Chamber and committees

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.

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?

There seems to be a theme on the subject of lotting, which is that we can divide land up so that people own smaller bits and everything will be fine. However, we have to understand that, when it comes to large land holdings, we are also talking about businesses that employ people and families in our rural communities.

When we are speaking about splitting up an estate, for example, we have to understand that we are speaking about a business. Like any other business, it may not be viable if it does not have the same diversity and scale once it is broken up. If any other business were being sold, I do not think that we would say that it had to be broken up.

My amendment 525 simply states that the viability of employment should be considered when making a lotting decision. My amendments 526 and 527 go further. They say that, if a lotting decision that is forced on a business owner means that jobs will be lost, ministers must accept responsibility for that decision and they will need to make regulations on liabilities when such a situation occurs.

If a business is sold, Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations kick in. If an estate is being sold as a whole, it is clear that the workers are protected and employment passes to a new owner. However, if land or a business is broken up, we need to be clear about who is responsible for the employment of the workers.

If a business were broken up into 10 lots, for example, would the number of employees be divided equally between those purchasers or would it be done based on area or productive land? If a community purchased 10 per cent of the land or business, would it be obliged to take on 10 per cent of the workforce? If many jobs were not viable because the land had been broken up, who would be liable for the employment liabilities? The bill is silent on workforce, but we need clarity on that.

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 thank the minister for advance sight of his statement, which is a statement of more failure from this devolved Scottish National Party Government—but, of course, this Scottish Government rewards failure. We need simply look at the promotion of the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, who has presided over a long list of failures.

The Government has failed to publish a climate change plan; failed to publish an energy strategy; failed to publish a just transition plan; failed to meet community groups who are concerned about pylons and substations carpeting their communities; failed to publish carbon budget regulations when it said that they would be published; failed to protect thousands of jobs in the North Sea oil and gas industry from being lost; failed to prevent the closure of refining at Grangemouth; failed to back Rosebank, Cambo or Jackdaw; failed to remove the presumption against new oil and gas; and, today, we have heard of its failure to meet its own emissions targets.

I ask the minister: when it comes to the long list of failures, what have I missed?