Chamber and committees

Amendment 379 is simple—I think that it is—in that it gives more power to the person who is leasing land and makes sure that they have a say on power lines crossing the land that they lease. How they use the land might have to change once power lines are installed, so they are definitely an interested party and I feel that they should be involved in giving consent for those lines.

I move amendment 379.

I will first address the comments that you made, convener. Payment might be made to the owners of the land, but if lines go above a tenant’s land, the tenant gets no payment at all, and the lines impact how they use that land. If the energy operator wants to access the land, for example, there is an impact.

There is also an impact on what farmers might want to do underneath the lines. Farmers who I have spoken to have raised concerns about whether they are allowed to operate high machinery underneath the lines. I realise that there is guidance from the Health and Safety Executive, but that is quite old now and there are concerns.

Mark Ruskell asked whether amendment 379 is just about electricity lines. Yes, it is, but what he said suggests that I might consider further amendments at stage 3.

I understand what Mark Ruskell says about the environment, but what cost to the environment? A lot of people are very unhappy with the amount of power lines that they see crisscrossing our country. They think that that is a huge cost to the environment that nobody is questioning. It is right that we do that. It is also right that we argue for proper compensation for people who are affected.

I will not push the amendment today.

Amendment 379, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 380 not moved.

Before section 8

Amendment 429, in Rachael Hamilton’s name, aims to make more practicable implementation of the 50-hectare rule that is set out in proposed new section 67G of the 2003 act. Some larger landholdings have had a programme of land sales over a number of years, and if the bill’s provisions had been in place, they would have made the process more difficult by increasing the time for such transfers to take place or blocking them altogether. That cannot be the intention of the proposed new section.

When the owner of a large landholding is negotiating voluntarily with a number of buyers for various plots, that would trigger prior notification notices under proposed new section 46C of the 2003 act. When some of the transfers are above 50 hectares, that would also then bring the total area that is being sold within the bill’s lotting provisions, which would cause a further prohibition on any of the sales until the lotting decision is made.

If areas above 50 hectares were required to be contiguous with a larger landholding, that would meet the objective of reducing the concentration of ownership but would still allow separate sales, each of more than 50 hectares around the edge of a landholding, for example, but not in the vicinity of each, without having to worry about triggering the lotting provisions and, therefore, holding up sales to sitting tenants or communities.

Yes, absolutely, selling is a voluntary process. If someone were selling as a whole, they would know exactly where all the employment liabilities were going. My amendments relate to the complications when things are lotted. The question is where all the staff go and where all the liabilities fall. The bill is silent on that and that is why we need more clarity. I understand that the business owner is selling voluntarily, but the bill needs to make it clearer where the liabilities go. We do not want them to fall on communities, if they take on chunks of the land. We need clear guidance on that.

It could add a lot of confusion to make changes to the right to buy process through the bill when a review is already taking place: I think that that is asking for trouble. I therefore support Tim Eagle’s amendment 486, and I would want its provisions to come forward as soon as possible.

One of my concerns about Mark Ruskell’s amendment 355—which he might address at the end—is that it refers to whether

“50% of the land is frequently used.”

I am not sure what the definition of “frequently used” would be. Perhaps Mark will clear that up in his closing remarks.

The intention behind amendment 371 is to protect farmland from being acquired by compulsory purchase for energy infrastructure use. With the amendment, I am proposing that alternatives are investigated first, before using land that is used for farming.

Amendment 372 simply sets out that the Scottish ministers cannot compulsorily purchase land for energy infrastructure if a community body intends to exercise a right to buy land or has registered an interest to buy land. If we are serious that the bill is about giving communities a greater say in what happens to land, the Scottish ministers should not be able to use compulsory purchase powers to facilitate large energy projects and to get round community right to buy intentions.

There will be situations when there are good reasons why one or more transfers of more than 50 hectares should be allowed to happen without the delay and expense to the public purse that would arise from a lotting decision having to be made on the larger holding of which they form part.

An owner might apply for a direction under proposed new section 67L of the 2003 act early in the process of transferring land because they anticipate that they will wish to make a series of transfers of smaller areas. That could involve voluntary sales to sitting tenants of farms over 50 hectares that fall outside agricultural holdings legislation. The Government has set out that such voluntary transfers are to be encouraged in order to achieve the aims of the bill, but it is clear that the bill as drafted would obfuscate that. Amendment 435 seeks to remove that potential barrier and put in place specific safeguards to prevent any loopholes from being exploited.

Yes, amendment 372 covers all those things. Where communities have the right to buy, that should be taken into consideration. I have heard stories from constituents about energy companies using the threat of compulsory purchase to force what they want on to communities and landowners, and my amendments are about ensuring that communities, landowners and land are protected.

I move amendment 371.

I have nothing further to add, convener, and I will press amendment 371.

I am trying to understand how you see all that information being added. If there is a new piece of land being registered, would all those additional details be added on? Alternatively, would you envisage that we go back and look at all the ScotLIS records and add to what is there? If it is the latter, do you think that there would be a significant cost to doing all that work?