy land that his or her family has farmed for generations would often become relevant. We do not believe that it is either fair or necessary that the parties should be required to disclose such details and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors agrees with us. I also remind members that the valuation process that they approved for the community right to buy does not take account of such subjective and personal factors.
However, in advising that the valuer should not consider the parties' personal circumstances in valuing the land, the RICS has suggested that the valuation mechanism should take account of one additional factor, concerning whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the landlord will receive vacant possession in the foreseeable future. That is a relevant factor in the calculation of a transaction price. The tenanted value of land is strongly influenced by the expectation that a landlord has of getting the land back. Where a landlord expects the tenant to give up the tenancy soon, the tenanted value of the land increases accordingly. As it stands, the bill leaves the valuer unable to take account of such circumstances in setting a price.
Amendment 79 responds to that suggestion and will achieve two key benefits. First, it is consistent with the principle that the right to buy involves a willing buyer, a willing seller and a transaction at the full market value, as a landlord who reasonably expects a tenancy to end soon will get the full market value for the land and avoid a loss, which, in a few cases, could be substantial. Secondly, the amendment will ensure that the majority of tenants from whom the landlord could not reasonably anticipate getting the tenanted land back soon will have that expectation reflected in the transaction price that they pay.
Fergus Ewing's amendment 79A would amend amendment 79 to specify age and the likelihood of the family remaining on the land through succession as the factors that the valuer is to consider in deciding whether a landlord has a reasonable expectation of getting tenanted land back. We believe that those factors are too restrictive. For example, the physical well-being of a tenant might have a greater effect on the likelihood of their remaining a tenant than their age. Furthermore, as well as the existence of family, the circumstances will be a relevant factor. I hope that Fergus Ewing will not move amendment 79A.
Amendment 81 inserts a provision to clarify that any increase in the value arising from the undertaking of non-agricultural activities is to be disregarded in calculating the price payable. That is appropriate, as the land is being sold as agricultural land.
I apologise for taking the minister back a couple of sentences. He was talking about the physical well-being of tenants. How often do valuers assess tenants' well-being? There are enough problems with the Department for Work and Pensions assessing people's well-being for benefit entitlement. The idea of land valuers getting involved in that area surprises me. I wonder whether the minister can elaborate on the mechanisms that he envisages to allow that to happen.
If I heard his intervention correctly, Alasdair Morgan is referring to amendment 79A, so that question might be more properly directed to Fergus Ewing. We agree that the factors in amendment 79A are too restrictive, which is why we invite the Parliament to disagree to the amendment. If Alasdair Morgan is in agreement with me, I am grateful for that support.
Murdo Fraser's amendment 23 seeks to clarify that the type of tenant improvement of which a valuer is to take no account in setting a price is the type of improvement for which the tenant is entitled to receive compensation from a landlord under schedule 5 to the 1991 act. We have lodged similar amendments—amendments 80 and 82—which we believe do a more comprehensive job in that regard. We also believe that it is preferable that direct reference should be made to schedule 5 to the 1991 act in referring to a type of improvement that might attract compensation for the tenant. I hope that, on that understanding and in the light of the Executive amendments' reference to schedule 5 to the 1991 act, Murdo Fraser will not move amendment 23.
I cannot support Murdo Fraser's amendment 24. The aim of the amendment might be to reserve rights to the rest of the estate in instances when a farm is part of a larger estate, but the nature of those rights is not made clear. Splitting the ownership rights of land could lead to difficult and unintended consequences. For instance, it seems quite plausible that the power could be used to split off the sporting rights of an estate. Although I sympathise with some of Murdo Fraser's concerns, we cannot support an amendment the implications of which could be so far reaching.
I move amendment 77.
Amendment 22 seeks to make the reference to "the" particular sitting tenant rather than to "a" sitting tenant—in other words, not to an abstract sitting tenant or a sitting tenant of other ground. The only relevant sitting tenant in any valuation is the sitting tenant of a particular ground that is to be sold. The specific circumstances of that sitting tenant will have an effect on the price paid by an outside party. The circumstances of a sitting tenant of other ground or an abstract sitting tenant are surely of no relevance whatever. It should be noted that the parties are already assumed to be reasonably "willing, knowledgeable and prudent"—although I see that the phrase "knowledgeable and prudent" is to be removed. Surely, those criteria already give suitable objectivity to the task of the valuer.
I listened with interest to what the minister said about amendment 23. In the light of his comments and of the wording of amendments 80 and 82, I shall not move amendment 23.
Amendment 24 would require the valuer to take account of any rights that are
"to be reserved for the beneficial occupation and use of other land"
that is owned by the landowner. Notwithstanding the minister's comments, that is an important issue. When a farm is part of a larger whole, it will frequently be necessary for rights to be reserved for the benefit of the remainder of the estate. Those rights might well affect the value of the farm that is being sold, and it is only reasonable that the valuer should be required to identify those rights as part of the valuation and that they should form part of the tenant's offer. I am not reassured by what the minister has said in relation to amendment 24, which deals with an important issue that still requires to be addressed.
Amendment 79A deals with the way in which the land is to be valued. We all accept the fact that land that is subject to a secure tenancy, on which the pre-emptive right to buy will apply, is of lesser value than land that has vacant possession. Typically, a farm that is subject to a tenancy under the 1991 act might be worth half or 60 per cent of its value if it had vacant possession. Therefore, it is sensible that the valuer is directed to take account of the existence of a secure tenancy. Although it could be said that the original section 31, as agreed at stage 2, allowed that to happen, I believe that the best approach to legislative drafting is, "When in doubt, spell it out."
That is what the Executive has sought to do, and we welcome the aim behind amendment 79. The purpose of amendment 79A, which I lodged as a manuscript amendment after I saw the Executive amendment, which was lodged on Friday, is to cure what I believe is a defect in amendment 79.
Amendment 79 will require the valuer to take account of
"when the seller would in the normal course of events have been likely to recover vacant possession of the land from the tenant".
The point of secure tenancies is that they have the capacity to be perpetual. Provided that they are not in irritancy and that they pay the rent and practise good husbandry, tenants with 1991 act tenancies can pass on the tenure to their families. That has happened, generation unto generation. Members of the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group advised me of a lease that has been in one family for more than 300 years, which means that the family's progenitors had the happy experience of farming the land when Scotland was independent. I fully expect such families to farm the land when Scotland is once again independent.
That demonstrates graphically the serious point that 1991 act tenancies have the capacity to be—and might well be—perpetual, but amendment 79 does not say that and assumes that the landlord will recover vacant possession. That is the only possible interpretation of the words that I quoted. The valuer is being invited to make a valuation on the basis of a premise that we must accept is flawed.
The aim of amendment 79A is to acknowledge that, although the reasonable expectation in the normal course of events might be that the landlord will recover vacant possession, that will not necessarily happen. The minister said that it would be wrong not to take account of other factors, such as the tenant's physical well-being or otherwise. I do not consider such a factor appropriate for a valuer to consider. For the reasons that Alasdair Morgan suggested in his characteristically cogent fashion—
Quite right.
I see that he agrees with that part.
It would be inappropriate for a valuer to perform a medical test on a tenant or to obtain medical evidence, so I did not suggest that. I am surprised that the minister introduced that red herring into the debate.
The minister has an amendment with a serious technical defect. If that is not corrected, it will skew the valuation process, because it will take as a basis the false premise that 1991 tenancies will end.
I ask members to make brief comments.
My comments will be as brief as they get. Will the minister be good enough to explain why he wishes to remove the words "knowledgeable and prudent", which represent acceptable characteristics in the circumstances?
I seek clarification because, unfortunately, I did not hear the minister's opening remarks on the group, which might have answered my question about Fergus Ewing's amendment 79A. I take it that it is clear that the valuation will be of the land with the sitting tenant in place. As Fergus Ewing said, there is a significant difference between freehold value and the value of land with a sitting tenant, because of the right of succession under the 1991 act. Which valuation will the valuers decide to make? That is fundamental to the amount that the tenant will have to pay.
My response to Alex Fergusson is that the wording is being brought into line with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and with what has previously been agreed, so that the bill is consistent. We are talking about the valuer assuming that the buyer and seller are willing to conclude the transaction. The valuer's job is to reflect the price that would be available on the open market. That is what we require valuers to do. The provision does not inhibit that process.
I am deeply sorry that George Lyon missed my opening remarks, because they made it clear where the valuation is determined in the process. I made two points: the first about the question of disclosure and the second about the two key benefits that we are trying to achieve through amendment 79.
It is absolutely consistent with that aim that we should reasonably expect tenants to pay the full market value and that we should try to avoid losses, which could be substantial. I repeat that we also require the majority of tenants from whom the landlord could not reasonably anticipate getting the tenanted land back soon to have that expectation reflected in the transaction price that they pay. That is an important point.
I have dealt with amendments 77 and 78. I hope that George Lyon is clear that the amendments ensure that the value is reflected in the price. We are not seeking to introduce qualifications that will in any way diminish the value to the tenant in such circumstances. I am satisfied that the amendments reflect the kind of valuation that would be expected.
The minister is saying that a farm will be valued with the sitting tenant in place. Given the fact that the tenant is the purchaser, the tenancy ends with the purchase. Is the minister saying categorically—I want to hear him doing so—that the value of the farm will be judged on the fact that the farm is one with a sitting tenant in place and that the price would be much reduced if there was a freehold value? Can the minister give me that guarantee?
The valuation has to be judged to be reasonable and to take account of the circumstances of the tenancy at the time when the valuation is done. I struggle to see where George Lyon has picked up that the Executive seeks to introduce a different set of circumstances into the valuation from those that a valuer would normally be expected to take account of when they value a property. We are not trying to introduce any unreasonable or unusual circumstance save for the open market value at the time of the transaction.
The question is, that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 84, Against 13, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 77 agreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 81, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22 disagreed to.
Amendment 78 moved—[Ross Finnie].
The question is, that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 84, Against 13, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 78 agreed to.
Amendment 79 moved—[Ross Finnie].
I draw members' attention to the fact that amendment 79A is the late-lodged manuscript amendment, which is printed on a separate sheet.
I move, as an amendment to amendment 79, line 2, manuscript amendment 79A, to leave out from first "the" to end of line 3 and insert,
(if at all) the seller would, in the normal course of events, have a reasonable expectation of becoming entitled to recover vacant possession through the termination of the 1991 Act tenancy, having regard to—
(i) the age of the tenant; and
(ii) which persons (if any) would be, or would in any circumstances have been, entitled to succeed to the estate on intestacy by virtue of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 (c.41);.
The question is, that manuscript amendment 79A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 23, Against 75, Abstentions 0.
Manuscript amendment 79A disagreed to.
Amendment 79 agreed to.
Amendment 23 not moved.
Amendments 80 and 81 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 24 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 12, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 disagreed to.
Amendment 82 moved—[Ross Finnie].
The question is, that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we agreed? I think that that is agreed.
No.
Was there a no?
That "no" should have been a "yes".
So no means yes. Thank you.
Amendment 82 agreed to.
In a similar vein, for our purposes 12:30 will fall at 12:42.
Section 31A—Special provision where buyer is general partner in limited partnership
Amendment 83 is grouped with amendments 109, 110, 111, 111A, 112, 113, 114, 129 and 134. We might not finish this group of amendments before lunch, but I intend to proceed anyway.
I am conscious of the passage of time and will try to be brief. This is one of the more substantive measures to be debated, but I hope that we can move quickly to agree the new provisions of section 58A.
Section 58A was introduced to the bill at stage 2 to bring in protections for general partners within a limited partnership that is the tenant in a 1991 act tenancy. It was introduced to address a developing situation in which a number of landlords had served dissolution notices on partnerships pending the final shape of this legislation. That attempt by landlords to protect their position put the general partners in a situation of great uncertainty and faced them with the threat of imminent eviction.
The provision has already had the desired effect of plugging the flow of dissolution notices that were being served. However, we also undertook at stage 2 to consider refining the provision, including by extending its application to partnerships on which dissolution notices were served prior to 4 February. Executive amendments 111 to 114 reflect our response to that further consideration and consultation with the industry.
Amendment 111 makes important changes to section 58A. First, the scope of the section is extended to include limited partnerships on which a dissolution notice was served in the period between 16 September 2002, when the bill was introduced, and 3 February 2003. In those cases, section 58A will apply so that the general partner can apply to the Land Court to become a secure tenant where the partnership is or has been dissolved.
Exemptions will apply under subsection (5) to cater for situations where the rights of third parties might otherwise be affected. Those are any situation where the partnership had already been dissolved and the land was either re-let or sold to a new owner and instances where the landlord had entered into a binding contract either for the sale of the land with vacant possession or a lease with a new tenant, with a future date of entry.
I am conscious that there may be examples where a landlord served a dissolution notice prior to 16 September for a questionable reason. Amendment 111A attempts to address that by proposing an earlier date of 16 April 2002. After mature reflection, however, we believe that the use of the date 16 September captures the vast majority of dissolution notices served as a response to uncertainty about the contents of the bill.
Does the minister know how many notices were given between 16 April 2002—the date that is proposed in amendment 111A—and the date that he proposes?
Not precisely. Neither do we know precisely the number of dissolution notices that were served per se.
Is the minister aware that yesterday the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group estimated that around 60 notices were issued between April and September last year? If he accepts that in good faith as likely to be a fair estimate, the figure represents a serious justification for supporting amendment 111A and backdating the provision to April rather than September.
I will come to the substantive point. I would accept the figure in good faith. All I would argue is that the figures are not precise but are estimates of the problem.
Does the minister accept that the limited partnerships on which notices to quit were served in the run-up to 3 February were partnerships whose initial period had run out, many of which could have been dissolved before but had run on on a voluntary annual basis? Does he accept—I believe it to be the truth—that those notices to quit were entirely triggered by the fears engendered by the bill?
I cannot accept that, as that would be to give moral justification to an act that I believe to have been immoral.
I am coming to the substantive point. I accept that legitimate notices of dissolution would have been served that were unrelated to any attempt by landlords to obviate the impact of the bill. I also accept that the circumstances that then prevailed, with SNP members promoting the absolute right to buy, was an influence in that process. However, that did not give the moral justification to landlords to act in that manner.
In the instances to which I referred earlier, proposed section 58A(8A) imposes a strong onus on the landlord to demonstrate that, where a partnership was subsequently dissolved, the dissolution was for a reasonable purpose. We believe that a number of landlords might suffer undue hardship if the provision covered all partnerships on which dissolution notices were served on a date before 16 September 2002, including, for example, 16 April.
I agree with Stewart Stevenson and Fergus Ewing that, in many respects, any date would be arbitrary. The normal period of notice for dissolution is six or 12 months, depending on the terms of the partnership. There will always be deserving cases that fall on the wrong side, no matter how early a date is set. For example, when I pressed the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group on the matter, reference was made to a case that predated the April date and was set in motion way back in November 2001. Equally, however, it must be agreed that the setting of an earlier date might catch landowners who had acted reasonably in dissolving partnerships. However, the earlier the date is set, the greater the likelihood of unintended consequences arising. On balance, and after mature reflection, Mr Finnie and I concluded that the appropriate cut-off point that would catch most of the 150 to 200 examples that we have heard about would be 16 September.
Where a notice to dissolve a limited partnership has been served in the period from the day of introduction of the amendment relating to section 58A, which was 4 February 2003, to a date to be set by ministers by order—which is as yet unspecified but is described in the bill as "the relevant date"—section 58A, in its present form, will apply. In practice, we intend that the relevant date will be on or shortly after the commencement date for the provision.
The provisions will provide a strong disincentive for landlords who might be considering action to dissolve a limited partnership in the period before the new legislation comes into force. We have taken care to develop the bill in a way that respects landlords' legitimate rights. As Alex Fergusson will no doubt remind us, there is no reason why a landlord should want to dissolve a limited partnership in order to avoid the consequences of the bill. We hope and believe that landlords and their agents will soon recognise that fact. As the situation settles down, the need for section 58A will diminish. That is why the provisions are to apply until the relevant date.
Of course, there are circumstances where the landlord has legitimate reasons for wanting to dissolve the partnership. That is why a limited right would be introduced in proposed subsection (8A) for the landlord to apply to the Land Court for an order stating that the rights given by section 58A should not apply and should be set aside. That is to cover instances in which the landlord genuinely needed the land back in hand and could suffer loss if the land were not returned quickly. I trust that, having considered the arguments in a mature way, Fergus Ewing is comfortable about the way in which the test of reasonableness will work and is sufficiently reassured not to press amendment 111A.
Recent events have demonstrated that many general partners are in an insecure position in the longer term. That is unacceptable. That is why we propose to introduce a new section through amendment 113. The new section will require a landlord to serve the same double notice to quit on a general partner as they would on a tenant with a limited duration tenancy, regardless of the length of the dissolution notice period. As a result, the general partner will then have up to three years' notice to quit and the double notice procedure will also provide a window for the landlord and general partner to consider their next steps.
We hope and believe that amendment 111 will be acceptable to the Parliament. If, for any reason, the Parliament felt unable to accept the changes to section 58A, we would ask that a technical adjustment be made to the existing section through amendment 112. That would delete section 58A(8)(a)(ii), which allows the Land Court to make an order providing that the tenancy is to continue with the general partner as tenant with effect from
"such other date as the order may specify".
We are concerned that occasions on which the provision took effect before the partnership was dissolved might fall on the wrong side of the law of partnership, which is, of course, a reserved matter. If amendment 111 is agreed to, amendment 112 falls.
As it stands, section 58A also extends the pre-emptive right to buy to general partners. Because of the changes that amendment 111 would make to section 58A, we have taken an opportunity to place the right-to-buy provisions, which are currently in section 58A(3), in a new section. Amendment 114 provides for that. Amendment 129 adds to section 75 a reference to the order-making power.
As an anti-avoidance mechanism, the right to buy will continue for a period of time after the partnership has dissolved or the tenancy has otherwise terminated. However, that provision raises issues of its own. For example, we must work out what should happen if the tenanted land is subsequently re-let to a tenant who has—or who does not have—a right to buy. To set out the detail of how the right to buy is to work in such cases would take time—of which we do not have an awful lot. However, amendment 114 introduces a regulatory power for ministers to set out the detail of the right-to-buy provisions as they affect general partners. The power would be narrow in its scope and deal with technical issues. It would also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I genuinely believe that this package of amendments ensures that section 58A can provide the necessary protections for general partners currently and in future, without impacting unduly on the rights of landlords who had legitimate cause to dissolve. I hope that Fergus Ewing will not move amendment 111A.
I move amendment 83.
I am grateful to the minister for pointing out that amendment 111 would pre-empt amendment 112.
I will make a judgment call. I will call Fergus Ewing to speak to amendment 111A. I intend to suspend thereafter until the afternoon, having noted the names of the other members who wish to speak in the debate.
I speak to amendment 111A in the knowledge that, although this might not be the most important provision of the bill in the long term, in the short term it could have the most concrete impact on a number of secure tenants throughout Scotland.
The matter was debated at stage 2. Shortly before the stage 2 debate on 4 February, a great deal of publicity was attracted by the unfortunate event of a number of landowners issuing notices to quit or notices of dissolution to seek to bring limited partnerships to an end for, it is believed, the express purpose of circumventing the bill's aims.
Will Fergus Ewing give way?
No—it is too early.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to backdate to the date of the bill's publication the provision to entitle those secure tenants to apply to the Land Court. I argued that 16 September was a reasonable date to pick because that was the date on which the bill was published.
However, I pointed out that, on the day on which I spoke to the amendment—and only on that day—it had been drawn to my attention that, prior to 16 September, there were also a number of cases of secure tenants receiving notices to quit. Had I been aware that there was a serious problem before 16 September, I would have argued for an earlier date at that point.
At stage 2, the minister was good enough to say that he would return to the matter at stage 3. He has now chosen to adopt the amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I hope to take the minister a further mile—or back a further six months in this case—towards what I think would be a fair, just and reasonable result.
I do not start from the premise that all landlords are bad and intend to carry out some sort of clearance of secure tenants. That is manifestly not the case. When issuing notices, many landlords said—either themselves or through agents—that that was a legal procedure and that they intended to enter into new arrangements once the legislation was in place. In other words, they suggested to secure tenants that the notice was being issued for certain legal purposes but that there was no intention to seek to go through with an eviction. In many other cases, however, that was not done. In one case, notice was delivered on the eve of 4 February—in another case, it was even delivered in the early hours—and the tenants had been asked to stay in their house to receive the notice.
In many cases, notices to terminate the limited partnership were served to tenants who faced not only the loss of their livelihood and their business, but eviction from their house. It was a double whammy. According to the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group, around 60 such notices were issued between April and September 2002.
If the Executive has accepted in principle that tenants should have the right to go to court to argue that it is unreasonable for them to be evicted and for new tenancy arrangements to be entered into, surely it must accept that the provision should date back to 16 April 2002, which was the date of the publication of the draft bill. It is perfectly clear that some landowners, acting between April and September last year, before the bill was introduced, took it to be the case that there would be a pre-emptive right to buy, as promised in the consultation paper.
Will Mr Ewing give way?
I will certainly give way at this stage. I will also be happy to give way to Sylvia Jackson, now that we have moved on a wee bit, if she still wishes to intervene.
Does Mr Ewing now consider the April date, to which amendment 111A refers, to be the fair and just one? If so, why did he not ask for such a change to be made at stage 2, when he called for the September date?
With respect, I think that I have fully explained that. The reason is simple. At stage 2, I expressly said—I have checked my remarks—that I had chosen 16 September because that was the date of the introduction of the bill. As I pointed out in the course of our stage 2 discussions, I was made aware—
I ask the minister to hang on a second, as I am responding to Alex Fergusson's point. Having lodged the relevant stage 2 amendment, I was made aware that there were a number of cases—I did not know at the time that it was about 60—that would not be caught and in which tenants might, in extremis, face eviction from their home. That is why I did not push back the date from September to April at stage 2. I hope that that position will be accepted. I am not sure whether any other members wish to intervene. Perhaps Dr Jackson wants to intervene.
Dr Jackson indicated disagreement.
May I intervene on that point?
Well, okay.
Let us not have a bidding system.
Fergus Ewing said that 60 applications to dissolve partnerships were made between April and September 2002. How many were made before April?
The figure of 60 was cited by the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group. I believe that there may have been some dissolutions prior to April, but there has to be some dividing line. The reason why 16 April should be chosen is clear: it was the day on which the Executive's legislative intentions were published. Before that date, it was not clear that the Executive was planning to proceed with a statutory right to buy. That was the date when consternation was caused and from which some land agents and advisers started advising clients that, in order to ensure that they could get vacant possession back under limited partnerships, they should issue notices of dissolution. The relevant date is 1 April, which is why I am arguing for it to be specified in the bill.
I entirely accept the reasons that Fergus Ewing has given for moving his preferred date from September to April. He referred to the Executive's acceptance in principle of the movement of the date. At stage 2, I said that the Executive would look at retrospection. The principle that the Executive has accepted is not in relation to the movement of the date for catching consequential dissolution notices. We are confident that there is no substantial number in the period between 4 February and 16 September that would cause unintended consequences to third parties and others. We cannot agree to further extension beyond 16 September.
I hear what the minister says, but I am not sure that further backdating would cause unintended consequences. For example, matters may have progressed and notices may have been issued that were not triggered by the revelation of the Executive's legislative intentions. A limited partnership may have been brought to an end in the normal course of commerce—perhaps because the duration of the lease ended—and other arrangements may already have been made with a new let to a third party.
In such circumstances, the provisions proposed in amendment 111, particularly new section 58A(5), protect that position and prevent the tenant from proceeding with a spurious grievance. Only those tenants with a genuine grievance would be entitled to apply to the Land Court. That court would be entitled to make an order only if it was satisfied that the landlord's behaviour was effectively triggered by the bill and designed to circumvent the Parliament's avowed intentions.
I heard the minister's earlier argument, but I do not accept what he said. As I said, I have some fairly substantive legal comments to make, although I may be preying on the Presiding Officer's patience.
Mr Lyon—I mean Mr Ewing—I am concerned at how much of the time that is available for us to debate groups 18, 19 and 20 has already been used up. After you have finished speaking, we will need about 20 minutes to debate the remaining amendments. You may speak for another two or three minutes. If you speak for any longer, we may be in difficulty.
Very well. I am especially pleased that you have realised who I am, Presiding Officer.
As long as you know who you are, Mr Ewing.
I anticipated that the Executive or the Conservatives might object that my proposal contravenes the European convention on human rights. I do not know whether that argument will be advanced, but I understand that ministers have received from the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group a substantive opinion from Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw QC, an acknowledged expert in this field. Citing the relevant authorities, he makes it abundantly clear that the ECHR would provide no comfort to any challenge to the provision. As ministers have received a copy of the opinion, I will spare members a word-for-word recitation of it.
We are not advancing the argument that the provision contravenes the ECHR.
I hear that the Executive is not advancing that argument, but perhaps the Conservatives are.
No.
Perhaps the Conservatives have eschewed an argument that others may make. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has made hugely exaggerated claims based on the ECHR, so the topic is serious. However, I am pleased that all parties that have an interest in the debate appear to recognise that the ECHR is not a problem.
It would be wholly unacceptable for the Parliament to fail to take a measure that could prevent the possible eviction of secure tenants. I thought that the ministers had recognised that we should avoid such evictions at all costs, so I am surprised that they will not go the extra mile to do so. I hope that they will reconsider their position. If the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group is correct, the future of 60 families is at stake. It would be ridiculous for us to accept the principle of preventing evictions but to fail to put that into practice. Time will tell whether landlords go through with eviction, but some of those who do may not be caught by the Executive.
The Executive's initial change of stance is welcome. I hope that, before we vote on amendment 111A, ministers will reflect on what I have said. This is a serious matter that may affect a number of families in our farming communities.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—
Welcome back. We will pick up where we left off on the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, but first I have a brief announcement to make. This afternoon, there will be a camera on the floor of the chamber for the "Working for You" parliamentary video, which is being made for secondary schools and other organisations.
Fergus Ewing has spoken to amendment 111A.
I gather that time is pretty tight, so I will rattle through what I am about to say, if I may.
The Conservatives remain resolutely opposed to the extension of the provisions of the bill to cover existing limited partnerships. We believe that that constitutes moving the goalposts so far from the bill's original intentions that the Parliament will send out entirely the wrong message if we intend truly to reinvigorate the tenanted sector. Like the right to buy, the extension of the provisions on limited partnerships was not an original aim of the bill.
We should make no mistake. Limited partnerships were devised as a way round the secure provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. They were a dodge—albeit a legal dodge—to ensure that vacant possession could be regained at some point in the future. We should be clear that they were entered into voluntarily by a willing lessee and a willing lessor. Agreements that had already come to the end of their period continued almost without exception on a year-to-year basis until it became clear that the bill would impact on them in a manner that would make eventual vacant possession almost impossible. The natural reaction to that was the unseemly issuing of notices to quit that has been referred to, which reached a peak on 3 February as landowners sought to retain their rightful property, just as an individual will always seek to retain what is rightfully theirs when they perceive it to be under threat. To portray the issue differently is to cloak it in a cloud of political dogma and rhetoric that is as dishonest as it is obfuscating.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to do so, but I do not have enough time. I am sorry, as I would welcome hearing the views of a Labour member—we did not hear from one all morning other than the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. I hope that we will hear from a Labour member later.
The minister has extended the bill to impact on limited partnerships and we must deal with that reality. The Scottish Landowners Federation recently put forward a highly imaginative and constructive proposition to the minister that would effectively have removed limited partnerships from the equation altogether by simply converting them all into limited duration tenancies with a minimum term of three years. That would have allowed the bill to focus entirely on secure tenancies and the proposed new tenancies, which would have been hugely beneficial to all parties.
Amendments 111, 112 and 113 go some way towards that aim, but they fail to provide the clarity that the SLF proposal would have provided; instead, they deal with each limited partnership as and when it comes to the end of its term. Although we do not see the amendments as perfect by any means, they constitute an improvement to the bill as amended at stage 2 and we will not oppose them. However, we will oppose amendment 111A, with which Fergus Ewing seeks to have his cake, eat it and then get some more cake.
Amendment 114 essentially confers a right to buy to partnerships and new tenancies, as well as conferring unacceptable powers on future ministers to extend the provisions of the bill through subordinate legislation at any time in the future. I will say more about that when we debate amendment 130, but I oppose amendment 114.
I ask Stewart Stevenson to keep his comments tight.
This is probably the first time that I have delivered a speech that is written on a napkin from the Parliament's canteen. The fact that the minister, tenant farmers and I were able to sit around the table and discuss issues says something about the Parliament.
One thing that emerged from that discussion is that there certainly are tenants who were given notice between April and September last year who would not be caught by amendment 111. For that reason, I rise to speak in support of amendment 111A. I understand that the NFUS is minded to support the amendment; the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group certainly supports it. The issue of unintended consequences appears to be impeding progress to accepting the April cut-off. Are there people who would be caught who were part of the normal turnover of tenancies in that period and to whom notice was given other than as a move to avoid the bill's provisions? Certainly there are, but SNP members believe that new section 58A(5), as proposed in amendment 111, is sufficient to address the issue. We urge the minister to give serious consideration to our amendment 111A. We hope that he can accept it.
I will speak to amendment 111 and about the issue of limited tenancies and the many people who had notices served prior to 16 September. I know that there are two such people in the gallery today. I understand that the figure that Fergus Ewing gave may not be far short of the total.
There has to be a way around the issue. I accept that, for legal reasons, we may not be able to alter the date. However, there has to be a procedure or a review by which we can consider the issue. We must try to alleviate the real concerns of the tenant farmers whose landowners indicated that their position was to be reviewed and that notices were being given for the reasons that were mentioned. However, the notices have not been rescinded and tenant farmers have been given no reassurance that they will be. It is important that we do something to help those tenant farmers by means of a review or some other procedure.
I, too, will speak to amendment 111. It is clear that one of the key objectives of the bill is to give added protection to tenants in a limited partnership. It is also clear that, over the past few months, landlords have been taking action to deny tenants the protection that is offered in the bill. I am afraid that, by their actions, landlords have given the game away. They have destroyed their argument that partnership tenancies were a legitimate business arrangement and were entered into by willing partners. We need to be clear about the subject: partnership tenancies are nothing more than a crude device that were invented by landlords and their factors to deny tenants their rights under the 1991 act.
I am glad that Alex Fergusson recognised that fact, because the practice arose under Tory stewardship. Partnership tenancies allowed landlords to put tenants out of their farms at any time. Landlords used the legal device of ending the partnership agreement, which had the effect of making the tenant disappear. Alex Fergusson said that tenants entered into partnership tenancies willingly, but that is not the case. No other option was available—if tenants wanted extra land, partnership agreements were the only game in town. No landlord offered agricultural tenancies under the 1991 act.
We all share the concern about how far back we should go to give protection to those tenants. I listened to the minister's arguments against Fergus Ewing's amendment 111A and heard him say that we should not go back to April. As the third-party agreements that were entered into are covered by new section 58A(5), that removes the obstacle of going back a little further to the April date that Fergus Ewing's amendment 111A proposes. I ask the minister to address that fundamental concern, which is, I think, shared by all members. I ask the minister to ensure that protection is given to all tenants who have been given notice to quit by landlords who want to circumvent the provisions of the bill.
In conclusion, I should perhaps say one more thing about the extension of the pre-emptive right to buy under section 58(2). In contrast to the remainder of that section, the extension is not a retrospective provision. It can be exercised only from the commencement of the section; it cannot be exercised between now and commencement, not least because a tenant will not be able to register an interest yet. Registration is an essential precondition of exercising the right to buy. The reason for the cross-reference to subsection (5) is not to make the provision retrospective, but to protect third parties that might have acquired legally enforceable rights.
I will be brief, as we have had an opportunity to debate the matter fully. Wherever the line is drawn, there will always be deserving cases.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry; I have to conclude now.
We are very tight for time, Mr Stevenson.
Equally, there might be cases of landowners acting reasonably in dissolving partnerships.
After the bill has been passed, the solution would be an industry agreement to rescind dissolution notices that have been issued inappropriately or to convert tenancies into LDTs. The earlier the date we choose, the more likely we are to face unrelated consequences and disputes with third parties. That is why, on balance and after mature reflection, we believe that 16 September is the appropriate cut-off point and will cover the vast majority of the 150 to 200 cases that we know about.
Amendment 83 agreed to.
Section 33—Appeal to Lands Tribunal against decisions of valuer
I am anxious to get through group 19 as quickly as possible to leave some time for group 20. The knife falls at 14:53.
Amendment 84 is grouped with amendments 85 and 86.
I will be very brief, Presiding Officer.
Section 33 was amended at stage 2 to ensure that jurisdiction over appeals from a determination of the price payable on the exercise of the right to buy by a valuer was transferred from the Scottish Land Court to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. Amendment 85 seeks to clarify that there is no further appeal from the Lands Tribunal on such matters.
The Lands Tribunal is a specialist valuation body, and the Land Court has specialist expertise in matters of agricultural law. As a matter of policy, we believe that the Land Court should be able to assist the tribunal with questions of law that arise in valuation appeals. Amendment 86 seeks to amend section 33A for that purpose, and to provide that the Lands Tribunal should refer such matters to the Land Court unless it considers that it is not appropriate for it to do so. Amendment 84 is a drafting change.
I move amendment 84.
I am slightly concerned about amendment 85, which seems to end the appeals route at its starting point—in other words, at the Lands Tribunal. After all, in most cases of appeal, the appellant has a right to go to a higher authority if they are not satisfied. I would appreciate it if the minister would give us his thoughts on that matter.
We are simply saying that, as a matter of policy, the Land Court should be able to assist the Lands Tribunal. As a result, there is no further right of appeal. Once one has exhausted various questions of detail and expertise in dealing with a valuation, the Land Court is as far as one can go. That is common policy in relation to the bill.
Amendment 84 agreed to.
Amendment 85 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 33A—Referral of certain matters by Lands Tribunal to Land Court
Amendment 86 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 34—Use of land for non-agricultural purposes
We have 11 minutes left for the next group of amendments. Amendment 25 is grouped with amendments 87, 88 and 26.
Amendment 25 seeks to amend the wording of section 34. Indeed, it is a technical clarification and I hope that the minister will provide some helpful guidance on it. As I understand it, the wording of section 34 in relation to subletting was intended to catch short-term holiday accommodation and in effect to allow it as a form of diversification. There is no dispute that such an objective is desirable, but the Law Society was concerned that, as drafted, the subletting provision was drawn too widely. If it was intended that the provision should apply only to subletting short-term holiday accommodation, it would be better for everyone if the legislation said so specifically instead of leaving the matter in such general terms.
Amendment 26 seeks to clarify in section 35 that if the "non-agricultural purpose" referred to is
"the planting and cropping of trees"—
notwithstanding the provisions in section 35(11) and (12)—the landlord is
"deemed to have objected to the notice of diversification".
It appears that there is a lacuna in the legislation, in that the matter is not specifically dealt with. I hope that the minister will address those points. I should also point out that we have no difficulty with amendments 87 and 88.
I move amendment 25.
In moving amendment 25, Murdo Fraser is right to state that the tenant should not be able to use the diversification provisions in the bill simply to sublet land and buildings in a way that overrode any prohibition in subletting within the lease under common law. We want to encourage non-agricultural activity by tenants and if such activity meant that tenants gave people access to land or buildings, the tenants would be involved in active management and service delivery. In such a context, subletting would not be a diversified activity.
I disagree with Murdo Fraser's contention that a tenant might legitimately use land in a way that could be construed as subletting only when the tenant provided short-term holiday accommodation. I can think of examples of other activities that might be regarded as involving an element of subletting. I believe that it is important that we do not at a stroke prevent tenants from undertaking such activities.
We are also uncomfortable with amendment 26, which seeks to amend section 35(13) so that a landlord who did not respond to a notice of diversification relating to the planting and cropping of trees would be deemed to have objected to the proposal. It seems wrong that a landlord who did not send notification should be deemed to have objected, when he or she might, in fact, be relaxed about the proposal.
Amendments 87 and 88 are consequential and relate to compensation payments at waygo.
I am somewhat surprised that no other member has asked to speak on this group.
In relation to amendment 25, the minister said that he had in mind other examples. Can he elaborate on those?
I can think of numerous examples, such as a barn being used as a warehouse or for storage, or a facility being used as a training or conference centre. There are examples in addition to the example of the subletting of accommodation for holiday purposes.
I am obliged to the minister for that clarification, although the examples seem to go a bit beyond amendment 25's intention. However, in view of what he said, I will not press amendment 25. I remain concerned about the lacuna to which I referred in relation to amendment 26, so I will move amendment 26.
Amendment 25, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 87 and 88 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 35—Notice of and objection to diversification
Amendment 26 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 10, Against 82, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 26 disagreed to.
Section 37A—Agreements as to improvements and compensation for improvements
Amendments 89 and 90 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
On a point of order. I know that you have discretion as to the time scale of the debate, Presiding Officer, but I must point out that not all members were called to speak in the debate on group 18, which dealt with an extremely important issue. However, as we are now 15 minutes ahead of schedule, I feel that something is wrong with the stage 3 process.
There is nothing that we can do about that. In fact, the only member not called to speak in that debate was you, Mr Rumbles. I am managing the debate to the best of my ability.
After section 37A
Amendment 91 is grouped with amendments 92 to 94, 27 and 135.
With regard to your remark to Mr Rumbles, I must say that it is rare to hear a Presiding Officer trying to curry favour with the whole chamber.
Amendments 91 and 93 address two issues that were raised at stage 2. Amendment 91 applies to the 1991 act tenancies and amendment 93 applies to SLDTs and LDTs.
Amendment 91 relates to a tenant's right to compensation at waygo for improvements made to the holding. In the course of the on-going discussions with the industry, landlords asked that, in return for the change introduced guaranteeing a tenant's right to compensation at waygo in respect of certain improvements regardless of write-down agreements to the contrary, acknowledgement be given of circumstances where either the tenant's improvement goes beyond what was necessary or where the landlord has offered the tenant a benefit in return for the write-down agreement. The amendments provide for the second of those circumstances; the first circumstance has already been provided for in the bill.
Amendment 93 covers a tenant's right to compensation for improvement where the cost has been assisted by public grant. At stage 2, I undertook to consider provisions to allow a tenant at waygo to receive compensation from the landlord for a part of an improvement funded from grants and public money, the alternative being that the tenant receives from the landlord no compensation for the element of improvement funded with public money while the landlord has the full benefit of the publicly funded improvement and can increase rent on the basis of that improvement. Let us consider an example of the operation of the amendment. A new structure is built with £5,000 of the tenant's money, £2,500 of the landlord's money and a £2,500 grant. The proportion of the grant to be taken into account in assessing the compensation that would be payable to the tenant under section 36(1) of the 1991 act is not the full £2,500 but £1,666, which is 66 per cent of the £2,500. Put another way, the share of the grant money is apportioned between the tenant and the landlord in the same ratio as their contributions to the structure—in this case, a ratio of 2:1.
The amendment ensures that the value of the improvement, including the element attributable to the grant payment, is to be apportioned between landlord and tenant based on their respective contributions to the cost of the improvement, unless the conditions of the grant scheme stipulate otherwise. At present, the value of the grant benefit tends to remain with the landlord even though they can charge rent on the added value to an incoming tenant.
Amendment 27 would require a tenant under the SLDT or the LDT to give notice in writing three months before undertaking an improvement, were compensation to be payable for that improvement at waygo. Section 42(1) requires the tenant to give notice in writing to the landlord before undertaking the improvement. However, I question the need for such an amendment. Section 42(3) requires the tenant to give the landlord 60 days in which to respond to the tenant's notice if they wish to object to the carrying out of the improvement or the manner in which the tenant proposes to undertake it. Provided that the tenant provides that period of notice and assuming that the landlord does not complain within the 60-day period, it is not apparent to me why the tenant need wait a further month before starting work on the improvement.
Amendments 92, 94 and 135 are consequential.
I move amendment 91.
As the minister identified, amendment 27 would require the tenant to give the landlord three months' notice in writing specifying any intention to carry out an improvement and the manner in which it was proposed to carry out the improvement.
The reason for that is that section 42(1) does not specify the length of notice that the tenant is to give the landlord. In the interest of fairness, it seems reasonable that the landlord be given a time frame in which to consider the tenant's notice of his or her intention to carry out improvements. As three months is the period that section 38 of the 1991 act requires, it reflects what is already in the legislation. Some notice period is required in such instances, so amendment 27 is worth considering.
Compensation would be computed on the basis of the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant. The Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group and the NFUS have argued that, in the past, improvements carried out where grant assistance has been available have resulted in the landlord receiving the benefit. The SNP therefore welcomes amendments 91 to 94 and 135. My colleague Richard Lochhead raised the issue at stage 2. I am delighted that the Executive appears to have adopted the methodology that I suggested at stage 2. Not surprisingly, I will support the product.
I am grateful to the minister for clarifying a point that a number of constituents have put to me. As I understand it, the impact of amendment 91 is that the compensation value of grant aid will be apportioned by the relative contributions of the tenant and the landlord. That is an important point to have clarified, and I am grateful to the minister for his help.
I confirm that Euan Robson has entirely understood the provisions of amendment 91. I am grateful for Fergus Ewing's support. In response to Murdo Fraser's point that there is a need for a period of notice, I again draw his attention to section 42(3), which requires the tenant to give the landlord 60 days to respond to the tenant's notice. I believe that that is a due period of notice. I again invite Murdo Fraser not to move amendment 27.
Amendment 91 agreed to.
Section 38—Right to compensation for improvements
Amendment 137 not moved.
Amendment 92 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 40—Amount of compensation
Amendment 93 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 41—Consent required for compensation in certain cases
Amendment 94 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 42—Notice required for certain improvements
In light of the minister's comments, and as I have got my legal head round the wording of section 42(3), I will not move amendment 27.
Amendment 27 not moved.
Section 44—Compensation arising as a result of diversification etc
Amendment 95 is grouped with amendments 96 to 99.
Amendment 97 builds on provisions that we introduced at stage 2 in connection with a tenant's right to receive compensation at waygo in respect of improvements from non-agricultural activities. I indicated to the Rural Development Committee at stage 2 that I would introduce such an amendment.
Proposed new section 45A(4C) of the 1991 act states that compensation to the tenant is payable only where the diversified activity does not render land unsuitable for agricultural use and does not leave the landlord unable to fulfil their obligations to provide the incoming agricultural tenant with fixed equipment to the statutory standard. That is because our aim is to foster the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes and not, it is important to stress, to convert agricultural land to land to be used for non-agricultural purposes.
Proposed new subsection (4B) says that account shall be taken of public grant received for agricultural improvements and proposed new subsection (4D) confirms that, as is the case in relation to compensation for agricultural improvements,
"Where the tenant has remained in occupation of the holding during two or more tenancies",
they are entitled to compensation covering the entire period of their occupancy of that tenancy.
I move amendment 95.
I oppose amendments 96 and 97 on the grounds that amendment 96 seems somewhat unfair and amendment 97 seems somewhat inconsistent. Amendment 96 removes from compensation negotiations any loss to the value of the holding arising from the carrying out of conservation activities, the increase of which has in recent years been encouraged, and which we would all welcome as sound practice by whoever carries them out.
Amendment 96 has to be seen in conjunction with the criteria governing the question whether the landlord's consent is specifically required under grant schemes associated with conservation activities. It is by no means inconceivable that a landlord will have consented to the creation by the tenant of, for example, an area of wetland under an agri-environmental scheme. That would almost certainly devalue the holding in terms of agricultural productive capacity. It is therefore surely illogical to require the landlord's consent on the one hand, yet on the other hand to deny him or her the right to compensation where that is justified because of a subsequent loss of value to the holding.
Amendment 97 includes conservation activities, and I do not see how that can work alongside amendment 96, which leaves out conservation activities altogether. Unless convinced otherwise, we will oppose both amendments 96 and 97, for the sake of clear legislation.
We expect that, in practice, tenants' reasons for entering into diversified activities will be similar to those that would apply if they had chosen to specialise in a niche agricultural market. Their goal is to generate income, not to receive payment for a capital asset. Compensation for improvements would be based on the value—a hypothetical value, admittedly—to the incoming tenant, whose interest could not necessarily be assumed.
On the substantive point that Alex Fergusson raises, I am confident that the conservation activities that he refers to are caught by the provisions in the bill.
Amendment 95 agreed to.
Amendment 96 moved—[Ross Finnie].
The question is, that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 82, Against 13, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 96 agreed to.
Amendment 97 moved—[Ross Finnie].
The question is, that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 83, Against 15, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 97 agreed to.
Amendment 98 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 46—Compensation for other particular things
Amendment 99 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 47A—Right to compensation for yielding vacant possession
Amendment 28 stands in a group of its own.
Amendment 28 would amend the terms of section 47A that create a right to compensation for yielding vacant possession. That provision was introduced at stage 2 by a narrow majority of six votes to five. The SNP was among that majority, and the Conservatives were in the minority.
We are delighted that interest groups, notably the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group and the NFUS, supported the introduction of that measure in their many representations. It will have a substantial impact on tenant farmers who are presently unable to retire because there is no facility for them to yield the value that is inherent in the difference between vacant possession and land that is subject to secure tenancy.
However, the purpose of the amendment is to tighten up the provisions in section 47A(2) to make it clear that when the landlord proposes to sell the land and wishes to do so with vacant possession, he or she must give written notice to the tenant. Also, when the tenant agrees to quit the land, the landlord and the tenant must enter into a written agreement. No compulsion is involved because it is up to the parties, if they ultimately reach an agreement, as to whether the sale goes ahead. However, the amendment makes it clear that if there is to be a sale with vacant possession, there must be an agreement in writing to that effect after the landlord has given notice.
I move amendment 28.
We oppose amendment 28, as it is a restrictive and proscriptive amendment that curtails the freedom of two parties to reach agreement. I find it strange that Fergus Ewing has chosen to lodge the amendment, given that he always welcomes consensus when it is reached. Amendment 28 would make consensus less likely. The process for which it provides would be counterproductive and would promote tension unnecessarily, leading to frustration and lack of co-operation, rather than enable genuine development opportunities to open up when agreement is reached.
I listened to Fergus Ewing's introduction to amendment 28, which would amend section 47A, but I am not persuaded by his arguments.
Since stage 2, we have considered carefully the value and risks of section 47A. We have concluded that, provided that Executive amendments to section 54B are agreed to, we can live with the provision. In coming to that conclusion, we have given weight to the comments that Rhoda Grant and Stewart Stevenson made in support of the amendment that inserted section 47A at stage 2. They emphasised that that amendment was designed to create the opportunity for a landlord and tenant to agree on the basis for a tenant's quitting the holding and to enable that to happen in a balanced way, regardless of whether the landlord or the tenant had initiated the move.
We believe that the principles of opportunity and balance are important, but amendment 28 would work against them. Fergus Ewing recognises that neither landlord nor tenant would benefit from the introduction of compulsion when the tenant wishes to quit the land, but thinks that compulsion is appropriate when the landlord wishes to take the land back. The element of compulsion that Fergus Ewing seeks—and with which I disagree—is somewhat curious.
Amendment 28 provides that where the landlord wishes to sell tenanted land with vacant possession and the tenant agrees to quit the land, they would be compelled to enter into an agreement that would provide that the landlord will pay the tenants an amount calculated in accordance with section 47A. The parties may be willing, but they would not be able to negotiate how much the tenant was to receive. The tenant would be compelled to accept the sum provided in accordance with section 47A(3), no matter whether he could have negotiated a higher sum.
Security of tenure is a strong negotiating tool in the hands of the tenant. As the NFUS has made clear, a number of tenants would expect to receive more than half the difference between the tenanted value and the vacant possession value of the land before they would agree to quit the holding. Amendment 28 would constrain the negotiating position of tenants and therefore I can see no reason for it. I ask Fergus Ewing to withdraw amendment 28.
Do you want to say anything else, Mr Ewing?
I press amendment 28.
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 20, Against 75, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 28 disagreed to.
Before section 52
Amendment 100 moved—[Ross Finnie].
Amendment 100A moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 100A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 22, Against 75, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 100A disagreed to.
The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 85, Against 16, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 100 agreed to.
Section 54—Variation of rent
Amendment 29 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 22, Against 79, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Amendment 30 not moved.
After section 54
Amendment 101 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 54A—Termination of tenancy
Amendment 102 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 54B—Terms of leases
Amendment 103 is grouped with amendments 138, 31, 139, 33, 34, 104, 35, 36, 37, 38, 105 and 106.
If amendment 34 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 104 and if amendment 36 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 37 because of pre-emption. Amendment 103 would not pre-empt amendment 138.
The Rural Development Committee inserted section 54B at stage 2 to give 1991 act tenants a right to assign their interests in the tenancy. I opposed that at stage 2 because we were concerned that the amendment had been lodged without much consideration being given to its practical effects. We have consequently given a lot of thought to the new provision since stage 2, in consultation with the industry. Our considered view at the conclusion of that consideration is that section 54B will not in its current form benefit tenants generally, but could prove to be damaging to the sector as a whole.
I will make it clear what the effect of section 54B as it stands would be for tenants. The only tenants who would benefit from the right that section 54B gives would be those who plan to leave the industry fairly soon. However, even for those tenants there is no guarantee about what the value of the assignation might be. Not even the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group is able to predict whether the provision would in practice leave tenants with the funds that would help them to retire.
What about tenants who intend to stay on the land? Any prospect of an assigned value in the future would be cancelled out by the prospective increase in rent that a tenant would be required to pay to reflect the existence of the new right. Assignees who become new tenants would find that the effect of section 54B would be to deprive them—through a combination of increased rental payments and the initial assignation payment—of the valuable funds that they would otherwise put into their business.
Section 54B does not make sense from the tenants' perspective. I should add that further problems would arise if the right to assign were to attract significant value. In that case, the immediate loss to the tenanted value of land, to a landlord with a tenant who was liable to exercise the right, could be substantial—perhaps up to 40 per cent or 50 per cent in some cases—because the landlord would lose the expectation of reclaiming vacant possession in the foreseeable future. Over time, that loss would be eroded as a result of the increased rent that the land would attract; that would mean that the tenant would have less to invest in the agricultural benefit of the land. We are concerned that, in the initial stages, a genuine risk of challenge under the European convention on human rights for a loss of property rights would emerge in those circumstances.
Just as we question section 54B as it stands, we also question some of Fergus Ewing's amendments. The National Farmers Union of Scotland raised with us the point that a tenant will lose the statutory right to compensation at waygo if the tenant assigns his or her interest. In amendments 31 and 139, Fergus Ewing appears to be trying to ensure that the outgoing tenant receives full compensation at waygo from the landlord, despite having assigned the interest.
However, amendment 139 contains a material ambiguity that we believe would make the provision technically defective. The amendment refers to the tenant's right to compensation at waygo on assignation, but who would be the tenant at that point—would the tenant be the assignor or the assignee? Who would pay the compensation—would it be the assignee or the landlord?
In amendments 33 to 35, Fergus Ewing seeks to adjust the basis on which the landlord may withhold consent to a proposed assignation. The effect would be to place the onus on the landlord to demonstrate that the proposed assignee did not have the ability to pay the necessary costs, or did not have the necessary skills and experience. The issues are similar to those that were debated this morning in our debate on amendments to section 7; our response remains the same. We have received no criticism on that aspect of the bill from tenants or their representatives. As with section 7, the current drafting also reflects the principle of delectus personae, which recognises that in such leases the landlord has some flexibility in selecting a tenant based on his or her comfort with that person.
I turn to the Executive amendments. Although I said that section 54B as drafted would not be beneficial for tenants, I acknowledge the concern that has been expressed by the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group, which I met last week. That group pointed out that it can be difficult for a tenant family to manage a farm effectively when the tenant is unable to pass on the position of tenant to a son or daughter as heir, who might be better able to develop the land effectively, productively and imaginatively. In those circumstances, it can be difficult for an aging farmer to obtain finance to invest in the land, whereas one or other of his offspring might be in a better position so to do. At present, the tenant remains the tenant until his or her death—until his or her physical demise—and must assume all the responsibilities of the tenant until that day. That is not right.
Executive amendments 103 to 106 will adjust section 54B to allow for assignation, but only between family members. That will enable a tenant to pass on their interest in the farm to a family member without waiting until succession on the death of the farmer. The tenant would acquire no financial interest in the tenancy, thus avoiding the practical difficulties that that would present. The landlord would suffer no loss because the new tenant would simply take up the position earlier than might have been the case under the 1991 act.
Beyond that right, any term in a lease that prohibits assignation would remain valid by virtue of amendment 105. Amendment 106 is a drafting amendment, which will delete section 54B(7), which is irrelevant for those purposes.
The Executive will support Fergus Ewing's amendment 36, which is an important addition to the whole. The amendment will remove the right of the landlord to acquire the tenant's interest on assignation. That is an important provision because allowing for such a right in a transfer between family members would cut across the tenant family's right to security of tenure, which is what we are trying to achieve. We are happy to accept Fergus Ewings's amendment 36. Indeed, we lodged a similar amendment, which was not accepted because it closely paralleled his amendment. If amendment 36 is agreed to, I understand that amendment 37 will not be necessary.
Fergus Ewing's manuscript amendment 138 would offer an alternative definition of a family to that which is offered in the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964. Let me make it quite clear that the relevant definition is the one in that 1964 act. After all, we are responding to a call from tenant farmers that a tenant should be able to bring forward succession rights—the succession rights that are laid out in the 1964 act—that would otherwise have had to wait until the farmer's death.
I move amendment 103.
I am delighted that the Executive will accept amendment 36—I feel as if we are now making some progress.
I want in speaking to the amendments to emphasise that the committee decided to support the measure by a vote of six to five. Rhoda Grant lodged the amendment that the Executive now feels would be dangerous and would have severely adverse consequences for the sector.
However, the principle that Rhoda Grant supported at stage 2 and which the SNP continues to support at stage 3 is very simple: secure tenants in Scotland should have security of tenure. They have an asset that they cannot pass on or transact, but those who hold commercial leases for shops and offices are able to transact that asset by selling it on. The principle would create a market that would allow those tenants who Ross Finnie described as being "stuck" to become unstuck and able to sell off their assets. It would also mean that they would be able to create opportunities for new tenants to come into the market. I advance my argument in such terms because I understand that certain Conservative members generally support markets and the ability to transact with assets, but I suspect that that will not apply to the agricultural sector today.
My second serious point is that the Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group supports the combined effects of my amendments. At a meeting yesterday John Kinnaird—the National Farmers Union of Scotland's new president—also supported them. I will explain the basis of his reasoning. He believes that a combination of amendments 31, 139, 36 and 138 would allow assignation with compensation to the outgoing tenant, and would give the landlord the benefit of conversion.
By mirroring section 2 provisions—which allow conversion from a secure tenancy to a LDT—we are saying that the incoming tenant would acquire a 25-year LDT. As John Kinnaird acknowledged, that would mean that there was something in this for everyone; the landlord would acquire the right to vacant possession. We lodged amendment 31 because of the argument that if that provision was not contained in the bill, we would be creating what might amount to a perpetual tenancy, so the landlord would never have any prospect of getting back vacant possession.
I do not intend to move amendments 33, 34 and 35 because we have in effect debated those amendments, which were reflected in amendments 9, 10 and 12, if my memory serves me correctly.
The provision that is contained in my amendments is vital for tenant farmers. If we really want to give secure tenants in Scotland a better deal, we must give them the opportunity to free up their assets so they can retire, and so that new people can come into the farming sector in Scotland.
We will accept Executive amendments 103, 104, 105 and 106. I have little else to say except that I find that, as always, Fergus Ewing's amendments seek to tilt the balance of the bill a little bit too far away from the consensus that the stakeholders group achieved. They would certainly tilt that balance too far for us to be able to support them.
The intention behind the concept of assignation was to free up the tenanted sector. In far too many cases, tenants are trapped in their tenancies. That is because what was always regarded as being of true value on a tenanted holding—the stock—has been significantly devalued in recent years because of the impact of BSE; much of the collateral and asset value has been lost.
Many people are trapped on their farms and are unable to realise enough money to buy a house so that they could move out and continue to farm. Creating the right to assign a tenancy to a third party would free up the tenanted sector, provide opportunities for new people to come in and allow third parties to access tenancies.
I am not convinced by the Executive's arguments on amendment 103, which seeks to limit third party assignations so that they can be made only to family members. The criticism that a more open system of assignation would create perpetual tenancies and that landowners could never expect to reclaim vacant land has been answered by Fergus Ewing's amendment 31, which would create a 25-year limited duration tenancy when a tenancy was assigned to a third party.
I want the minister to detail in his summing up why he thinks that it is wrong to permit all third party assignations. Unless I hear a good reason why we should not do so, I will not be minded to support the Executive on amendment 103.
In many ways, the same arguments apply on assignation to members of the family as applied to residency, which we debated earlier. Is assignation good for the tenanted farm or the landlord if an aging farmer continues working until he or she—I suspect that there are few shes—dies? Hardly: it is better that there should be a degree of planning about the assignation at an appropriate time for the farmer and his successor. On that basis, I support Fergus Ewing's proposals whole-heartedly, as I was happy to support Rhoda Grant's amendment 49 at stage 2—[Interruption.]
Order. There is a lot of activity on the back benches. If members want to speak to one another, they should do so outside.
The tenanted sector depends for its vibrancy on the turnover of tenancies. Fergus Ewing's amendments would permit acceleration in the turnover of tenancies. If more tenancies are turning over, more people will be attracted to the sector, which will benefit tenants and landlords. I am happy to support Fergus Ewing's amendments.
Stewart Stevenson contradicts what he said at stage 2. Fergus Ewing's amendments run against what Rhoda Grant sought in lodging amendment 49 at stage 2, which was a right to assign, which would give tenants a way out of tenancies, and would liberate land for further tenancies and perhaps stimulate the market. However, it is perverse that, at the point of stimulating the market, the value of the assignation would decrease, whereas the value of the assignation would increase in direct proportion to the lack of tenanted land on the market.
The imposition of a payment obligation on the landlord ought to be an integral part of Fergus Ewing's proposals, but it is not, which runs counter to his stated objective. I accept that Fergus Ewing is trying to ensure that the outgoing tenant receives full compensation at waygo from the landlord, despite having assigned their interest. That has been sought by the NFUS and others. While he undoubtedly intends for the outgoing tenant—the assignor—to benefit, it is possible to read amendment 139 with the result that compensation at waygo is payable to the assignee, who would become the tenant
"On assignation of a lease".
Furthermore, amendment 139 would not place a specific obligation to pay compensation at waygo on any party, which is a fairly major omission. As a matter of interpretation, Fergus Ewing will argue that the landlord is due to pay the compensation as normal at waygo, but that would obviously be a matter for the courts to determine because of the lack of clarity in amendment 139. The amendment would not make for good legislation and is not something that George Lyon should support, despite his past support for—among other things—the absolute right to buy.
The question is, that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 75, Against 25, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 103 agreed to.
Amendment 138 not moved.
Amendment 31 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 23, Against 77, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 31 disagreed to.
Amendment 139 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 79, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 139 disagreed to.
Amendments 33 and 34 not moved.
Amendment 104 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 35 not moved.
I take it that you do not want to move amendment 36, Mr Ewing.
No, I want to move it. Amendment 36 is my moment of triumph. [Laughter.]
Amendment 36 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
I will put that to the test. The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 89, Against 16, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Amendment 38 not moved.
Does any member object to my calling on the minister to move amendments 105 to 110 en bloc, and to my putting a single question on the amendments?
I object.
In that case, I shall extract amendment 106 and put the questions separately.
Amendment 105 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 106 moved—[Ross Finnie].
The question is, that amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Abstentions
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 80, Against 2, Abstentions 23.
Amendment 106 agreed to.
Section 57—Good husbandry and conservation activities
Amendments 107 and 108 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 58—Rights of certain persons where tenant is a partnership
Amendments 109 and 110 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 58A—Rights of certain persons where tenant is a limited partnership
Amendment 111 moved—[Allan Wilson].
Amendment 111A moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 111A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 22, Against 82, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 111A disagreed to.
Amendment 111 agreed to.
After section 58A
Amendment 113 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 114 moved—[Ross Finnie].
The question is, that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 68, Against 37, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 114 agreed to.
Section 59—Jurisdiction of the Land Court
We move to group 25, on matters that the Scottish Land Court may determine. Amendment 115 is grouped with amendments 116 to 127.
Amendments 115 to 127 make a number of changes in part 7, relating to dispute resolution.
Amendment 117 excludes from the Land Court's jurisdiction questions of fact relating to the determination of the price that is payable by the tenant in exercising a right to buy under part 2. When the landlord and tenant are not agreed on the price, the price is to be calculated by a valuer who is to be appointed under section 30. An appeal against the decision of the valuer on questions of fact will be determined by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland under section 33. Questions of law arising in such an appeal should be referred to the Land Court by the Lands Tribunal under section 33A, unless the tribunal considers that it would not be appropriate to do so.
The amendments to which I am about to speak will extend the jurisdiction of the Land Court to cover the range of disputes that might arise in relation to agricultural leases under the bill and the 1991 act. Amendments 119 and 125 include disputes between a tenant and a party wishing to acquire the tenant's interest by way of an assignation within the Land Court's jurisdiction.
The first paragraph that will be added by amendment 121 includes disputes arising when a tenant is exercising the right to buy from a creditor in a standard security with a right to sell land within the Land Court's jurisdiction. The second paragraph that will be added by amendment 121 and amendment 127 provides that, when the subject matter of a dispute arises out of the tenancy or in connection with the holding, the Land Court may still hear and determine the matter when the parties to the dispute are no longer landlord and tenant—for example, in a dispute arising in connection with the exercise of the right to buy that arises after the tenant has become the owner.
Amendments 118 and 124 will exclude disputes over who is entitled to succeed to the estate of a deceased person on intestacy from the jurisdiction of the Land Court. Amendment 103 will provide that 1991 act tenancies may be assigned to such persons. Such questions concern an individual's status and, therefore, jurisdiction over such matters should remain with the ordinary courts.
Amendments 115, 116, 120 to 123 and 126 are consequential drafting amendments.
I move amendment 115.
Amendment 115 agreed to.
Amendments 116 to 121 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 61—Resolution of disputes by the Land Court
Amendments 122 to 127 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 68—Power of the Land Court to grant remedies etc
Amendment 128 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Before section 75
Group 26 is on the prohibition of certain terms of leases or agreements. Amendment 42 is in a group on its own.
Perhaps the major defect of the 1991 act was the fact that it was circumvented. Its purpose was frustrated and landowners and their agents used various devices, such as write-down agreements and post-lease agreements, to pervert the purpose for which the 1991 act was passed. It therefore seems logical and necessary that the bill—the purpose of which is, in part, to set up new vehicles that can be used in the tenanted sector—ensures that that does not happen to the new vehicles, otherwise we could rightly be criticised for failing to achieve our purpose.
Amendment 42 would quite simply prohibit any attempts that might be made to disapply the rules and regulations that we are setting up for the new SLDT and LDT vehicles. The operative provision is subsection (2), which states that
"any term of the lease or the agreement which purports to provide that any right conferred on the tenant, or obligation imposed on the landlord, by this Act does not apply to the tenancy is … of no effect."
I hope that all members will agree to the amendment, as it is essential that, if the new vehicles are to be effective, they will act as we intend them to act and will not be overridden by smart lawyers' fancy agreements, which we have seen in the past.
I move amendment 42.
I apologise to Mr Ewing for being absent from the chamber when he spoke—I was away on important business.
Our opposition to amendment 42 is entirely focused on the first word of its title—"Prohibition". Any prohibition will surely have a limiting effect on the amount of land that is to be let in the future. That goes against the supposed aim of the bill, although I will argue in the debate to come that the bill itself will prevent the fruition of that aim.
The effect of amendment 42 would be to rule as void any clause that is entered into SLDTs, LDTs or 1991 act tenancies where that clause has the effect of bypassing some other section of the legislation relating to those leases. The amendment would not only have a limiting effect in respect of increasing the supply of land to the tenanted sector, but would undoubtedly increase the supply of work to members of Mr Ewing's former profession, which has been given more than enough work by the Parliament already. If we are to amend the bill, we should do so in a way that frees it up rather than further restricts it.
I invite Allan Wilson to comment.
Are we dealing with amendment 42?
Yes.
I am sorry—I was elsewhere.
I share Fergus Ewing's view that the protections that are afforded to tenants under the new legislation should be respected, but we are unsure in more ways than one about what the provision would add to the bill as it stands.
We have received no particular expression of concern from tenants and their representatives about the possibility that landlords and tenants might be able to contract out of the tenant's statutory rights. The bill is explicit about the nature of tenants' rights in a number of respects, such as in respect of the right to buy, the right to diversify and the right to compensation for improvements, which are all important changes that transfer the balance in favour of the tenant. It is important that the bill also removes some explicit get-outs that have applied to tenants' rights under the 1991 act. In particular, landlords and tenants will no longer be able to contract out of the landlord's responsibility for renewing fixed equipment, which section 5(3) of that act has explicitly permitted, while the various provisions that allow the parties to enter into a write-down agreement in respect of tenants' improvements are also being removed.
We are principally concerned about the risk of unfortunate side-effects that could arise from the adoption of amendment 42. Perhaps if the principle had been adopted at the outset, we could have framed the bill around it. Unfortunately, that did not happen and it is possible that introducing the principle at stage 3 could result in unfortunate side-effects.
At this stage, without further opportunity to consult the sector and revise the provision later if that were to prove necessary, I am nervous about making a change that could result in the unforeseen effects to which I referred. On this one occasion, I am going to be conservative, as we are also unclear about how tenants would benefit from the provision. I can see circumstances in which the amendment would not benefit tenants. On that basis, I ask Fergus Ewing not to press amendment 42.
I have listened with interest in the hope that there might be an argument against amendment 42, but I did not hear any such argument.
Amendment 42 is a simple amendment that would provide for a non-contracting-out section. The amendment says that the
"right conferred on the tenant, or obligation imposed on the landlord, by this Act"
cannot be contracted out of.
I appreciate that the minister was distracted momentarily. However, he did not provide a single example of a right that the bill confers on tenants that he thinks the landlord should be able to overturn and subvert. The serious point to be made is that that is exactly what happened under the 1991 act. In a way, it is because of that fact that we are in the chamber today.
I could have given examples. I explained why we oppose amendment 42 in principle and why we oppose its introduction at this stage. Had amendment 42 been lodged at the outset, we could have drafted legislation round it. We have discussed at length the obvious advantage to a tenant of being able to contract out of the statutory notice period for quitting a tenancy in return for a cash payment that the parties agree to contractually. That is one obvious example—there are others. It would not serve the interests of the tenant to simply have a blanket ban on the parties' ability to contract out voluntarily of those commitments.
I disagree with the minister. I am not sure that that was indeed an example, as the minister did not say to which section he referred or to which right or period of notice. The bill contains no provision that the tenant would willingly wish to contract out of.
Amendment 42 speaks for itself. If it is not agreed to and successful attempts are made by landowners to pervert the purposes of the act, that will be a result of the absence of the new section that amendment 42 would have inserted. I hope that the minister is confident in the arguments that he has made this afternoon.
The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Abstentions
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 23, Against 77, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 42 disagreed to.
Section 75—Orders and regulations
Amendment 129 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 76—Ancillary provision
We move to group 27. Amendment 130 is in a group on its own.
I will be brief. Amendment 130 is a technical amendment, which ensures that, for the avoidance of doubt, the ancillary provision power under section 76 can amend the provisions of any enactments that apply to 1991 act tenancies or to land that is held under 1991 act tenancies so as to apply them to short limited duration tenancies and limited duration tenancies, or to land that is held under such tenancies.
I move amendment 130.
Briefly, I confirm that the SNP will oppose amendment 130. We feel that it should have been introduced at an earlier stage, particularly to allow its implications to be considered by the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
I am not convinced that amendment 130 is quite as innocent as it looks. I fear that it hides a bit of a sting. It seems to me that to continue the power that has been given to ministers in future to use subordinate legislation to make further impositions on SLDTs and LDTs can have only a negative impact.
Surely by retaining the power to amend the new tenancies to make them more secure, the minister is sending out a clear message to those who have land available to let that they should do so entirely at their own risk, given that the new-style tenancies will be open to any alternatives under the 1991 act that any minister in the future sees fit to impose. We are therefore entitled to ask why anyone would consider letting land under any arrangement—never mind the widely agreed vehicles of the proposed new tenancies—in the light of the future uncertainty that amendment 130 promotes.
It is no wonder that, since May 2002, only one farm has appeared for rent in the pages of The Scottish Farmer. Amendment 130 is the epitome of what the very people who have it in their power actively to reinvigorate the tenanted sector—those who have land available for rent—fear from this legislation. With such amendments, I guarantee that those people will choose not to make their land available in such a way. Amendment 130 goes against everything that the bill pretends to support, and we will oppose it.
Given the note on which Alex Fergusson ended, I find it very difficult to see how he has managed to put such a draconian construction on an ancillary provision that simply calls on us to make
"incidental, supplemental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision".
I really think that he is overstating the case.
The question is, that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 66, Against 37, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 130 agreed to.
Section 78—Interpretation
Amendment 131 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 132 is grouped with amendments 133 and 136.
These are all consequential amendments.
I move amendment 132.
Amendment 132 agreed to.
Amendment 133 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Schedule
Amendments 134 to 136 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.