Chamber and committees

Monica, I think that you have some questions.

Now you have confused me—I am totally confused.

I am sorry, but I need to ask this question. Is it simpler, as the tenant farming commissioner said, just to shove small landholdings in with agricultural holdings legislation? That has been suggested.

Before we leave that issue, I will ask a question so that I understand the position. Under the 1991 act, if there is no right of resumption, there is no right to resume, so the tenant cannot be forced to give up the land.

I want to go back to diversification. Could you give an example of diversification that would significantly change an agricultural holding? Are you talking about things such as caravan parks?

Fergus, do you want to add anything?

My other concern is that the bill talks about “fixed equipment”, which I assume means fences, not the buildings. The convention is that, with any damage, liability falls 50 per cent either way, but under this legislation, if the deer are coming from somebody else’s ground, liability will fall to the landowner affected. I am not sure that I follow that.

My next question is on the rent review provisions in the bill. I have done a few rent reviews in my time; the indication in the bill is that, previously, I sorted out the rent by sticking a finger in my mouth and then checking which way the wind was blowing. However, it is slightly more technical than that. Do you think the bill makes light of the issue, or is it creating complexities?

Who would like to respond to that? Gail?

Bob Doris has a sequence of questions.

When it comes to buying an estate for natural capital, for example, a management plan that was drawn up would have to be quite detailed, would it not? It would probably have the planting schemes on a year-by-year basis and the harvesting scheme, which would be quite complex. Jill Robbie has sort of nodded.

What I am trying to get at is that that is not something that will just happen overnight. Two years ago, the state bought Glen Prosen, which is only 3,000 hectares, and it still has not come up with a management plan for it, for goodness’ sake. That will not happen overnight, will it?

What is not clear to me is whether, if you had cattle and an average 365-day calving interval—which meant that you were reducing the amount of barren periods—that would be sufficient to prove that you were moving towards net zero. Would it be sufficient if, say, your lambing percentage was up above 100 per cent, because you were not carrying excess animals? I do not know—that is unclear.

Does Douglas Lumsden want to ask a question?