Chamber and committees

That is where those amendments are important. To me, they address exactly that point by bringing the legislation into one place, to consolidate it and modernise it rather than keeping the redundant provisions. I do not agree that we discounted the views of small landholders on the issue, because, ultimately, what we are doing with this set of amendments, and with our amendments in later groups, is aligning all the provisions with the small landholdings and agricultural holdings provisions. I believe that that addresses the points that you raise.

Amendments 508A and 508B, in the name of Tim Eagle, seek to amend those changes to remove indirect damage from the type of game damage that the small landholder is entitled to be compensated for where damage has been caused by game or game management. That would result in the small landholder being entitled to be compensated only for direct damage. We have heard from stakeholders about the significant losses that can be incurred as a result of indirect damage to holdings and that it is important that small landholders and tenants are fairly compensated. That is why I would ask members not to support amendments 508A and 508B.

A fair compensation process that accounts for the damage caused by inadequate game management is needed. There is already extensive guidance that parties and the court can have regard to, including Animal Health and Plant Agency guidance, guidance for the shooting industry on reducing avian influenza disease risk, Scottish Government guidance on the declaration of an avian influenza prevention zone, and the shooting industry’s standing advice on bird flu and game birds. As I have done for tenant farmers and their landlords, I intend to ensure that training on assessing game damage will be made available to small landholders and their landlords in advance of game damage provisions coming into force.

Amendment 510 consolidates and modernises the provisions for small landholders’ security of tenure and the grounds on which they can be removed from the holding. Amendments 506 and 513 concern the parliamentary procedure for regulations that are made under the powers that are provided for in other amendments in the group. Amendment 506 provides that the regulations that are created under amendment 488, which enable the Scottish ministers to vary the upper size threshold for a small landholding or the land that can be taken into account in calculating the size of a holding, are to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 513 provides that regulations that are made under the compensation for game damage provisions are to be subject to the negative procedure, which is consistent with the equivalent powers for agricultural holdings in section 20.

Amendment 216, in the name of Tim Eagle, relates to the ability of the Scottish ministers to specify by regulations the basis on which a valuer is to assess the compensation payable to a small landholder. The bill simply provides a mechanism for future flexibility, if required, and it sets out that changes would be made by regulations. The amendment would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations for every valuation, even if they were not considered necessary, which I do not think is proportionate for either party. That is why I do not support amendment 216.

Amendment 499 restates an existing provision that limits the ability of parties to contract out of the rights of small landholders under the schedule. Amendment 511 repeals redundant sections of the landholders acts and sets out which areas will continue to apply to small landholdings. Amendments 500, 509 and 512 change various definitions in the schedule, including those of small landholding and cultivation. The other amendments in the group—amendments 509, 512, 491 to 496 and 498—make consequential or minor changes to the terminology used in order to reflect the changes provided for in the other amendments in the group. Combined, the changes have the potential to reinvigorate the small landholding sector and breathe new life into smaller areas that are suitable for new entrants to access. I ask members to support my amendments.

I see that the convener is making eyes at me, as if he wants to intervene.

I understand Fergus Ewing’s reasons for amendment 528 and the need for clarity on the basis for the valuation for resumption. It is not necessarily necessary for the 2016 act to detail all the topics that the tenant farming commissioner can issue codes of practice on, but I appreciate why the tenant farming sector might also wish to see that in the bill itself. There are some particular issues with the wording of the amendment, but I am happy to work with Fergus Ewing to revise amendment 528 ahead of stage 3, so, on that basis, I ask him not to press the amendments at this stage.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 223 seeks to reverse the changes that the bill makes to provide that regard is given to the relevant code of practice during arbitration proceedings concerning a small landholding. The provision is equivalent to that for tenant farmers and reflects the expanded scope of the tenant farming commissioner in relation to small landholdings under section 9 of the bill. Ultimately, the amendment would mean that a code of practice would not have the same status in arbitration proceedings relating to small landholders as it would for proceedings relating to tenant farmers.

I was not sure what the rationale behind the amendment was, so I appreciate what Tim Eagle has outlined today. However, I want to clarify that the provision relates to codes in an arbitration context, not an absolute right to buy. However, if he wants to engage in further discussion with me about that, I am more than happy to do that.

I will now turn to Emma Harper’s amendments. Although I understand the reasons behind amendment 501, expanding the group of people who could apply to the TFC requires more consideration in order to assess whether the current procedures for reporting an alleged breach would continue to be suitable. I absolutely recognise the importance of RSABI’s work and its importance to the industry, which has been touched on, including in relation to some of the delicate situations that it has to navigate.

I recognise that the amendment would also appear to enable representative bodies in the sector to report alleged breaches to the TFC in relation to their members or people they might be engaging with. Again, we will have to consider the wider implications of that and any potential unintended consequences. However, I would like to work with the member to explore the issue further and to ensure that the process for reporting breaches meets the needs of those in the sector. I would ask her not to move amendment 501 today.

In relation to amendment 502, I appreciate that some in the tenant farming sector would like to see increased powers for when the TFC finds that a person has not complied with a code of practice. The purpose of the codes of practice is to encourage and promote best practice in how landlords and tenants manage their relationships. However, parties are not required to comply with the terms of a code of practice—it is guidance. That means that there would be significant difficulty with imposing penalties for non-compliance. Any changes to the role of the tenant farming commissioner in that context would need to be considered more widely than solely looking at the question of enforcement. We would have to go through some robust stakeholder engagement as part of the process.

I am happy to commit today to consulting on the role of the tenant farming commissioner in inquiring into and reporting on alleged breaches of codes of practice. Any consultation could consider wider matters, and I would aim for such a consultation to take place and to report before the end of the current parliamentary session. On that basis, I ask Emma Harper not to move amendment 502.

First, I will set out that, in November last year, we published our “Natural Capital Market Framework”, which provides the ethical framework that Rachael Hamilton is looking to establish. It sets out our six principles of responsible investment in natural capital, with actions to support their delivery. On that basis, I do not support amendment 478. However, if Rachael Hamilton would like to raise directly with me specific circumstances or issues in relation to the matters that she has spoken about tonight—whether those matters relate to my portfolio or to my colleagues’ portfolios—I will be happy to look into those further.

I turn first to the amendments that were lodged by Tim Eagle. Amendment 183 would mean that, for the purposes of the model lease, land would not be used for an environmental purpose if it was used in a way that contributed towards increasing or sustaining biodiversity. Amendment 487, as Tim Eagle outlined, would simply remove section 7 in its entirety, including the requirement for Scottish ministers to publish a model lease for the use of land for environmental purposes.

I think that it would be a backward step if both those amendments were accepted. It is recognised that we all need to do more in tackling the climate and nature crises. Stakeholders have called for the provisions in section 7 as a means of management that would help community groups looking at managing woodland, for example, or help environmental organisations.

With regard to some of the points that have been raised this evening, there would be wide engagement and consultation on the model lease. That would be vitally important to the work that we take forward—

That could well be right, but I would want to double check and clarify that before I came back to you, convener. In any case, I ask members not to support Mr Lumsden’s amendments for the reasons that I have set out.

Turning to Ben Macpherson’s comments on compulsory sale orders, I absolutely appreciate the points that he and you, convener, have made in relation to urban land reform more generally. However, the measures in the bill are based largely on the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendations and work, which identified that the most pressing issues at the time were in relation to rural areas. That is why we have introduced those measures. However, as Ben Macpherson has suggested, a range of other work is on-going that I feel could help to address some of those issues, and the bill would not necessarily be the mechanism to do that.

With regard to Mr Macpherson’s amendment 471, he outlined the progress of a similar amendment that was lodged to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, in respect of which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice announced that the Government would consult on compulsory sale and lease powers before the end of this parliamentary session. I realise that that might now fall within the remit of the new Cabinet Secretary for Housing, but I will be sure to follow up with her on that and ensure that we see progress in that respect.

The amendments that I have lodged in the group mirror those in other sections that we have already largely debated, but I will speak about a few amendments in the group. Amendments 141, 143 and 146 seek to strengthen the definition of a composite holding. Amendments 142, 144 and 148 would resolve cross-referencing errors that were identified in the provisions following their introduction. Amendment 147 is similar to amendments 49 and 127, as debated in groups 3 and 10, and would allow for non-contiguous areas of land to form a holding, provided that they are within 250 metres of each other. I ask the committee to support those amendments.

I hope that we can have further conversations about the amendments that Mark Ruskell has lodged. We have already debated the substance of his amendments in previous groups. The same applies to Tim Eagle’s amendments. Tim Eagle asked for clarification on the issues raised by amendment 426. I appreciate his intentions, but I think that the amendment as drafted would have the opposite effect and would mean that we would never be able to transfer part of a lot. It is important to highlight that element. Tim Eagle suggested that “composite” would apply to other parcels of land across Scotland, which is not the case, because of the measures that we have introduced and how we have defined that in the bill.

We have debated the substance of Ariane Burgess’s and Mercedes Villalba’s amendments, so I do not intend to rehearse those discussions, but I oppose the amendments.

I also ask Michael Matheson not to move his amendments in the group.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 429 would run counter to my amendment 147, so I again recommend that it is opposed.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 432 would exempt land that is owned by Scottish ministers from the transfer test provisions. I am interested to hear more about the rationale behind that amendment but, as the largest landholder in Scotland, the public sector has a duty to lead by example. That is why I recommend that the amendment is opposed.

Thank you very much, convener. I will try my best to work through the many issues that we have to cover.

Ultimately—and as you have outlined, convener—all the amendments that have been discussed propose many complex changes that need to be properly considered as well as consulted on. Normally, any changes to devolved taxes that we make are taken forward in tax-specific legislation; a consultation with taxpayers and stakeholders will then take place, in line with the framework that we have established for tax principles and our tax strategy; and, ultimately, the matter would be considered by the Finance and Public Administration Committee in the same way that tax-related measures are usually considered.

Inserting amendments in this way into the bill and potentially agreeing them could lead to unintended consequences if that work has not been undertaken. It is for that reason that, broadly speaking, I do not support these amendments.

I will now touch on some of my key concerns with this particular group. Accepting Rhoda Grant’s amendments, which Mercedes Villalba has spoken to, and which Ross Greer has talked about in relation to land and buildings transaction tax, would not allow for a full assessment of the policy impacts, the external consultation that we would need to undertake or the kind of partnership working with Revenue Scotland that would be essential to ensure effective administration and compliance.

Ross Greer made a general point about lodging the amendments, saying that, sometimes, there can be a frustration that many commitments are made and the work behind the scenes is either not necessarily seen or not seen to be progressing in a way that people would like. However, I would point out that, in respect of some of today’s amendments, a wide-ranging review of LBTT is already under way. The proposals that have been made in relation to that are best considered through that review and in the context of wider changes that might be made to community right to buy as a result of the review that is on-going on that matter. For those reasons, I ask Mercedes Villalba and Ross Greer not to press or move those particular amendments.

As for Ross Greer’s other amendments in the group—amendments 479 and 480—we are, as the member will no doubt be aware, and as I think he has already set out, already committed to exploring whether any shooting estates are in receipt of the small business bonus scheme, as requested, and whether that could be removed without risking a negative impact on small businesses. His amendments would prejudge any of the work happening in that space.

Again, I hark back to my earlier point about unintended consequences, particularly with regard to properties where no shooting takes place and which might therefore be eligible for local empty property relief.

On amendments 450 and 462, the bill already allows for compensation to be provided for loss or expense that is attributable to a decision that land may only be transferred in lots, so I do not think that those two amendments are required.

As Tim Eagle has outlined, his amendments 451, 452 and 456 seek to place obligations on ministers to buy land during and after a review. I agree that measures in the bill must be fair to landowners, but the amendments would leave landowners and ministers in a worse position. Under the bill as drafted, there can be three possible outcomes of a review. We can either keep the original lotting decision; replace it with a new decision, which might change the lots or mean that lotting is no longer required; or ministers could offer to buy the land. Tim Eagle’s amendments would force ministers to buy the land even when removing or amending the lotting decision would allow the land in question to be sold. Even if the landowner or creditor would prefer a new lotting decision—for example, when they had a buyer of another lot with an interest in the unsold lot—the amendments would prevent ministers from taking those landowners’ views into account. Given that, I ask the member not to move his amendments.

I also have some concerns about the changes that are being proposed through amendments 453, 454 and 455, because of the administrative complexity and delay that they would add. The bill’s approach to the appointment of a valuer is based on current practice that we have set out for the community right to buy and it provides a right of appeal against a valuation.

Finally, on amendment 164, 21 days is the standard period for compensation appeals across a range of legislation. However, I hear Tim Eagle’s concerns and I am more than happy to have a conversation with him to discuss the potential for an alternative amendment to look at a suitable timeframe.

I appreciate the points that have been made. However, the keeper and the accountable officer have to provide the Economy and Fair Work Committee with regular updates on and accounts of the work of Registers of Scotland, including on ScotLIS, which might be a more appropriate route through which progress could be reported. I am therefore unable to support amendment 475.

What amendment 477 is trying to achieve is unclear. My understanding is that the keeper is already obliged to reflect the consideration on the face of the title sheet, whether it is monetary or not. If it was considered necessary to make changes to the Land Register Rules etc (Scotland) Regulations 2014, that could be done through the usual mechanism for amending regulations; we would not necessarily need primary legislation to do so. There has not been wider discussion or consultation with relevant stakeholders on any of the proposed changes. For those reasons I cannot support amendment 477.

I am happy to follow that up with my colleagues and ensure that that happens. Given that the powers in question will be significant, the consultation will help to ensure that any such powers deliver what is needed and that they are appropriate and proportionate. The consultation will also be vital in building safeguards into the system, such as an appeals process and rights to compensation, both of which are not included in amendment 471.

Compulsory purchase powers can already be used to acquire land and property in a wide range of circumstances, including by bringing vacant and derelict land back into use for housing. Notwithstanding that, we are implementing a comprehensive programme of work to reform and modernise Scotland’s compulsory purchase system with a view to making it simpler, more streamlined and, ultimately, fairer. A substantial consultation on the changes that we propose to introduce through that work is proposed for the coming months, and I am happy to keep members updated on that.