Chamber and committees

Thank you for having me as a guest to the committee, convener, and thank you to your members. I am here because Scottish Land & Estates, on behalf of landowners, invited me to move a series of amendments—

I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s assurance, and I am happy to work with her with the objective of coming up with a legally sustainable and accurate form of the amendment. I believe that both the SLE and the STFA accept that there are technical infelicities in the amendment, and I may have communicated those to the officials. If not, I suspect that they will be listening and I may do so before the night is out—who knows?—if they are at their desks.

Of course, convener. That is a good suggestion—your expertise as a former surveyor with your interests would bring extra experience and wisdom to the table.

What you say is one reason why I believe that the SLE and the STFA feel that another solution is required for tenancies under the 1991 act, although the position is different under the 2003 act, as we might come on to on Tuesday. My understanding is that the scheme that is proposed in the bill does not really meet modern circumstances. It is a bit out of date as it is based on land values. It does not really reflect the reality or the costs to the tenant of partial resumption, when new gates and fences are required to be erected, and so on.

We will come to all that on Tuesday. This was always a probing amendment, as I indicated to the cabinet secretary, so that we could have this discussion, for which I am grateful. I know that her officials will continue their dialogue with the various interests, and I am sure that that means that the law will have a better chance of not falling foul of the European convention on human rights or other hazards. On that basis, I seek to withdraw amendment 528, with the committee’s permission.

Amendment 528, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 223 not moved.

Section 9 agreed to.

After section 9

In this group alone?

I was just saying, convener, that I am here because Scottish Land & Estates contacted me some time ago to ask whether I would be willing to lodge amendments in relation to the right of resumption, as set out in the act. Since those amendments were substantially agreed by the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, I agreed to do so on the basis that both tenants and farmers agree with the approach that I am about to advocate.

I say that by way of background. Although I have not received written confirmation from the STFA that that is the position, I have spoken to Chris Nicholson and believe that to be the case. I will set out what I have to say in more detail on Tuesday morning, when I hope to appear virtually, convener, rather than in person. I thought it fair to offer that explanation.

Members will be pleased to know that I will be brief. Amendment 528, in my name, is related to my amendments in the next group, which aim to introduce an alternative for fairly compensating a tenant when a part of a tenancy is resumed. There are two situations when the tenant’s interest in the lease might need to be valued, and my amendment seeks to clarify that the tenant farming commissioner may issue a code of practice in relation to both.

The first is when only part of a tenancy is resumed. My amendments in the next group address that situation, which I will come to with your permission, convener, on Tuesday morning. The other scenario is when an incontestable notice to quit is served and the tenant is giving up the whole of the holding rather than part. My amendments in the next group do not specifically cover that scenario, but I expect that, if progress can be made now on how to deal with partial resumption, similar provisions could be lodged at stage 3 to deal with a notice to quit. Amendment 528 would enable the tenant farming commissioner to issue guidance for both scenarios.

As I will come on to in the next group of amendments on Tuesday morning, amendment 528 and those that are associated with it have widespread industry support. I am grateful to the organisations comprising the tenant farming advisory forum, which I understand include SLE, the STFA, the NFUS, the two valuers associations—the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers and the Scottish Agricultural Arbiters and Valuers Association—and the Agricultural Law Association. As you and members will know, convener, there is a great body of expertise in all those groups. They have come forward with that option and, as I understand it, have been in discussion with the minister’s officials for some considerable time.

Therefore, there is hope among both sectors that the broad approach that they have suggested, rather than that which is currently set out—for reasons that I cannot come to now because they are relevant to the amendments in the next group—might find favour with the minister.

I move amendment 528.

I understand. I am interested to hear what Hazel Johnson and Laura Shanks have to say in answer to that question, but I will put my last question now and they can perhaps answer both at the same time.

I guess that the question should also apply where there is no risk to safety. In those situations, should there be a gradation of standard?

I agree with Mr Torrance and you, convener, that this has taken far too long. I am reminded that the petition was lodged in 2022 and that it has been considered several times since. The delay in itself is not acceptable, so Mr Torrance is quite right to say that we should not close it but should press the minister further. I also want to remark on the submission that the committee has just received from a body whose existence I must admit that I was hitherto unaware of—every day is a school day. The organisation is called the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, or ALACHO. Its submission, from April this year, points out quite extraordinary things. For example, its most recent survey showed that charges vary from £69 to £358 a week. How on earth is that the case?

ALACHO also points out that, as you have said, convener, in many cases, housing benefit is applicable. However, in some cases, it is not applicable, where claims are late or where somebody’s circumstances change. Hidden behind these statements are probably lots of human tragedies—for example, someone might not submit a document because they did not know that they had to or there was some bureaucratic foul-up. As MSPs, we deal with that kind of thing day and daily. I would be grateful if the Minister for Housing could specifically address each of the points that were raised by ALACHO in its submission of April this year, because it raises an alarming complexity and illogicality, under which I suspect lie a lot of human tragedies.

I think that, for the reasons that Mr Torrance suggested, and the effluxion of time in this parliamentary session, we are not going to get much more, if any, progress at all on the petition. However, I note that the petitioner, Mr Ronald, has pointed out that some district nurses and community health staff who have to repeatedly drive from place to place during the day may face multiple parking charges, which they do not necessarily get back. There seems to be a grey area with regard to who is and who is not reimbursed. As Mr Golden said, for those who are not reimbursed, the charges are massive.

As a final point, I note that, although the powers that be are anti-car—it is the zeitgeist—the car is, for many people, the only way in which they can travel. For example, you cannot get to the Queen Elizabeth hospital except by car. I know from someone who works intermittently at the QE—although it is not in my constituency—that some nurses have to drive there and get a car parking space at 6 am in order to be able to start their shift two hours later.

I make those points simply because there are a lot of underlying issues hidden away, and I am quite sure that the petitioner and others will come back in the next parliamentary session. I do not think that we have really bottomed out the issue, which is that many people are having to pay an awful lot of money in their daily lives because of the politically correct attitude of our times.

We did, but not at the same time. I think that you are considerably younger than me.