Chamber and committees

I have nothing to add. I will press amendment 349.

Amendment 349 agreed to.

I will speak to amendment 305 and the other amendments in my name. Those four amendments would extend the rights of communities to have a say on the energy infrastructure that is being built near them, which is why I am sure that the Government will have no issues in supporting the amendments.

Amendment 305 is designed to target bad-faith sales of land that could be used for community purposes but is instead being sold with a view to, for example, building a battery storage facility. The sheer number of battery applications that have been submitted over the past two years showcases starkly the need for community input on that. While the Scottish Environment Protection Agency delays publishing guidance, there is a real need for a community block on those dangerous battery storage facilities and to give communities a real say on what is built near them. I am sure that, in the interests of extending community decision making, the Government will back amendment 305.

Amendment 318 would simply require the Government to produce an energy and land use strategy. Although I would much prefer to see a consolidated energy strategy, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy clearly has no desire to be straight with the Scottish people about how much of our countryside needs to be ripped up and infected with monster pylons. Therefore, amendment 318 would compel the Government to introduce a long overdue and badly needed strategy for how Scotland’s rural countryside will be used. It is time that the Government started being honest with my rural constituents about the burden that they will bear in order that the Scottish National Party’s arbitrary eco-targets will be met.

Amendment 319 would compel the Government to do what it should already be doing, which is exploring alternative options for energy infrastructure, whether underground or offshore. That should be the default approach to trunk electricity infrastructure. If the SNP Government is happy to ban new nuclear power through the planning system, the very least that we should expect for a major piece of energy infrastructure is that the Government will explore alternative options.

Amendment 322 would require the consent of land tenants before the building of overhead lines, which is a further extension of land rights to the community.

As I noted earlier, I am sure that the SNP Government will have no issues in supporting all my amendments, as they would all extend the input that communities have into the energy planning process—unless, of course, it does not care about the impact that pylons, battery storage, substations and wind farms will have on constituents. If it votes against the amendments today, the Government will once again be saying that it does not care about the impact of its toxic decisions.

I move amendment 305.

I note that I lodged the amendments in good faith, because I have been speaking to local communities, and communities right across the north-east are really angry about what they are seeing. They are trying to make their voices heard in relation to the Tealing to Kintore overhead line—more than 10,000 people have made their views clear on that. The consultation on the Beauly to Peterhead overhead line is open, and I am sure that thousands of people with huge concerns will write in and take part in that. Recently, Highland Council put in a very detailed objection to the Beauly to Spittal line. There is opposition to and concern about those projects.

Massive mega-monster pylons are going up across much of our countryside, and we need to listen to the communities. It is shameful that Scottish ministers will not meet those communities. It was just last week that we heard that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy had been secretly recorded taking part in a meeting with energy companies, telling them to make projects “more palatable to communities”. If Scottish ministers went out to meet communities and listen to their concerns, they might understand—without speaking about specific planning subjects—the scale of concerns and how people’s homes are being devalued by thousands of pounds, and they might get some idea of the anger that is felt, and the opposition to much of that infrastructure.

Therefore, I press amendment 305, and I will move the other amendments in the group.

I have good news: this is the final group—and I am not going to speak about pylons, either.

At stage 2, I lodged amendments relating to the rent review provisions in the bill, and I have worked with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3 so that I can lodge these amendments on the same topic. I thank the cabinet secretary and her team for their co-operation.

The amendments in my name relate to matters that the Land Court is either to have regard to or not to take into account when determining the fair rent for a holding. They make equivalent changes to section 23 of the bill, relating to 1991 act tenancies, and to section 24, relating to various limited duration tenancies.

Amendments 349 and 356 clarify that the Land Court, when determining the fair rent for a holding, is to have regard to the open market rental value of any fixed equipment, if it is provided by the landlord and used by the tenant for a non-agricultural purpose. The approach clarifies that the fixed equipment does not need to have been provided by the landlord specifically for a non-agricultural purpose for its rental value to be taken into account.

Amendments 351, 354, 355, 358, 361 and 362 address how improvements to the holding are taken into account when determining the rental value, depending on whether they have been paid for by the landlord, by the tenant or on a shared basis. The amendments provide that the Land Court will not take into account the proportionate amount of the increase in the rental value corresponding to the proportion of the cost of the improvements made at the tenant’s expense, and at the landlord’s expense if they receive grant funding.

The amendments also set out further detail on what is classed as being at the tenant’s expense for those purposes. For example, an improvement is still regarded as being at the tenant’s expense, wholly or partially depending on how it was funded, when the tenant receives a grant, and the adoption of higher farming standards by the tenant is classed as an improvement wholly at the tenant’s expense.

Amendments 350, 352, 353, 357, 359 and 360 make consequential and related modifications to streamline the drafting of and consolidate the matters that the Land Court is not to take into account when determining the fair rent for the holding. That also means that the related powers in the bill for the Scottish ministers to make further provision for those purposes will extend to all those matters.

I ask that members support the amendments in my name, and I move amendment 349.

The cabinet secretary will know that more than 10,000 objections have been submitted to the Kintore to Tealing overhead line consultation. Surely she now realises that, after cosying up to Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, her playing the role of judge, jury and executioner with that plan and determination makes a mockery of our planning and consultation system. She still refuses to meet campaign groups but continues to engage with SSEN, so will she refer herself to the First Minister’s independent advisers on the ministerial code for them to investigate?

In speaking to amendments 292 and 306, I echo the concerns raised by one of my constituents in north-east Scotland, with whom I know the cabinet secretary is familiar, because he is also her constituent.

Dee Ward manages land in Angus Glens, employing local people in delivering public goods such as food, energy, climate mitigation, nature restoration and housing. Dee wrote powerfully in The Times about the reality of the bill. There was no rhetoric in his words, just the real-world impact on the people, jobs and environment that depend on Scotland’s rural estates. He said:

“The Government says it cares about rural communities and wants to grow the rural economy. Yet at the same time, through this Bill, Ministers are preparing to fragment rural businesses that are doing exactly those things—creating employment, producing food, and providing homes for working families. There is an obvious inconsistency here. On one hand, the Scottish Government praises sustainable land management and environmental restoration. On the other, it’s putting forward measures that would force those very operations to be carved up and sold off in pieces—with no thought for the livelihoods, the projects, or the progress that would be lost.”

Dee Ward made the point clearly: integrated land use at scale allows estates such as his to fund vital environmental work, from flood management to biodiversity improvements. If we break that scale apart, we do not just risk economic loss; we risk environmental backsliding.

That is why I have lodged amendment 292, which is about fairness and accountability. If ministers decide to intervene and force a lotting decision, and if they decide that land may be transferred only in lots, they must also accept responsibility for the consequences of that decision. If people lose their jobs because ministers dictate how land must be sold, it is only right that the Government, not the businesses and workers who have no say in the matter, bears the cost of those redundancies.

Amendment 306 is consequential and would ensure that the legislative framework properly captures the new section in amendment 292. We should all want a Scotland where land delivers for people, nature and the economy, but that future will not come from punishing those who are already delivering or by imposing policies that make investment in rural Scotland a risk that is not worth taking.

My amendments do not undo the bill; they simply ensure that, if the Government takes powers to intervene in the marketplace, it also accepts responsibility for the human consequences of its decisions.

I urge colleagues to support amendments 292 and 306, to protect fairness.

Amendments 295 and 297 would provide some incentive for ministers to adhere to timescales when making lotting decisions, and I believe that they will add important safeguards to the bill.

At stage 2, the cabinet secretary responded to pressure by adding timescales for lotting decisions to new sections of the bill. However, she went on to negate much of the benefit of having timescales by adding that failing to adhere to them would not affect the validity of anything that is done by ministers under those sections. Although I can understand the argument that the lotting decision should remain valid in order to avoid even further delay, there should still be some consequence when ministers are slow to act, because further delay in the process is likely to cause loss and further detriment to the landowner and, potentially, to future buyers of land.

My amendment 295 would ensure that, when a lotting decision is appealed, the court may have regard to ministers’ delay. I am not attempting to bind the court, but it may have regard to any delay.

Amendment 297 would require ministers or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to have regard to any delay when determining whether compensation is payable. Land transactions will already be significantly slowed down due to the operation of this part of the bill. We have heard serious concerns raised not only by landowners but by the banking sector and professional agents about the impacts that section 4 might have on Scotland’s wider land market if the liquidity of land as an asset to secure borrowing is negatively affected. Without an incentive for ministers to act timeously, such impacts can only be exacerbated, which will have a knock-on impact on landowners and farmers’ ability to borrow funds to invest and create much-needed growth and rural employment.

I ask members to agree to those amendments, because they are a small but necessary check and balance of ministers’ powers.

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the potential impact on regional economies and employment, what assessment it has made of the extent to which projected transmission-related job opportunities are dependent on the consenting outcome for proposed overhead line projects within the current network upgrade programme. (S6O-05058)

Earlier this week, it was revealed that more than 10,000 people have objected to plans for more than 350 monster pylons between Kintore in Aberdeenshire and Tealing in Angus, yet Gillian Martin was quoted in the United Kingdom Government press release thanking Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks for its investment in Scotland. It is absolutely unacceptable that she gets to play judge, jury and executioner on pylon decisions when she has clearly already made up her mind. It is even more outrageous that she will not listen to the concerns of campaign groups but is happy enough to cosy up to SSEN.

Is it not the case that in order to meet the green jobs target, those mega pylons, which most of my constituents do not want, have to be approved, which thereby makes a total mockery of our planning and consultation process?

You have made up your mind.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Six SNP MSPs were selected for portfolio questions today, but only three questions were lodged, giving Opposition parties less opportunity to scrutinise the SNP Government. If SNP MSPs cannot be bothered to do their job and lodge questions, is there any way that the Presiding Officer can allocate the opportunity to ask questions to Opposition MSPs instead, so that we can hold this rotten SNP Government to account?