Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 30 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1757 contributions

|

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Douglas Lumsden

Can I move the amendment?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Douglas Lumsden

Amendment 513.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Douglas Lumsden

I do not have much to add. Rent reviews are quite an important and, I imagine, quite a contentious part of the bill. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is willing to work on many of the amendments that have been lodged, so I will not press or move mine.

I have some concerns about amendment 297 in relation to the difference between “similar” and “comparable”. I will support it today, but more information might need to be provided before stage 3.

I will not press amendment 545.

Amendment 545, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 297 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 298 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Douglas Lumsden

Yes.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Douglas Lumsden

Yes.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Douglas Lumsden

I will be happy to move amendment 545, which would insert only three little words but which I think is quite important for the section. Section 23(2) substitutes a new subparagraph in paragraph 7 of schedule 1A to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991—the wording has been simplified and condensed, and the former paragraphs 7(4)(b), 7(4)(c)(i) and 7(4)(c)(ii) have been merged. In so doing, it appears that a few words have been omitted from paragraph 7(4)(b), which has changed the meaning of the subparagraph and rendered it meaningless. I believe that it was intended to include surplus housing and other fixed equipment provided by the landlord at the time when rent review is being used for a non-agricultural purpose. However, the omission of the words “that is used” means that it includes only fixed equipment provided by the landlord for a non-agricultural purpose. It would be very unusual for fixed equipment to be provided at the outset for a non-agricultural purpose, but it is quite common for fixed equipment to be provided for an agricultural purpose but to be used subsequently for a non-agricultural purpose—such as surplus housing.

Without amendment 545, the rent review provisions would not envisage rent accounting for houses that are surplus to the agricultural purposes of the farm. That would be an inequitable position when a tenant has a house that they are getting benefit from, whether in monetary terms or in kind—for example, to provide low-rent housing for family members—but they are not accounting for that asset in rent to their landlord. It is essential for fairness and balance that those words be reinstated.

My amendments 299A and 299B, which seek to amend amendment 299, would also insert a few words. Amendment 299 correctly carries over some of the wording from the current section 13 of the 1991 act to ensure that the rent review provisions in the bill are workable in ways identified at stage 1 by various stakeholder groups. Again, when it has been carried over, the wording has been condensed, but the omission of certain words changes the meaning from what I believe was intended. It is correct that the court should disregard any increase in rental value that arises as a result of improvement work carried out at the tenant’s expense. However, as it is drafted, amendment 299 would result in an unfair outcome for the landlord, because the Land Court would have to disregard all the increase in rental value even when only part of the work was at the tenant’s expense.

Equally, it is accepted that the landlord would not benefit from any resulting increase in rent for grant-aided expense. The current section 13 of the 1991 act disregards that increase only in so far as the work was grant aided—which is fair—but, in the bill as it is drafted, all the value would have to be disregarded, even if only part of it benefited from grant aid. That is an inequitable outcome that I do not think could have been intended.

I move amendment 545.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Douglas Lumsden

Yes.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Douglas Lumsden

You asked Tim Eagle whether he felt that common law was sufficient to deal with a situation in which people who were involved in game management had caused damage through their use of non-tracks and so on. From your experience, do you feel that those laws are sufficient, or do you think that the bill needs to address that?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Douglas Lumsden

I wish to vote against amendments 282 and 285.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 18 June 2025

Douglas Lumsden

I would like a bit of clarity on amendment 501. Am I right in thinking that it would mean that a near relative could make a complaint, even if the tenant themselves did not want to make a complaint?