Chamber and committees

No.

How would the requirement to include in the land management plan information about a potential sale work? I would think that everything is potentially for sale if there is a proper price. Do you mean that, if negotiations on a potential sale are taking place, that information must be included? What would constitute a potential sale?

Just to correct you there, convener, it is Tracey Smith. [Laughter.]

I am happy to help in any way that I can, convener. I thank you, and the committee, for giving me the opportunity to speak to the petition today.

The petition is of huge importance to not just the north-east but the whole of Scotland. In the rush to net zero, our electricity system is changing, in relation to not just offshore and onshore wind but the associated network infrastructure, whether that is pylons, substations or even the dreaded solar battery storage that we see appearing all over the country. A lot of that is appearing without much thought as to capacity and what we need, and little in the way of regulation.

In all those developments, the local communities seem to be ignored. It does not seem to matter how many objections there are to a proposal; there is a feeling that, if the Government wants something to happen, it is going to happen anyway. That is turning the consultation process into a tick-box exercise, especially when we consider the amount of effort and time that our communities have to put into responding to such consultations.

We are moving to a position in which communities think, “Why should we bother?” That happened at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. When we put out a call for views on the proposed changes to the consenting process that were mentioned earlier, the community groups that we went to responded by saying that they were not going to waste their time, as they would just be ignored, as they always are.

Looking at the specifics of the petition involving SSEN, I think that part of the problem is that there is so much work planned that people are genuinely confused as to whether or not it affects them. The campaign groups have been doing an excellent job of finding their own money to compete with companies that have very deep pockets; we really are going down the road of a David-versus-Goliath situation.

We need meaningful consultation, and the Government needs to start listening to communities. The Government will claim, no doubt, that the pre-application changes that are being proposed, which were mentioned earlier, will fix everything, but the truth is that most developers are undertaking such pre-consultation anyway, as per the “Good Practice Guidance”.

I note that the minister’s May 2024 response to the petition states that new pre-application guidance for electricity lines would be brought forward. It is interesting to hear that that process is only just starting now.

The key change that is being proposed is the removal of the automatic public inquiry, so we are now in a position in which we are weakening, rather than improving, the consultation process. Changes to that guidance are urgently required, and I urge the committee to keep the petition open to try to force the Government to come forward with new guidance, because it is sorely needed.

Does Mark Ruskell accept that there is often a conflict between public interest and community interest? A wind farm, for example, may be in the public interest in relation to a just transition to net zero, but it might not be what a community wants. How would he balance those two interests?

Amendment 174 includes the words

“where the person is resident for tax purposes”.

Will the member expand a little on what is intended? For example, if someone lived in a different country, would that rule them out of purchasing land, even if they were going to invest substantial amounts of money in Scotland, or would there be some other mechanism to decide whether that would rule a person in or out of a land purchase?

Unfortunately, Rachael Hamilton has had to leave to go to another engagement.

If we are serious about food security, rural prosperity and the future of Scotland’s farming, we must be serious about supporting the next generation of farmers. That is what amendments 400 and 404 aim to do. We are trying to remove another hurdle for new entrants to the industry. Amendment 404 would give new entrants the breathing space that they need to get their businesses off the ground without the immediate burden of preparing complex land management plans. For many, the cost and complexity of those plans could be a barrier too far. Young people in the communities deserve a Government that matches their ambition, and we should not be burdening them with red tape from day 1.

I listened very carefully to what the cabinet secretary said about the number of farms that would be caught by the legislation if the threshold was 1,000 hectares—I think that it would be only about 1.3 per cent. The threshold could be brought down by regulation. We therefore want to have protection in the bill for new entrants to farming so that, if the threshold was brought down in future, they would be given a breathing space of 10 years before they had to produce the plan.

I agree that a lot of people who come into the industry have that energy and vision, but when people are setting up any new business, whether it is in agriculture or something else, we need to encourage them as much as possible and give them space. That is what amendment 404 seeks to do—to give them a bit more time before they have to go to the expense of producing a land management plan, and to allow them to get their thoughts together on how the land will be used. That is the basis of the amendments.

Convener, do you want me to speak to my amendments in the group as well?

I will speak to amendment 364 first. A big issue across Scotland is that communities feel ignored and overruled when it comes to much of the electricity infrastructure that we are seeing pop up across the countryside. It is only right that we try to address that issue in the bill so that we allow communities to have a real say.

If, for example, a community wants a battery storage facility, and that would offer proper community benefits, such as jobs, and if the community embraces it or even wants part ownership of it, that should be welcomed and encouraged.

However, we need to address the situation of communities that are strongly against things that are happening in their areas. I think that that is the aim of the bill, so we should be listening to those communities, and that is what my amendment 364 aims to achieve. If there is a strong community objection to electricity infrastructure in an area, we should be listening to and taking on board those views.

It boils down to the issue that I have raised in some of the questions that I have been asking. Public interest and community interest are not always the same thing—there are often conflicts between them. Even in some of the public interest descriptions that have been laid before us today, conflicts can be seen. One that I can see is between food security and a just transition, as a lot of the time, good farmland is being turned over to use for solar panels and battery storage. That example highlights that there are often conflicts within the public interest definition that has been laid before us.

I will also talk to amendment 174, in the name of Mercedes Villalba.

I have been listening carefully, but I would say that amendment 391 seeks more to define what a community is by saying that it is in “the vicinity” of where a land management plan is being formulated. Does the cabinet secretary not feel that, if there is no definition, it could be left open to campaign groups, for instance, to put in views on a land management plan, even though they were not affected, because they did not live in the vicinity of the area under discussion?