, I know that we have had further representations from some members of the NFU today who do support the Government's approach to this issue. In terms of Alex Ferguson's comment over a guarantee of regaining, as he put it, his secure property rights for landowners, at the moment, there is no such guarantee in any case, because if a secure tenant has a successor in place, it will continue to be a tenant on the land, and that secure tenancy will continue if there is a successor. That guarantee is not there that Alex Ferguson is chasing in any case. Clearly, Alex Ferguson's approach is to revert to the original proposal that we are now replacing with two further measures, one of which is discussed this week and the next week, in terms of designation of 91 tenancies, which we believe will help to keep land in the tenancy sector, which is the ultimate aim of this measure. If a secure tenant does not have a successor, then that land could be lost to the tenancy sector. The Government's approach now will help to keep that land in the tenancy sector, and that is the ultimate aim that we are trying to achieve. The question is that amendment 157 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Those in favour of 157, please show hands down. Those against. Seven for two against and no abstain, so amendment 157 is agreed. I call amendment 291 in the name of Alex Ferguson, or are you debated with amendment 157, Alex Ferguson, to move or not move? I think that at this stage I would move, convener, and we will come back to it at a later stage. In that case, we move on to the question that is section 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendments 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165. All in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments 158 to 165 on block. Do you have done block? I ask whether any member objects a single question being put on the amendments 159 to 165. 159, sorry, it was correct on my notes here. Does any member object to the question being put? If no member objects, the question is that amendments 159 to 165 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Act 1991 act 10, 10 is right to buy. We are interposed lease. Call amendment 292. In the name of Michael Russell in a group of its own, Michael Russell will move and speak to amendment 292. I will not be very lengthy on this, because I want to say a word or two more in the next section about some of the history of land reform in Scotland. There is an anomaly in the situation that those tenants who have interposed leases cannot exercise a right to buy. An interposed lease is a lease that is put in place between the landlord and the tenant. There can be legitimate reasons for interposed leases, and they are obviously used from time to time for those legitimate reasons. However, there can also be landlords who use interposed leases to avoid the right to buy. That is extremely unfair but is now presently possible. An interposed lease can be put in place without the consent of the tenant. That is a result of the Land Tenure Reform Act 1974, as a result of which there are tenants who simply will be unable forever to exercise a right to buy, which otherwise might have occurred for circumstances in this act. That is clearly a frustration of the intention of the Government, but it is also a frustration of the tenants' legitimate rights and expectations. I am seeking to ensure that that anomaly is removed, that that injustice to those tenants is removed, and that progress is made to ensure that tenants who have interposed leases can exercise a right to buy. I say to Michael Russell and the committee that I am very sympathetic to the position of tenants who, without any saying the matter, have ended up as sub-tenants in interposed leases, and therefore, as Michael Russell says, do not qualify for the pre-enter of a right to buy. Although there may well be some legitimate reasons that a landlord might interpose a lease, it is not right that interposing should be used as a means of the nine tenants' right to buy, as Michael Russell says. That is an issue that we have been looking at following the review group's recommendation on a right to buy for tenants and interposed leases. It is a complex area, and considerable work will be needed to find a solution that is both fair and legal, so it is not something that we could include in the bill at this time. Under this amendment, the sub-tenant would buy the land, but the land would still be subject to a head lease with a tenant, and that tenant is controlled by the original landlord. If a sub-tenant does exercise a right to buy, they would not be able to farm the land because the landlord's interposed tenant is still there and has a right to farm the land. Once the dust settles, all a sub-tenant achieves potentially is that they are now the landlord, and the landlord is now the tenant. There is nothing to stop that tenant from using the right to buy, which means that it could end up with the original sub-tenant having no land at all, so it is a very complex area and quite confusing. We need time to resolve those quite difficult questions, such as whether to let the sub-tenant buy the tenant's interest as well as the land, and whether that might make it so expensive that nobody would want to do it in the first place. I am sympathetic to this issue. Of course, it is a complex matter. We need to undertake a full assessment of all the issues that arise from it, but I am happy to go in record and say to Michael Russell on the committee that, accordingly, we will plan a consultation on this for early in the next parliamentary term, and that will enable us to properly assess the situation and address it in a way that works. In the meantime, I would urge Michael Russell to withdraw this particular amendment. Michael Russell, to wind up, press or withdraw. Yes, there are a number of issues that are arising in this bill that indicate that it will require to be further action taken. That is one anomaly that I am going to refer to some later on. I do think that it is pity that those issues were not considered as the process of this drawing bill went forward, but I do accept that it is not a matter that can be resolved in a few weeks. With the cabinet secretary's commitment that there is a desire to solve it, with a timescale now mentioned, which is early in the next Parliament, I would hope, whoever is in government, I will be prepared not to move this, but on the understanding that it does get resolved and it gets resolved in the next session of the Parliament. Thank you. Michael Russell has sought to withdraw amendment 292 with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member objects to the question being withdrawn. The question is that section 80 be agreed to or we all agree. 1991 act 10 and says absolute right to buy for certain tenants. I call amendment 293 in the name of Michael Russell group with amendments 293A and 293B. Michael Russell to move amendment 293 and speak to all the amendments in the group. I am conscious, convener, that on the dear management amendments, I started my contribution in the 19th century. I want to do the same again in this section because much of what we deal with in Scotland on issues of land and land law has its roots in the failure to change in Scotland at a time when others were changing. It is instructive that in a period of 40 years in Ireland, there were four significant land reform acts, 1870, 1880, 1901 and 1909. They arose out of very different political circumstances, but what they did was to ensure that systems of tenancy that we still have do not exist there. Indeed, if you look at the history of land reform throughout Europe and further afield, much action was taken in the 19th and early 20th century to recognise the rights of those who work upon the land and who have worked land for a considerable period of time. No such or virtually no such changes took place in Scotland. Certainly, there was a progress of land reform that the UK Parliament legislated for and ambitious land reform acts like the changes to agricultural tenancies in the 1948 act in particular. However, in Scotland, the process of considering the way that the land was used, the relationship of people to land and the use of land as a resource, particularly a community resource, has been slow in coming. It is only with the establishment of this Parliament in 1999 that the process essentially began to move into something other than a crawling gear. Now we are having to cope with those changes because the need in land reform has to take account, for example, of the ECHR, which is hardwired into the DNA of this Parliament. Unnecessarily so, the ECHR is a very important part of considering how people should be treated. However, it is much harder to reform the tenure of land with the ECHR in place unless you accept—this is a process that has been engaged in in the bill and it has been a very instructive and useful process—unless you accept that there are a variety of rights that people have and that those rights are not defined in a single European convention, no matter how important, but are defined much more widely on the international scene. This bill, hopefully to become an act before the end of this Parliament, will take that understanding of the balance of rights and responsibilities a big step forward. As it does so, it will need to consider some very problematic issues such as the right to buy. I am not suggesting an unconditional right to buy, and I want to make that absolutely clear. This is not an absolute right to buy, but there are many circumstances in which conditional rights to buy are not yet dealt with in legislation that need to be dealt with. I have brought this amendment because I am concerned that there has been a consistent attempt to close this issue down, to say that there is no demand for this and that there is no need for it. I have noticed in the lobbying that we have had around this bill that there has been a consistent theme and that it therefore should be put away not just for discussion but forever, because that is what we are receiving from people. That must not be talked about. It is a reform that dare not speak its name, but it is not a particularly radical reform. The illustration of that is in this amendment. What this amendment suggests is very modest indeed.  Those are the people who have put in their effort, their time, very often their investment, into improving and developing a farm, and all it does is establish a right to buy in those circumstances. You can define three groups of people about how they look at this piece of legislation. Those who believe that such things are no longer relevant, that there is a healthy relationship between landlords and tenants and that people should get on with it, and I am not averse to that. There are many circumstances in which that is true, and I am certainly not criticising every single landlord. There are those who believe that the rights to property are absolute and can never be interfered with. In those circumstances, any such amendment cannot be considered, and that is simply not true. The legislation of the Scottish Parliament has passed not just under this Government but on previous administration shows that that is not true. There are those who have in their own circumstances a real need for change. I represent some of those people who have a real need for change and who believe that it would be far better if they were able to purchase their land and to move ahead to use it. I had a conversation this morning with somebody about that who said to me, surely there is no evidence that those who wish to buy their farms are going to be better farmers than tenants. I can go to many places in my constituency and prove exactly that. Those people who have taken that opportunity have been able to do things that they could only dream of when they were in tenancies and were not working for them. I want to take that issue forward, but I recognise that ECHR does change that context. I do not expect that amendment will succeed on this occasion, but I want it to have ventilated the issue. I want to make it clear that the issue is not over. It is not closed down. This is one of those issues, like interposed leases, to which we will have to return. I want there to be a debate about those rights that tenants have, within the context—not just of ECHR, but within the context of a much wider view of rights, and in the context of those who have worked the land and are passionately devoted to that land. I did see some references at the weekend when that was being discussed to people who said, well, if people want to buy a farm, they can go and buy a farm somewhere else. That is not the issue. If you live on the island of Eila, if you live on the island of Bute, if you have long-term family connections for generations to a community, then I think that you have a right to move forward in that community having improved your ability, your worth and your involvement and investment in that community. I do not regard that as, in any sense, a radical move. I regard it as a necessary next step. Although that step will not be taken in this legislation, I hope that the minister will recognise that the Land Commission will have to consider this. There will need to be a continued extension of the right to buy, and that that does not destabilise the agricultural market. What it does is that it recognises the modern reality, which we should have recognised during the 19th and 20th century in Scotland, but unfortunately we did not have a Parliament to do so. I know that you are going to move. I will not move this amendment at this stage. I may withdraw it when we come to vote because I want to hear what the minister has to say. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 293A and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I do indeed move amendment 293A. I want to speak in support of what Mike Russell has said. It is very important that we acknowledge that those who have worked the land over generations, and 50 years is a good marker in my view, do have rights and that it is not only about the ECHR rights, but it is about other rights that need to be recognised and respect shown to those who have worked the land in a more sort of ethical sense rather than the actual statutory sense. My amendments to Mike Russell's amendment are to try to help by limiting the right to buy in a way that might give reassurance to some who are opposed to it. I listen carefully to what Mike Russell said and suspect that that will not be the time when those things go forward, but they are not things that can be avoided and brushed under the carpet. They are issues that we must, I believe, face in modern Scotland. There is a demand for this to be looked at. The STFA survey recently showed that 85 per cent support for a qualified or limited right to buy. I understand that the Scottish Government's own survey showed a 46 per cent support for absolute right to buy and a 29 per cent support for a conditional right to buy. My amendment suggests a limited period in which tenants can issue a notice under section 38B1. The amendment suggests five years from the date that this bill becomes an act. As I have said, I think that this might give some confidence about letting for landowners but also give those in secure tenancies an opportunity to purchase their land, which I believe is the right way forward. Although I have not put these points into my amendment, there is also the possibility in relation to this, which I think might be helpful at this stage to put on the record, that there might also be a clause, as this is considered, whereby the tenant could buy the farm if the landlord was in breach within this section, and it might also be that amendment could be considered in a state of optimism that I have written here at stage 3. I am not quite sure that that is going to be the case, but where a successor had to be named, that is another issue to look at, preventing a situation where a tenant could purchase the farm at a very reasonable price and then possibly sell it on quickly on the open market, there might also be a connected resale clause to prevent an unfair profit being possible. I do think that not an absolute right to buy but a limited or qualified or conditional right to buy, however one wanted to phrase it, is something that we really do have to consider very seriously. I am frankly disappointed that, in my view, some people have shied away from addressing it. I would have liked to have seen it moving forward towards stage 3, having had a debate at stage 2, but I will leave it at that for the moment. I want to bring in some other members now, but I have indications from Dave Thomson first and Graham Day. Dave. Thank you very much, convener. This is a subject that is fairly dear to my own heart. I remember when I was first selected in 2002 to stand in Rosca in Inverness West, I went along to a meeting in the Toer hotel, which was one of the founding meetings, if not the founding meeting of the Scottish Ten Farmers Association, and I then put forward a motion to the SNP conference that year advocating a right to buy, which the conference approved by the way. That is 14 years ago, and here we are still talking about those things. Now, the big problem and the big issue, and Mike Russell alluded to it when he was speaking, is to do with ECHR. The ECHR, which is written into the Scotland Act, which set up this Parliament, very much ties the hands of the Parliament, because there is a difference between legislation having to be ECHR compliant, which is a matter of opinion untested in the courts, and for people being able to challenge legislation under ECHR. There are two quite different things. There is a wider issue that is not going to be dealt with today, and that is that the fact that it is written into the Scotland Act needs to be looked at and it needs to be removed. We have the same freedom of putting forward legislation as any other legislature, legislation that can still be challenged under ECHR, as, say, UK legislation would be in the European Court. Having said that, Scottish Tenant Farmers Association wrote to us just yesterday and they indicated that their support basically for a conditional right to buy. Mike Russell's condition is 50 years. I will be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary does have to say when he responds, but there are various conditions that they are suggesting could be applied to a right to buy to try to ensure fairness for everybody. Things such as the tenant demonstrating greater investment in the holding in the landlord during the term of the tenancy, evidence of the landlord being in breach of obligations or farming business being inhibited by the scale of land ownership or the actions of a landowner, demonstration of eligible succession, so a landlord would not have an expectation of vacant possession in the near future, clawback in the event of resale within, say, ten years, and a landlord's right of preemption if the farm was sold within ten years. I hope that all those things, along with those mentioned by Mike Russell and Claudia Beamish, would be the sort of things that would go into the pot and into the debate when this is considered in the future. I think that it must be considered in the next parliamentary session and it must be considered early. It is a boil that has been festering for many, many years now. It is souring relationships between landlords and tenants. We need to deal with it, we need to lance it, and the only way to do that is to bring in a form of conditional right to buy along the lines that we have heard being discussed this morning. I commend Mike Russell for bringing forward his amendment. My knowledge and understanding, such as it is, of the realities of tenancies is far more recent than that of Mr Russell's or indeed Dave Thomson and others. The more I learn about the tenancy issue, the more I am inclined towards enhancing right to buy provisions in certain circumstances. I would contend that, in that regard, Mr Russell's amendment should not readily be dismissed. Although I cannot help but wonder, convener, whether it would be best sat in amongst a broader package that Parliament and stakeholders had an opportunity to work through, hopefully, with constructive intent, because we are all of us too well aware of the painful consequences for some that can arise from passing legislation that is deemed to be flawed. The principles behind Claudia Beamish's amendment could also be considered in that setting, although, like Mike Russell's, it would have ECHR hurtless to overcome. Indeed, it could potentially be subject to challenge by both tenants and landlords. However, I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary in his response, which I hope will recognise that the debate that Mr Russell is so eloquently called for is one that we need to have in the near future. I thank Mike Russell for his considerable interest. I, Mike Russell, describe three categories of people when it came to right to buy, and I do not really recognise myself in any of them, to be perfectly honest. It is probably a good job that I am retiring in six or seven weeks' time, because I am quite clear that this is going to come back in the next Parliament. If I may say so, I think that that is the right place for it, if this debate has to take place, because I would have been very, very concerned, and I will be very concerned, if Mike Russell's amendment is agreed today, because if the Government's amendments on assignation are likely to end up in the courts, as I believe they will be—maybe others who disagree with that—then Mike Russell's amendment, if agreed, would absolutely guarantee it. What I am not going to deny at all is that this is going to be a continuing debate. I think that that is quite clear, but it is a debate that needs the fullness of time, if it is not going to have those who own land and have that land available to let at the moment, if they are not going to put up the shutters on letting that land and do everything they can to prevent that land being let, because if this is rushed into, if it is done in a top-down bullying sort of way, then that will be the result. If we want a truly invigorated tenancy sector, then we have to try and take as many people with us as we possibly can. I think that some members have difficulty believing that I have the interest of the tenancy sector at heart, but I do. I want to see a tenancy sector that is really vibrant and open and modern and dynamic as much as the next person. I am very worried that this legislation, as it stands, is not going to help to achieve that, but I am absolutely convinced that Mike Russell's amendment, which, with respect, is an absolute right to buy, albeit under some constraints, but it is an absolute right to buy. That of itself will have a hugely negative impact. Given five years of debate, which I hope would be a very inclusive debate of all parties involved, then there is possibly a solution at the end of the day. However, it is, as I say, I do not believe that it is for this bill or for this Parliament to determine, and I hope that that debate will be left for future years. Any other member wishes to speak? Then I intend to make a few remarks on this. I like to sit at the context of the fact that we have briefings from Scottish land and estates and the president of the National Farmers Union, Alan Bowie. Talking about, in the case of SLE, we believe that the introduction of this right to buy would not be in the long term serve the industry. Alan Bowie is saying that, from an agricultural industry perspective, there appears little justification for an absolute right to buy. That is an interesting concept, because I think that it sets the idea of farming as an industry. Indeed, probably from the point of view, as the way Pete Heatherington summed it up, it is about property development. Whereas, in the circumstances of the time that it is taken for people to find security, it is surprising over the peace how long many people have had to take. I want to take you back into the 19th century as well. I want to take you back to the time of the Crofters commission report when John McPherson, the Glendale martyr, told the Crofters commission in the 1880s. He told them that our forefathers had died in good patience and that we ourselves have been waiting in good patience till now and that we could not wait any longer, that they never got anything by their patience but constantly getting worse. In 1907, the articles were created for the tenants of Glendale to be able to buy their holdings by a Conservative Government. We are looking at the need for security for tenants today. We note that 120 secure tenancies are being lost every year. We are in a position not to agree that the idea is that it is about an agricultural industry, but indeed it is about people living and farming the land. When the NFU president goes on to say that it is clear that many of the calls are coming from a wider land reformist perspective rather than an agricultural one, I question what agriculture is for and I have done so in the Parliament before. I believe that that question has to be applied to this particular amendment. I have a lot of sympathy with what Mike Russell has said. I believe that the cabinet secretary has to take things into account given the historic precedent of the time that it has taken for people to secure security in the past and indeed for the time that it has taken for the address of this very limited condition where tenants have been tenants for over 50 years. I look forward to what the cabinet secretary has to say. I am sorry that you are so reluctant about it because we would all agree that this is a hugely important debate. I hear what the convener says and I can understand it if I do not fully agree with it. He quoted the NFUS and SLE's briefings and you may will argue that they have axes to grind, but I do not think that they have the same axe to grind as the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveys. I really do not think that. Yes, they have a vested interest, of course they do, but I think that it is a different one. This whole bill is also about creating a viable and active, tenanted sector. A briefing report by the Chartered Surveys a couple of years ago now set out that the introduction of an absolute right to buy would increase the cost of purchasing farms, decrease the quality of farms that are available to rent and decrease the number of farms to rent. We have to bear that in mind as we go forward, because if we want to create that tenanted sector of vibrancy, we have to take those things into account. I am not saying that they are right or wrong, but I think that that underlines the argument that a considerable time needs to be taken over this debate going forward. I am beginning to be sorry that I am not going to be a part of that debate now, because it is going to be a good one. However, there are not black and white issues here, is what I am trying to say, and I hope that people will bear that in mind as this debate goes forward in future years. Just a brief convener in response to the comments that Alex Ferguson has just made, my understanding is that those amendments are not about an absolute right to buy, they are about a limited right to buy in quite clearly stated circumstances. That is the debate that we need to be having here. Is the balance right at the moment? I have read all the briefings that colleagues will have read about the need for balance and the need for fairness. The point that I would come at is that we do not have that balance at the right place at the moment, so that is what I think that those amendments are testing. There is a difficulty about doing all of that in a stage 2 or a stage 3, but that clearly is part of the backdrop to whether the bill is going to be successful is where that balance and where that fairness lies. I think that this is an important debate. The amendments that have been put forward are amendments that are designed not as extreme amendments but as shifting that balance. They are quite proportionate, I think, in the way that they have been put forward. That is the spirit in which we should have this debate. I hope that that will be the way that it is viewed outside of this chamber as well. It is a part of a context, both of land reform and of how land is used in Scotland and fairness to the people that farm that land, look after that land and invest in that land. When we think about the debates that we have had over the past few months about what is happening in the dairy industry, delays and cap payments, it is a tough time. For all those involved in that process, the finances are key, but so is the place from where people are starting from. Some of the amendments will come to later on about how agricultural holdings operate. Those are key. It is wrong to dismiss those amendments as being amendments that will completely rewrite the process. What is being suggested is a shift in the balance. I think that that shift is a legitimate shift for us to be debating today. I will not come back in any way at the moment, but I think that we should hear from the cabinet secretary before we come back to Mike Russell. Thank you, convener. I have listened very carefully to the very elegant contributions of many members on the committee. In most cases, there is not a lot to disagree with that has been expressed by members. Can I say at the outset that I understand the reasons why Mike Russell has brought forward those amendments, particularly in light of the circumstances and the well-documented cases in his constituency and other constituencies in Scotland? However, the agriculture holdings review group considered the issue of the right to buy and the circumstances under which it should apply carefully. It was one of many bodies to reject the absolute right to buy as not focusing on agricultural contribution and creating a vibrant tenancy sector. It also, like many members around the table today, recognised that this area of law and its interaction with ECHR is a legal minefield. The committee has rightly emphasised that it is essential that provisions in the bill comply with ECHR and that we are all acutely aware of the importance of avoiding another Salverson vs Riddle situation, a point that was well made by the committee in your own stage 1 report. Our view is that amendment breaches ECHR and is outwith the competence of the Parliament. However, I recognise that there is a widespread belief that a conditional right to buy would be beneficial, and that is what the Scottish Government has already begun to establish in the bill. For example, the bill creates opportunities for tenants to order the sale of and then buy their holdings when the landlord is in breach of his or her obligations. Indeed, that addresses some of the points that the STFA made, which were reiterated by Dave Thompson. It also gives communities a right to buy local land when sustainable development is at risk as well, and in some of those cases that should involve tenanted farms. I therefore hope that Michael Russell will withdraw this amendment, but I am also mindful of the fact that this is not, and by any means, a static situation. The debate has certainly moved on over the past few years, and as land reform progresses in Scotland, there will be opportunities to consider whether further change is necessary and can contribute to community wellbeing, agricultural progress and sustainability of rural businesses and rural communities. I know and I believe that anybody in my position will keep that under review, just as I am sure that a number of MSPs will want to continue to press for further change. I have no doubt that the Land Commission, once established, will be very mindful of this on-going debate in Scotland and the entirely legitimate desire for tenants to have more of a say over their own destiny. Indeed, in light of the well-known cases in Ergyll in particular, including those involving constituents whom Michael Russell has introduced to me and I have met personally and other cases elsewhere in the country, I absolutely agree that it is vital that the next Parliament does review to what extent the bill has been able to deliver for such cases and to look at the issues around a conditional right to buy. In that context, and the overriding context of land reform is now an on-going process in Scotland and in this Parliament, I hope that that outlines the Government's position. Okay, I call Mike Russell to wind up and then it will be Claudia Beamish to wind up and her amendment to come first. Thank you, convener. There will be people who have listened to this debate or who are expected to listen to this debate with a sense of disappointment and I do not think that they should feel disappointed. I have been very impressed by the very high quality of the debate on every side and I think that it has been a very serious and well-informed debate. I want to say at the very outset that I think that there is a fourth category that I would put Alec Ferguson into. I will have to create that category. There is a category of somebody who is immensely knowledgeable about this, who is very passionate about it, who has an open mind about some of those issues but also has reservations because of the fears that this will impact adversely upon the agricultural sector. I fully understand that. That is one of the reasons why we have to bring this back in order to examine it properly. I will do that in a moment and I will explain how I think that that should happen in a moment. We need to be very careful, of course, that we do not get this wrong. The spectre of Salves and Riddle has been raised from this table and it is right to raise it. That has resulted not because it is a problem for the Parliament, although it is. It has resulted in real suffering for individuals. The committee has discussed that on a number of occasions. I do not want to be involved in anything that creates circumstances where individuals suffer as a result of it. That is a strong reason for me to say, okay, I want this now but let's spend some time on it. I want to say to the cabinet secretary too because, repeatedly, we have heard in this bill from ministers. I understand why I have been a minister myself, that bills must be watertight. That is true. I want to say to the cabinet secretary that sometimes the right position for a Government is to be in the courts, defending the decisions that it has made as right decisions. Simply to avoid going into the courts is not enough of a justification, not to do something. If we accept legal threat as the means by which we will always avoid things, we will make no progress. While I think that we should avoid the solvus and riddle difficulties, the difficulties that are undoubtedly in this amendment, because this amendment is drawn up with a tremendous help of the parliamentary clerks, but it has not been drawn up with the help of the Scottish Government's legal side and experienced parliamentary draftsmen who have done this for years. However, in order to avoid that, we probably need to do some more work. However, in the end, we may have to defend this and this right thing to do against those who wish to undermine it. Therefore, the legal issues persuade me that we should not proceed with this at this stage. The debate encourages me greatly, and I want to thank the cabinet secretary for his response, because this debate has indicated, right around this table, even if he disagrees with us, that this is not a dead issue. It is not done and dusted. What the land reform review group said was not the final word on this, and there will have to be progress on the issue of a conditional right to buy. This is a conditional right to buy. It is not an absolute right to buy, but it is a conditional right to buy. If we take this forward, how do we take it forward? I will not press this amendment at this stage, but I think that, at the very early days of the next Parliament, there should be consideration given as to how you managed to implement this. It is possible that that could be done by a very simple bill. One of the problems of agricultural tenancy and agricultural holdings legislation is immensely complicated, as the cabinet secretary said before. He changed one thing and another thing and it falls out at the end. It might be possible to be much more simple about this, but whatever is done should be well prepared. I would hope that there would be a constructive national debate on it, and I hope that people would realise that this is a necessary step forward, but we also need to think about it. I will certainly go away from this debate thinking about it, because I profoundly believe that it is the right thing to do, and it is not a threat. It is in actual fact a fulfilment of the next stage of enabling the people who are engaged in Scottish agriculture to do their very best and to benefit themselves and their communities. I do not think that that is what we should all have ambition for. I will not press this. I am grateful for the debate that we have moved a step on, not as far as I want to go by any manner of means, but we are still moving, and that is important. Thank you. Claudia Beamish to wind up an amendment 293A and press or withdraw. My amendment was an attempt to find a balance whereby there would be confidence from landowners and landlords. I so often have heard this argument put forward that people do not want to let land if there is any form of right to buy. Even the confusion in this debate has shown that we really need to be clear about what we are talking about. We are not talking, as I understand it, about an absolute right to buy. We are talking about a qualified or conditional or limited right to buy, depending on the phrase that one is looking at. I think that it is really important that this comes back. As someone who is reasonably new to this debate, but like all of us here, has a sense of fairness and justice, I am puzzled why it seems to have been kicked again into the long grass, and I find that disappointing. I think that there are those of us who will certainly want to take the debate forward if we are back in the next Parliament, and I am sure that there will be others who will want to if we are not. On that basis, I withdraw my amendments. I think that the words of Mike Russell, Dave Thompson and Rob Gibson have been very important in this, as has the shorter contribution of my colleague, Sarah Boyack. Claudia Beamish has sought to withdraw amendment 293A with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? Nobody objects. We call amendment 293B in the name of Claudia Beamish. Claudia Beamish has already debated with amendment 293A. Claudia Beamish, do you want to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. The question is that amendment 293A be agreed to, but are you going to withdraw it? Not moved at this stage, but I will be back at some stage. Does anybody object to this amendment 293A being withdrawn at this stage? Nobody objects at this stage. We will take a very short five-minute break, and we will try and go on until 20 past one, and then we will try and finish our report. So we are going to have a five-minute break just now. Mike Russell, to move amendment 294 and speak to both amendments in the group. The question that I am raising is simply whether there are circumstances in this bill where a tenant will get to the stage of purchase without actually knowing exactly where he or she is in terms of the purchase price. That is issue number one. The second issue is simply to ensure that the clawback process is better and more comprehensive, I have to say, than the clawback process that was in the original bill. Clawback is always going to be controversial and difficult, but I think that it is one of those areas where you need the absolute clarity within the bill of how this is absolutely to work. The specific amendment that I am proposing at 167, in actual fact, makes sure that if there is clawback after difficulties with a tenancy, the landlord who is in breach should not profit as a result of investment or action taken by the tenant. I think that that is a basic principle that those who are at fault should not profit. Both of those are simple and clear. I would be quite happy to discover that I am wrong in terms of the price issue, in which case we proceed no further. However, I hope that the cabinet secretary will be more sympathetic to the principle behind amendment 167, because it is important that those who behave badly do not profit as a result of that behaviour. Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 295 and other amendments in the group. Right, thank you convener. I would like to speak in favour of Mike Russell's amendment. I think that it is important that in this group, the point being that it refers to a scenario where the landlord is forced to sell a land due to a material breach of the obligations in relation to the tenant. Some tenants have advised me that they can become committed to the sale before the price has been determined, and that this is a pressure that they do not want to be subjected to, of course. It is a scenario where nobody looking to buy a property would normally agree to. Therefore, my amendment gives the tenant the option to withdraw from the sale for up to 28 days after the price is known. I believe that this is a reasonable and fair time for consideration. On the 28 days to withdraw under section 38f, the amendment is written on the basis that the tenant would have 28 days after learning the price to withdraw from the offer. However, my own understanding would be that the offer would not need to be made until the price was known. If the price was then not to the tenants liking, the tenant can give notice under section 38e saying that they no longer intend to proceed under section 38f. I hope that I have got that right. Do I move the amendment in my name or not yet? Not yet, no. Any other members wish to comment on this matter? No. In that case, Cabinet Secretary to respond. Can I say that I am grateful to Michael Russell and Claudia Beamish for highlighting the importance of making sure that a tenant does not have to commit to buying the land before they know the price of the land and what that will be? I am happy to go on the record to say that I can confirm that it is currently drafted. The bill already gives that protection. If the tenant decides to buy, they will make an offer under section 38f1, and that offer must be at the price arrived at under 38f2, so the tenant cannot make an offer under 38f1 until they already know the price. Once the tenant has found out the price, they are under no obligation to buy. If they decide they do not want to buy, they need to give notice of that under 38ef, but the tenant will never find himself in the position of having to sign a blank cheque. The order of events that Michael Russell is looking to make clear is the order already prescribed by the bill. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, but I would be happy to look at whether the expansion notes to the bill can be updated and improved to make sure that the position is unambiguous. If other guidance is required to be published, we would make sure that that would happen as well. Claudia Beamish's amendment could confuse matters, if she does not mind me saying so, because a tenant cannot make an offer until they know the price. Her amendment would mean that a tenant could find out the price, make an offer at that price but then withdraw the offer, which would not help the interests of any of the parties involved in the sale. Of course, there are already provisions in the bill that mean that the offer cannot be made until the tenant knows the price. I urge the members to withdraw the amendments in light of my comments. In that case, Michael Russell will wind up. I am pleased that my amendment 294 is not necessary, and in those circumstances I will not press it. It was important to have that clarified. It is on the record, and if we can have better clarity in the guidelines, we will not get into that trouble. Thank you. Michael Russell came to withdraw amendment 294 with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No one objects. In that case, I call amendment 295, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 294. Claudia Beamish, do you move or not move? Move, and apologies for any confusion. I was trying to make for more clarity wrong and confusion. Are you going to move it? No, no. Sorry, I am not moved. I will just need to take it right. Thank you. We call agricultural holdings minor and consequential. amendment 166, in the name of the cabinet secretary group of amendments 203, 205, 208, 206, 207, 212, 251, 263, 264 and 265. amendment 263 and 264, in this group, are preempted by the amendment 300, in the group retention of existing procedures for variation or review of rent. Cabinet secretary, do you move the amendment and speak to all the amendments in the group? Okay, I'll take the guidance of you, convener, if you wish me to speak to all those amendments, which are minor and consequential ones, or move on block. Possibly get to that stage of moving them on block if you can explain initially what it's about. Well, we'll have to deal with the amendment 166, however, as it's at this stage in the proceedings. Okay, I'll speak to 166 and allow the committee to guide me if you want to go through all the other consequential amendments. Amendment 166 is designed to make sure that a tenant who is exercising right to buy and the for sale doesn't lose that right to buy at the seller causes a delay. Under the bill at the moment, a tenant loses their right to buy if they don't pay for the land by the final settlement date, but the landlord might not be able to transfer the title for the land in time to meet that date, and that would mean that the tenant wouldn't be able to pay for the land in time. On a potential reading of the current drafting of section 38j, the tenant then loses her right to buy through no fault of their own, so this amendment simply clarifies that the tenant doesn't lose her right to buy in these circumstances. This is also consistent with the provisions for the community right to buy in part 5 of the bill as well. Let's go through the other minor amendments. I think that we should leave them just now, in fact. So, do any other members wish to talk about this now? Comments? No. Cabinet secretary to wind up, probably. In that case, I'll just formally move amendment 166. Thank you. The question is that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Sale when the landlord has breached, restriction on the notice to quit, et cetera, where the sale is to a third party. Call amendment 373 in the name of Rob Gibson. Sorry, 273 in the name of Rob Gibson in a group of its own, and I will move it now and speak to this amendment. This amendment seeks to protect a tenant from eviction after an enforced sale by restricting the new landlord's ability to issue him with an incontestable notice to quit. When a tenant successfully ordered the sale of his holding because the landlord was failing to meet his obligations under part 10, chapter 3, I want to avoid the new buyer being able to swiftly evict the tenant. The tenant should have a chance to bring the holding back to productivity now that the obstructive landlord has been removed, rather than the new landlord being able to take it out of production for the first 10 years. Given agricultural timescares, gales, 10 years, it was chosen as a fair amount of time when I put this forward to give the tenant some protection from significant further change that could be damaging. The land court will not be able to grant a certificate of bad husbandry. The landlord will not be able to issue an incontestable notice to quit because he wants to put the land to non-agricultural uses. The landlord will not be able to issue an incontestable notice to quit that relates to permanent pasture. I wonder whether other members wish to make any comments on those. I would like to ask a question that you may be able to clarify, convener, because if I understand this correctly and it is distinctly possible that I do not, it seems to me that this amendment could force the sale of the holding to a third party because the landlord had not complied with the lease and then allowed that third party to terminate the lease because the tenant had failed to comply with good husbandry, which failure was a result of the original landlord's failure to comply with the lease in the first place. I would seek clarification on that, if possible, because I do not quite understand the rationale or justification of the provisions in the first place. Any other member wish to contribute? No, if not Cabinet Secretary to respond. Thank you, convener. I thank you for bringing forward this amendment, which we are happy to support. I welcome the protections that we give tenants after on the for sale. It would help to make sure that the tenant has the opportunity to farm the land to a high standard again, which the actions of the former landlord had been perhaps preventing the tenant from doing. We do not identify with Alex Ferguson's concerns. My intention is to press this amendment because I do not think that Alex Ferguson's concerns are material in the sense of the protection of the tenant's rights here. I believe that it will be useful for the tenant to be able to have this clarity through the amendment that I proposed just now. The question is, then, that amendment 273 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The sale with the landlords and breach, exclusions from clawback payment after early resale, call amendment 167, the name of Michael Russell group with amendment 1678. I call on Michael Russell to move his amendment 167 and speak to both amendments in the group. Clearly, it went unnoticed that I already introduced this amendment the last time I spoke because I was getting ahead of myself, so I'll just say again, I think it's a jolly good thing, and it will work particularly well for those tenants who are put in difficult positions by a landlord that's not fulfilling their obligations. No landlord should profit from his or her failure to fulfil their obligations. I am moving it. I now call Claudia Beamish to move amendment 1678 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you. I speak in support of Mike Russell's amendment and it might seem like a quibble of language, and I have great respect for Mr Russell and his linguistic abilities. However, I would like to see the word must rather than may put into the amendment, and I think I'll leave it at that. So you're moving 1670, you are indeed. Okay, any other member wishes to comment on that? If not, Cabinet Secretary to respond. If firstly we're happy to support Michael Russell's amendment, the bill already provides that when a landlord has ordered to sell the holding because they've breached their obligations, the price of tenant pays to the landlord excludes the value of the tenant's improvements. It's only fair that the landlord shouldn't profit from improvements if the land is later resold either. The amendment would also let us make sure that the former landlord didn't profit from other factors that had increased the value of the land since the former landlord originally sold it, like diversification. So I support the policy behind Michael Russell's amendment, and for that reason we're happy to include provision and eventual regulations on that. We have some concerns over Claudia Beamish's amendment, although we very much appreciate what our amendment is trying to achieve. We don't believe that it's appropriate, because it would mean that the regulations would have to include every single type of improvement listed in scheduled 5 of the 1991 act, whether it's relevant or not. Michael Russell's amendment will mean that we have to work through the detail of which improvements are relevant to exclude from Clawback, but Claudia Beamish's amendment forced us to include things before we'd even considered whether they were relevant. So I'd ask the committee to not support Claudia Beamish's amendment or for Claudia Beamish to reconsider whether she wants to press it. In that case, Michael Russell to wind up. I think I've said all I can possibly say about it. We'll move it. Thank you very much. And Claudia Beamish to wind up on amendment 167A, press or withdraw? Or withdraw, thank you. Withdraw, Claudia Beamish seeks to withdraw amendment 167A, with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to that? No member has objected to that. So the question is that amendment 167 be agreed to. Has moved. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Thank you. The question is section 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I intend to finish consideration at this stage, which allows us a little more time for members to attend to their business, especially with this afternoon. And we will take up again next week at this point. We made some good progress today, I think, and some major points. And I'd like to thank you very much for your attention. At the next meeting of the committee, we'll consider several items, coordinate legislation, for continuing with our consideration of land reform, Scotland Bill, stage 2 day 4. As agreed at the previous meeting, the committee will now move into private session to consider a draft correspondence to the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform on wildlife time in the Scotland annual report 2014. I close the public part of the meeting and ask the public gallery to be cleared.


Mr Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman asked several questions. I'll try and deal with them in order. On the first point, my friend the Attorney General made absolutely clear, of course, that this is a judgement with which he disagreed. Of course, we respect the judgement of the Supreme Court. On the second point, are we about the Ben Burt Act? I will say what I'm sure he understands. We will, of course, obey the law and we will come out of the EU on October 31st. On his point about preparations for a no-deal Brexit. Actually, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who just spoke for two hours on this matter, our preparations are very far advanced and I think this country can be entirely confident that we will be ready deal or no deal. On his point about whether we are on the verge of getting a deal or not, what it is absolutely true, that negotiations are difficult, but we are making progress and all I will say to him and to his friends is that they have not been made easier by the surrender act that he passed. And I am very proud, by the way, to take his next point about everything that I did as Mayor of London. I may say to the current Mayor that he'd be better off spending less on press officers and more on police officers in London because we were funding 20,000 more on our streets and as for being trusted on Iran, Mr Speaker, this is a man who took the shilling of the mullers from press TV. Mr Speaker, I think there's something, I was rather sad actually in a way that the Labour conference was interrupted by the relief. I was awestruck by some of the things I heard. Doubtless designed to obscure the inanity of his policy over Brexit. He wants to abolish fee-paying schools at a cost of £7 billion to the taxpayer. He wants a four-day working week cutting the incomes of the lowest paid in this country. He wants to abolish Ausdead and now we hear he wants to abolish all immigration controls from the EU, but there was a crucial passage missing from his speech, it turns out. Mr Speaker, I think there's something slightly pitiful in a way about the right honourable gentleman. It seems that he actually did want to call an election now, Mr Speaker. There was a passage in his speech calling for an election now, but it was censored by the Stasi in the form of the Shadow Chancellor. Or possibly it was the shadow Lord Chancellor. Mr Speaker, the right honourable gentleman is being gagged. He's being muzzled. He's being held captive by his colleagues. They won't let him say what he wants to say. I say free the Islington One, Mr Speaker. Why won't they allow him to have an election, Mr Speaker? Why won't they allow him to unleash his charms on the electorate? It's because they're not only terrified that he's going to lose, but also even more terrified by the remote possibility that he might win. He can't control his own party. He can't decide whether he's for leave or for remain. He's being held captive by his colleagues. The electorate is being held captive by this zombie parliament and this zombie opposition, and he wants the entire country to be held captive in the EU after October 31 at a cost of more than a billion pounds a month. We say no. I say no. Let's get Brexit done and let's take this country forward.


In this presentation, we will take a look at multiple choice questions related to partnerships. First question, unincorporated business of two or more persons designed to generate profit is A. S. Corporation B. Proprietorship C. Contractual Agreement or contractual company D. Partnership E. Hobby So we'll go through this again, see if we can go through the process of elimination. This first question should be a bit obvious considering the fact that we are talking about the topic of partnerships. And note that when we go into multiple choice questions, it is really a good idea to know what topic we're in here. So clearly when we're on a chapter of partnerships or if our whole course is dealing with partnerships, then we can lean our answers to what we think the relative answer will be just based on the topic we're covering. So let's go through this again. We're going to say the unincorporated business of two or more persons designed to generate profit is an S. Corporation, a proprietorship. The proprietorship is one person, so we can probably eliminate that one. S. Corporation might be a little bit more abstract to us. C. Contractual Agreement D. Partnership Probably the one we're talking about considering we're in the partnership type of business area in this course. And then E says a hobby. And we probably think it's not a hobby, it looks like some type of business. It clearly says it's business and it has a need to generate profit. So if we're left with A, C, and D, an unincorporated business of two or more persons designed to generate profit is. And that's not going to be an S. Corporation or a contractual agreement. It will be the partnership. So final answer, partnership. One more time just to read through the definition. Unincorporated business of two or more persons designed to generate profit is D. Partnership. Next one. A partnership agreement A must be in writing, B not necessary, C is an agreement between partners and customers, D causes more problems than it helps, E is also called articles of incorporation. So let's go through these again, see if we can go through the process of elimination. A partnership agreement A must be in writing. Now we might think that seems kind of reasonable, so you know, I'm not sure about that. So let's keep that there for now. B not necessary, and again, you could think, you know, it's not necessary to have the partnership agreement. I mean, if we don't have a formal written agreement, you know, so I'll keep that for now. C says, is an agreement between partners and customers, and the partnership agreement is actually between partners and not customers, so just partners, that's not it. And then D says, causes more problems than it helps. That seems kind of a snarky kind of answer, probably, probably not, not it, you know, because I would think an agreement, a formal agreement would be more helpful than not having one. And then E says, is also called the articles of incorporation, and we might not really know, so I'm going to leave A, B and E. So once again, if we go through this, we'll say that a partnership agreement is either A, B or E must be in writing, not necessary, is also called the articles of incorporation. And I would think that not necessary, I'm going to, I'm going to eliminate that one because, again, we don't have to have an agreement in writing, but we must have some kind of agreement, and note that I just answered this one, but we must have some kind of agreement, typically, because at least we have an oral agreement because we're doing work together. So if we're doing work together, then we must have at least discussed this and somehow, and there's an assumption that the two individuals are doing this for some kind of personal benefit, and that would be some type of agreement. And then I just answered this one, it must be in writing, it actually doesn't need to be in writing, it's much preferred to be in writing to have a partnership agreement, but two individuals that just say, hey, let's go start a food truck store and we'll just get it going and moving forward with it and have no agreement other than we're just going to go through that are still basically a partnership and they don't have a written agreement, but clearly they have an agreement of some kind because they went and bought the truck or rented the truck and have agreed to go out and do the business. So that's that one. So it must be them, E, which is also called Articles of Incorporation. So final question and answer, a partnership agreement, E, is also called the Articles of Incorporation.


So rather surprisingly, multiplication of fractions turns out to be a little bit more difficult conceptually than the division of fractions. And part of that is we actually have two ways of looking at division. We can either view it quotatively or partatively. With multiplication, we only have one good way of looking at it, which is as we're heated addition, which is fine if we're doing a whole number multiple, but if we're doing a fractional multiple, it's a little bit more complicated. So let's start off with the easy problems first. Let's find the product 5 times 2 thirds. And so by our definition of multiplication, what that means is we're going to take five things each of which are 2 thirds. So we're going to produce a piece of size 2 thirds. So we can take a bar divided into three equal parts, and I'm going to take two of those, and so this represents 2 thirds, and I want five of those all together. So there's one, two, three, four, five, and this forms my product. Now, how big is that product? The thing to keep in mind is that three of these rectangles made up our one unit. So what I can do is I can count holes by finding sets of three rectangles. So here we go, one, two, three, and there's one third left over. And so I can write my result as a mixed number. Five times 2 thirds, one, two, three, and one third left over, and there's my product 3 and a third. Now, unfortunately, this doesn't work if we multiply a fraction by a fraction, because there's something like 2 fifths times 3 quarters, and we don't have any good way of taking 2 fifths, 3 quarters, and adding them together. It's kind of hard to wrap our minds around what that is. So let's take the problem apart. So first off, this 2 fifths, if we think about what that looks like, this is the same as 2 times a fifth. It's a fifth and a fifth that's a repeated addition, so it translates into a multiplication. Again, if you think about where our fractions and rational numbers came from, this 1 fifth itself comes from a quotient 1 divided by 5. So this product, 2 fifths times 3 quarters, I can view this as 2 times 1 divided by 5 times 3 quarters. And because I can do my division and multiplication in any order that I want to, I'll rearrange things a little bit. I'll do the 2 times 1 because I can, and then the divide by 5 I'll relegate to after the 3 quarters. So this product, 2 fifths times 3 quarters, is the same as 2 times 3 quarters divided by 5. And what that suggests is I might take the 3 quarters, divide it into 5 pieces, and then take 2 of the pieces that I produce. So let's take a look at that. So we'll get our 3 quarters first, so we'll take a bar. We're going to divide it into 4 parts. I'm going to take 3 of the 4 parts, and there's my area representing 3 quarters. Now to do the multiplication by 2 fifths, I want to divide this into 5 equal pieces. There we go, and I'm going to take, so here's my 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 equal pieces, and I want to take 2 of those equal pieces. So there's my 2 pieces that I'm going to take. Again, here's 1 piece is this entire thing, there's a second piece, and so I'm going to take those 2 pieces, and I'll just count. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 pieces out of a total of 20, and so my product 2 fifths times 3 quarters is going to be 6 out of 20, 6 over 20, and I could reduce this to the proper reduced value, 3 out of 10. However, we're not going to do that right at this point.


And on business news, the federal government will soon establish an aerospace university to address the challenges of qualified and specialised manpower in the nation's aviation sector. Minister of Aviation, Heidi Siddica, made this known at the weekly neurostereal press briefing organised by the Presidential Communication Team, led by the President Spokesman Mr Fermi Adishino at the Presidential Villa Abuja. Siddica explained that the university will be world-class and will collaborate with some famous institutions.