Chamber and committees

Can I quickly jump in?

I hope that you can hear me all right. I am sorry that I cannot be with you in person this morning. I had better be quick, because of the convener’s time limits.

I want to touch on data and monitoring. When I am out and about in some of these coastal communities, I get the feeling that they cannot trust what people say in terms of the data, monitoring and so on. Can you run me through a wee bit more about where we are in terms of baselining before we go into this? What do we then need to improve, or what do we need to carry on doing, to monitor effectively and ensure that the data is open so that everyone can see it and have trust in it moving forward, so that we know where we need to get to or where we will go to meet those conservation objectives?

Sorry, convener—you are right that time is precious.

There are two sides to this, are there not? One side is about what we are looking for in terms of the areas that we are protecting, while the other side is about what the consequences are from the displacement of fishing, so it is about how we monitor those two sides. When you talk about science, Elspeth, I presume that that means data from both sides, so that we know the full picture.

I hope that you can hear me. Apologies that I cannot be there this morning quite yet.

Minister, I welcome this; it is brilliant. I take your point that it is not a massive issue in Scotland at the moment, but, back in November 2024, I think it was, we introduced the same approach for free-range egg marketing, which was completely practical and absolutely made sense for the industry. Therefore, I think that people will welcome this.

The two points that I pulled out from some of the consultation responses are about consumer confidence around the free-range label and having prompt outdoor access in the event of the lifting of any restrictions around avian influenza. How have you taken those points into consideration? I do not think that consumers have anything to worry about with this measure—it is a practical step—but I would be interested in your thoughts.

That is fine, minister.

I have nothing further to add. I seek agreement to withdraw amendment 290.

Amendment 290, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 524, 291 to 295, 518, 519 and 296 not moved.

Sections 20 to 22 agreed to.

Section 23—Rent review: 1991 Act tenancies

I have nothing further to add. I seek agreement to withdraw amendment 289.

Amendment 289, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 15 agreed to.

Sections 16 to 19 agreed to.

Section 20—Compensation for damage by game etc

Section 14 of the bill applies to compensation for improvements under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. The bill requires a tenant to give notice to a landlord requesting consent for proposed improvements. If the landlord has not responded to a notice requesting consent, the bill allows for a period of 70 days, after which they will be deemed to have consented.

My amendment 544 would provide balance in the process for the tenant. It says that,

“Where notice is given”

by the tenant about improvements,

“the landlord may request further information from the tenant about the improvement.”

It would require the tenant, within 14 days of being asked for more information, to provide it to the landlord. If the tenant fails to provide that information,

“the tenant is deemed to have withdrawn the notice”

that they have given for improvements.

The purpose of amendment 544 is to provide a balanced process. As the bill stands, the landlord will not be able to make fully informed decisions if the tenant is unwilling to provide information or if they delay in doing so. The bill could put the landlord in the very difficult situation of having their silence interpreted as unconditional consent.

Under the bill, the Scottish Land Court is given the ability to overrule the landlord’s refusal of consent. Therefore, it is only reasonable that the landlord should be able to ask for full details of the proposal in order to make a decision. Amendment 544 would not delay the process for more than 14 days, but it would allow the landlord to take crucial steps to ensure that they were making a fully informed decision. By providing for the provision of more clear information, the amendment is also intended to avoid the need to take proposals to the Land Court and the expense of doing so.

My amendment 535 seeks to alter section 38 of the 1991 act, which considers that compensation is not payable for certain improvements to the land

“unless the tenant gave notice to the landlord”

of their intention to carry out those improvements and of the manner in which they proposed to do so.

Section 38(1)(c) of the 1991 act brought in a new list of improvements in relation to which compensation would not be payable unless the tenant gave notice to the landlord of their intention to carry out said improvements.

Section 38(3) of the 1991 act sets out the requirements for such notice. As well as having to be given “in writing”, it must fulfil a shortlist of criteria, one of which is contained in section 38(3)(c), which requires that, for the new improvements that are listed in the 1991 act, notice had to have been provided

“not less than 3 months, before the tenant began to carry out the improvement.”

Amendment 535 seeks to ensure that, if the tenant is the relevant person to whom the duty applies, the requirement for notice of not less than three months to be provided would not apply if it would place the tenant in breach of their duty. Instead, it would mean that notice would have to be provided only

“as soon as reasonably practicable.”

Amendment 535 would also mean that, if those circumstances applied, the landlord could notify the tenant that they would carry out the improvements on behalf of the tenant.

My amendment 276A relates to section 39 of the 1991 act, which deals with compensation for certain improvements. The bill notes what the Land Court is to consider when determining whether to give permission to the tenant to carry out an improvement. Amendment 276A relates to proposed new subsection (1BA), which my amendment 544 would insert in the bill. Amendment 276A would mean that the Land Court would need to give consideration to

“whether sufficient information has been provided to the landlord”

following the tenant giving notice that they intended to carry out an improvement and the landlord asking for more information.

My amendment 540 seeks to add a new section following section 14 of the bill, which deals with compensation for improvements. Amendment 540 would modify section 14B of the 1991 act, which deals with objections by the tenant to improvement notices given by the landlord. In that section, the tenant is able to object to an improvement notice

“before the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which the tenant received the landlord improvement notice.”

That notice

“must be dated and must state the tenant’s reasons as to why the improvement is not necessary to enable the tenant to fulfil the tenant’s responsibilities to farm the holding in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.”

Amendment 540 seeks to add to that provision by setting out circumstances in which the tenant could not object to an improvement notice. They could not do so when

“an item of fixed equipment subject to an improvement notice is considered by the landlord to be an economic requirement for the purposes for which the farm is let,”

or when the tenant

“is given an opportunity to relinquish the item of fixed equipment.”

I have nothing further to add. I seek agreement to withdraw amendment 289.

Amendment 289, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 15 agreed to.

Sections 16 to 19 agreed to.

Section 20—Compensation for damage by game etc

Thank you, and good morning. My amendment 225A is a practical amendment to the cabinet secretary’s amendment 225, which relates to a tenant’s right to buy, which we debated last week. My amendment would ensure that the notice that is referred to is given in writing to ensure that a commencement date is noted and a paper trail is kept. That avoids the possibility of any vexatious claims and I believe that that is in keeping with what happens under current rules.

My amendment 225B would further amend the cabinet secretary’s amendment 225 and seeks to strengthen the legal language from “may” to “must” to ensure that there is an obligation on ministers to set out the period in which notice can be given.

My amendment 225C would delete from amendment 225 proposed new section 29(9) of the 2003 act. As drafted, that new power would allow ministers to make regulations and, therefore, changes to timescales for exercising a right to buy.

My amendment 543 seeks to restrict the powers that are given to ministers. Currently, section 10(2) of the bill would enable ministers to make regulations that include provisions on a wide variety of things. It would allow the Scottish ministers to modify sections 24 to 28 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and also, if they

“consider it necessary ... to make consequential provision which modifies the other provisions”

in that part of the 2003 act. I believe that the scope of those powers is far too wide and could allow for numerous unspecified changes to be made by regulations. Therefore, my amendment seeks to delete those lines from section 10(2). Instead, I invite the cabinet secretary to re-draft a narrower and more specific provision for stage 3.

I move amendment 225A.