Chamber and committees

I certainly hope that that will not be the case. For the measures that were passed as part of that legislation, I think that it will not be the case. As I have said, we have set out ambitious outcomes, and I will not sit here and pretend that reaching them will be easy. No doubt members can see from the committee’s workload the number of initiatives and strategies that are in place to try to improve our nation’s health overall. A lot of work is under way, and there is a lot of work to be done.

This plan is the first iteration, but I think that it sets the building blocks. It is a fundamental change in how we work across Government. That takes time to embed, and I think that that is where we have put the focus in the proposed plan. We need to make sure that we get that initial cross-Government working right, and we need to do that well. That will be an important foundation from which to move forward.

The reporting and review requirements in the legislation are that we have to review the plan every couple of years. We need to look at whether the policies are working. If they are not, we need to consider what action we will take.

We must remember the role of the food commission in all this. We have appointed some members and a chair to the commission, which will have a scrutiny role and will monitor the work that is undertaken. With the measures that we have in the legislation, the role that the food commission will undertake, and the foundations that we are building just now with cross-Government working, I believe that we will be in a better position at a point further in the future.

We all have a duty and a role to play in that. We have set out our proposed plan, but health boards and local authorities, as relevant authorities named in the legislation, will have to develop their own plans, set out the outcomes that they want to achieve and show how they are delivering on those. We all have a role and have the responsibility of leading by example to deliver on the overarching outcomes to get the change that we want.

First, I will touch on the recommendations and where we were with the carbon budgets. What was recommended by the Climate Change Committee would have had a drastic and very negative impact on rural and island communities across Scotland. I believe that we can still lower our emissions in a way that involves working with our farmers and crofters, and in a way that supports our rural communities, the wider supply chain and the industries and people who depend on them. That is what we set out.

Every sector in society must lower its emissions, and we believe that we can do that in a different way. Our livestock industry and our red meat sector are important, not just for our health but for our wider economy, particularly in our rural and island areas. It is important that we continue to support those sectors and livelihoods.

I do not see any conflict there, and the dietary advice pretty much says that we need to consume more fruit and veg—we know that we need to do that. It comes back to the point that I made to Brian Whittle about how we get the balance. We have the “Eatwell Guide” and the recommendations in there. That sets out what a healthy, balanced diet should look like, and that is what we hope to achieve.

If anything, I want to see us eating more of what we produce in Scotland. The work that we are doing through the agricultural reform programme and the good food nation is about that.

It is important to mention—we should not forget it—seafood. Look at what we produce—we export much of it. Seafood Scotland does good work, which we are supporting them with, on getting fish into schools and on helping people to understand more about what we produce in our waters, so that they will then make that choice, because they have been exposed to it from an early age. That is important. I just want to make sure that we do not forget that element.

Yes, I believe that we have an alternative way to do it, and that is what we have set out in relation to the carbon budgets.

It is a case of improving the overall food environment. The initiatives that are under way through the plan feed into those outcomes. Through our go local programme, which is about supporting smaller convenience stores, we want to provide access to local products, including healthier products, and to support people to make the right choices in that respect. Work will be taken forward through the population health strategy, the diet and healthy weight implementation plan and some of the other initiatives that we have talked about, which will all contribute to creating the better food environment that we want to see.

Absolutely. That would be my hope. We have so many strong examples of good work happening across Scotland, and we really want to build on them and not see them recede or go in the opposite direction. I am really keen for this to head in that direction.

I certainly hope so. I hope that the development of the proposed national plan and the local plans will help to deliver that. If we consider the overall value of public procurement, food and catering services are worth about £220 million. When we think about how that is targeted, the potential impact on local communities and supply chains could be really powerful. We would hope that that would emerge from some of the other plans that are being developed.

There is an element of flexibility for health boards and local authorities to develop outcomes. It is important that there is some flexibility across Scotland so that each area can develop outcomes that reflect its specific needs. However, the legislation will underpin those plans and sets out the overall approach that will need to be taken. My officials will work closely with health boards and local authorities in the development of those plans.

On your first point about whether the plan should capture more of the community dining element, we are more than happy to look at that and see if it can be drawn out.

The only problem with the plan is that it has been out to consultation and gone through various iterations. Things are ever evolving and there are new initiatives. We always run the risk that the plan will miss something—it might not capture everything. However, again, we have that important reporting to do every two years, and a review of the plan after five years, too. That will hopefully give us a chance to capture anything that is missing.

I think that your second point was on how we could capture social value in relation to public procurement—

I am happy to, convener. The amendments in my name in this group reflect the commitment that I made at stage 1 to clarify proposed new schedule 5 to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, following the range of evidence and information that was provided by tenant farming stakeholders.

Amendment 287 seeks to remove new part 4 of schedule 5 to the 1991 act, which contains a list of improvements that facilitate or enhance sustainable regenerative agricultural production. Amendments 282 to 285 seek to modify parts 1 to 3 of the schedule to rehome the improvements that were included in part 4, which will now be included in the illustrative lists for which the consent of the landlord is required or of which the tenant may be required to notify the landlord.

I support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 286, which seeks to add to part 3 of the schedule two of the improvements that were listed in part 4.

Amendment 271, 275, 276 and 277 seek to modify the provisions on the Scottish Land Court’s determining whether to approve a proposed improvement following the removal of part 4 of the schedule. The court will still be required to consider whether an improvement is likely to facilitate or enhance sustainable or regenerative agricultural production. The corresponding improvements will be set out alongside those provisions rather than in part 4 of schedule 5.

Amendments 272, 273 and 274 seek to set out the process for notifying a landlord or obtaining their consent to carry out an improvement. The changes include requiring the landlord to provide written reasons to the tenant when they have not agreed on the terms of consent for a proposed improvement, or when they object to a proposed improvement following notification by a tenant.

Amendments 268 to 270, 271, 275, 278, 279, 281 and 288 are minor consequential amendments, which relate to those that I have already discussed.

I hope that members will support my amendments.

I turn to Tim Eagle’s amendments. Amendment 544 sets out a statutory process for the landlord to request further information from the tenant about a proposed improvement for which the landlord’s consent is sought—including the timeframe for responding and the effect of failing to do so. That would add unnecessary complexity to the process and place an unreasonable burden on the tenant to respond to a further request for information.

Amendment 535 would permit the landlord to notify the tenant that they will carry out on the tenant’s behalf improvements required by enactments or by the lease. That could have an effect on the rental value, because improvements that are paid for by the landlord are included in rental calculations.

I understand the issue that amendments 544 and 535 are trying to resolve, but what they propose needs further consideration and discussion with the industry. I am not sure that the bill is the right place for what they are trying to do. That would be something for future legislative change, because the range of unintended consequences needs to be fully considered, given the interface of amendment 535 with not only the houses on a tenancy but the rental values of tenancies.

Amendment 276A seeks to modify the list of matters that the Scottish Land Court must consider when it is deciding whether to approve the carrying out of an improvement. The list would include whether sufficient information has been provided to the landlord to enable them to make an informed decision, in line with the new duty that Tim Eagle seeks to create in amendment 544. The Scottish ministers already have the ability to prescribe the information that a tenant’s notice must include. However, there might be cases in which, for various reasons, less information is available. Ultimately, it is in both parties’ interests to provide sufficient information in relation to a proposed improvement, given that the tenant will be seeking the landlord’s consent or hoping that they do not object following a notice. Therefore, I do not think that amendment 276A is necessary.

Amendment 280 seeks to require that the affirmative procedure be used to alter the illustrative activities for the non-exhaustive lists for parts 1 and 2 of new schedule 5 to the 1991 act, and to add any activities to part 3.

In my response to the stage 1 report, I confirmed that we are

“committed to working closely with stakeholders before bringing forward any changes that might be helpful for the sector.”

However, there are technical issues in relation to the drafting of the amendment, and it fails to make a necessary consequential change.

Amendment 540 would restrict the ability of a tenant to object to a proposed improvement detailed in a landlord improvement notice under section 14A, which would mean that a tenant would be prohibited from objecting to an improvement if it related to an item of fixed equipment that was considered by the landlord

“to be an economic requirement for the purposes for which the farm is let”

and the landlord has given the tenant the opportunity to relinquish the item. A tenant would not be entitled to compensation if an item of fixed equipment was relinquished in such circumstances.

Amendment 540 is a significant amendment that would have a range of potential unintended consequences that would place financial burdens on tenants, and there would be no ability to recover costs if the item was relinquished.

Accordingly, I ask members not to support Tim Eagle’s amendments in this group.

I move amendment 268.

Thank you, convener. I hope that I will be able to address some of the points that have been raised in relation to the amendments in this group.

Tim Eagle’s amendments 290 to 296 are intended to shift costs from the landlord to the tenant, so the tenant would not then be able to claim compensation for damage that had been caused by poor game management. Ultimately, that is unfair. The tenant farming commissioner has already published a code of practice on the management of relationships between agricultural tenants and holders of sporting rights. There is already a lot of help and guidance for landowners, and I touched on that last week when we were discussing similar issues. We know that poor practice persists, as we have been hearing from stakeholders. That is why the changes in the bill have been introduced, and they are important.

The tenant would not be able to claim compensation for indirect damage under the amendments, and that is unfair. Tenants could claim for damage to the crop, but not for further real costs that they have incurred. The tenant would not be able to claim compensation for damage to fixed equipment and habitats, as we have also touched on. That is unfair. Fixed equipment includes many things that many of us would recognise as the fixtures and fittings of the holding, including dry-stone dykes and fencing.

Habitats include the natural areas of the farm that the tenant is paid to maintain, and they would have to pay to restore them if there is damage to them by game. In addition, if the amendments were passed, the tenant would not be able to claim compensation for damage to shelterbelts. A shelterbelt is part of the infrastructure of a holding and it directly supports the running of the farm, whether it acts as a windbreak or shelters livestock.

That all comes back to the point that any claim that is put forward has to be evidenced. The damage has to have led to loss or to injury. Those are real costs that tenants suffer, for reasons that are completely outwith their control. That is why I think that it is only fair that they are compensated for all those matters, and that is what the bill seeks to do.

I can see that you are looking at me, convener, as if you wish to make an intervention.