Chamber and committees

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.

My intervention is about amendment 347 and the compulsory purchase orders. I am trying to understand the situation. A bank may have lent money and have a standard security for the land. How would compulsory purchase orders work if a bank or another third party was involved?

I heard that word, so I thought that I would jump in quickly.

I understand that the intention behind the amendments is to increase the fines. I have listened carefully to what Bob Doris said about the fact that the proposal is not about going straight to a £40,000 fine but is about working with landowners to make sure that they comply with what they are meant to do. Does he agree that there should be guidance on the fines, so that everyone is clear that multiple breaches will result in them going up, and what the fines could be for repeated non-compliance with the land management plan?