Chamber and committees

You will be pleased to know that you were not far off; we believe that there are about 51 to 59 small landholdings, so you were nearly there.

I appreciate the intent of what Rhoda Grant is trying to achieve through amendment 381, which Mercedes Villalba has spoken to, because crofts and small landholdings are key parts of the mix of tenures that we need in Scotland.

However, I cannot support the amendment as it is set out today, because there are a number of issues with it. The scope of the amendment is wide and it would apply to all land and all transfers. We also run into difficulty whenever we mandate that somebody must do something with their land or property. Instead, there should be a focus on the Crofting Commission prioritising bringing all current neglected crofts back into active use and for more active use of common grazings.

It is vital that croft land serves crofting communities well, because that is key to ensuring that we have a vibrant future for crofting. Provided that land is situated in the crofting counties, or in the designated areas, a landowner can apply to the Crofting Commission to have that land or part of it constituted as a croft. That is an existing and better solution to the same issue.

In the next group, we will consider amendments on the modernisation of the small landholdings legislation, which would include the creation of new small landholding tenancies. We should give those reforms time to have effect before adding new requirements, particularly such broad ones, because the reforms that we are introducing will help to address the issue with new entrants outwith the crofting areas and ensure that the legal framework that we have is more accessible and fit for the 21st century.

For those reasons, I ask members not to support the amendments.

I have finished speaking, but I am happy to hear your point.

The overriding concern with the amendments is that they relate to reserved matters and, on that basis, they are outside the legislative competence of the Parliament. It is true that, as we have discussed around the table tonight, some functions that were transferred to Scotland are now exercised by Crown Estate Scotland. The Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019 already gives ministers powers to transfer or delegate management to local authorities or community organisations so that they can take on the management of assets in their area, including the foreshore. It is largely on that basis that I urge the committee not to support the amendments.

Yes, it would.

Yes.

I realise that amendment 379 follows similar amendments that we have discussed previously. Although the matter is of interest in my constituency, I make it clear that I am appearing before the committee today in my capacity as a minister of the Scottish Government. The position that I am presenting reflects the collective view of the Scottish Government and concerns a matter of law and policy for which I have ministerial responsibility. Separately, and in line with the Scottish ministerial code, I have made my views and those of my constituents known to the responsible minister in the appropriate way. The issue that is under discussion today is distinct from that constituency interest, and my contributions should therefore be understood as reflecting the Government’s position, not a personal or constituency-specific stance.

As members will be aware, the powers to legislate for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are reserved in the Scotland Act 1998. Although I completely understand the concern that tenants might have about electricity infrastructure, amendment 379 is beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and, accordingly, I urge members to oppose it.

The purpose of the amendments in this group is to update the assignation and succession provisions for tenant farmers so that they align with the small landholdings provisions in the bill and to make a number of related and minor changes for clarity.

The main amendments in the group, amendments 230, 233, 305, 306 and 308, update the descriptions of the people to whom a lease under the 1991 act or the 2003 act can be assigned or passed in a person’s will. Those amendments make related changes to the definition of “near relative” across the assignation and succession provisions applying to tenant farmers, to reflect the updated descriptions.

The amendments also make procedural and technical changes, including the alignment of timescales in which a landlord can intimate that they are withholding their consent or are objecting to a proposed new tenant with those for small landholdings and the requirement that a person who succeeds a lease in a succession scenario must specify their relationship to the deceased tenant in order to help determine whether the person is a near relative. Those changes align the provisions for those forms of tenure with those in the bill for small landholders.

Amendments 208, 210, 212, 215 and 306 modify the succession provisions for small landholders and tenant farmers regarding the date on which the tenancy applies to an incoming small landholder or tenant following an objection by the landlord. Under the current provisions, those dates are inconsistent in relation to intestate scenarios and where the landlord objects to the person becoming the new tenant or small landholder. The amendments clarify and align the positions for both small landholders and tenant farmers.

Amendment 307 modernises the language in section 12C of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 to reflect the equivalent provisions for small landholdings in the schedule. The other amendments in the group are mainly minor. They are consequential or technical changes to the small landholdings or tenant farming provisions.

Amendments 184 to 205 and 213 make minor drafting changes. As you probably will be relieved to hear, the majority of those just make a grammatical change to the small landholdings provisions.

Amendments 206, 207, 209, 211 and 214 are minor drafting changes to the small landholdings provisions, amending references to “tenant” to “small landholder” for consistency with other parts of the schedule.

With that, I hope that the committee can support the amendments in my name in this group.

I move amendment 184.

Amendment 184 agreed to.

I do not have anything further to add, convener.

Amendment 497 agreed to.

Amendment 218 moved—[Tim Eagle].

This group relates to the pre-emptive right-to-buy process for small landholders and 1991 act tenant farmers. The changes align the processes for those forms of tenure and make related amendments.

Amendment 225 modifies the right-to-buy measures for secure 1991 act agricultural tenancies and enables a tenant to exercise their right to buy when a landlord takes certain steps with a view to transferring the land and then fails to notify the tenant. The amendment clarifies when the tenant can exercise their right in those circumstances and aligns the position for tenant farmers with the small landholding provisions. The amendment also enables the Scottish ministers to make regulations for the timescales in which a tenant will be required to notify their landlord that they intend to buy the land. Those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendments 221 and 309 provide for equivalent regulation-making powers in respect of small landholding provisions. Amendment 228 is related to amendment 225 and clarifies the date on which the land is valued in those circumstances. It also makes minor technical changes.

Amendments 224 and 229 make minor and technical changes to the right-to-buy measures for secure 1991 act agricultural tenancies, including the timescales in which an owner must send a copy of the extract of the tenant’s registration of interest to a creditor and any standard security.

Amendment 497 relates to small landholdings and makes a consequential change following on from amendment 488, in the group on small landholdings, which provides that the schedule does not apply to sub-leases. Amendment 497 removes the reference to excluding sub-tenants in the schedule, because it is redundant following the committee’s agreement to amendment 488.

I turn to Tim Eagle’s amendments 222 and 226, which seek to limit the powers in the bill for the Scottish ministers to make regulations for how small landowners and tenants can register their interest in acquiring the land comprised in their tenancy. We consider that the process of registering an interest in land should not be unduly burdensome and should enable transparency for parties who transact with the land. We consider that that is best achieved by working in partnership with stakeholders and Registers of Scotland to develop an improved registration process, and there is support for that from stakeholders more widely.

Amendments 222 and 226 would restrict the ability of the Scottish ministers to develop regulations in a way that meets stakeholders’ needs. The powers in the bill as currently drafted will enable ministers to give effect to an appropriate co-developed process, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 218, from Tim Eagle, seeks to limit the ability of the Scottish ministers to update the list of exempt transfers that do not trigger the small landholders’ right to buy, and would require that the list could only be expanded. The power in the bill allows ministers to take into account how the measures are operating in practice—if ministers could only add transfers to the exempt list, that would limit their flexibility to respond to any changing circumstances in the future and to make changes quickly. The power to change the exempt transfer list needs to be sufficiently wide to enable the removal or modification of any transfer on the exempt list in order to ensure that the process operates in a fair and transparent manner. I ask the committee not to support that amendment.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 227 would require ministers to consult

“organisations with an interest in agricultural holdings”

before exercising the power to make regulations regarding the registration of a tenant’s interest under the 1991 act. The power already requires ministers to consult the keeper and the other persons who are

“likely to have an interest in the registration of interests to acquire land.”

Therefore, the consultation would already take place.

Although I do not think that it is necessary, and its wording is not quite right, I am happy to work with Tim Eagle on amendment 227 in advance of stage 3 and I ask that he does not move it today.

I move amendment 497.

I do not have anything further to add at this point, convener.