Chamber and committees

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.

We heard some discussion between Bob Doris and Tim Eagle about the details of the plans and that some people are concerned that there will be commercially sensitive information in the plans. How could that issue be addressed? Could the plans be made at a high enough level that they would not include commercially sensitive detail?

I intend to speak about only my amendments in the group. Amendment 318 seeks to identify high-quality agricultural land that would form part of a land management plan, and amendment 319 is about protecting our high-quality farmland from major electricity infrastructure. If we are serious about food security, we need good farmland. High-quality agricultural land that has been identified in land management plans should not be used for overindustrialisation by energy projects, as the loss of farmland is a real concern for those in my area. On the front page of today’s Press and Journal, we have been told about a new substation that is to be developed to the west of Peterhead, which will be four times the size of Disneyland Paris. If there is any way that we can protect our farmland, I think that we should look at it seriously.

Amendment 323 is about increasing the openness and awareness of our local communities so that, if a landowner intends to allow pylons across their land, that should form part of their land management plan. Amendment 330 sets out that land management plans should set out how a landowner plans to mitigate the impact of pylon construction if they intend that their land will have pylons across it. Communities are fed up with local roads becoming impassable due to construction traffic, as well as noise and light pollution, so we are calling for planned pylon construction to be identified at the start of a process.

Amendment 331 sets out that, if pylons are going to be part of the land management plan, biosecurity must be considered. In the north-east of Scotland, there are concerns about the spread of potato cyst nematode—PCN—as contractors dig up land and move from field to field. If pylons are proposed, amendment 332 indicates that plans should set out why underground cables are not appropriate. We are not saying that pylons cannot be used, but we want there to be a conversation with local communities about why underground cables cannot be used, so that everybody has a better understanding of the issues.

Finally, amendment 383 brings into consideration the cumulative impact of energy infrastructure in the area, which is the biggest concern that I hear about. The concern is not just about the pylons that appear: substations and battery storage all seem to be clustered together, and their cumulative impact needs to be taken into consideration. I hope that everyone can agree on the amendments to ensure that that is considered.

If we are looking at putting the fines up to, potentially, £40,000, will guidance be issued about the range of fines between zero and £40,000? I would not want everyone to think that it is either nothing or the maximum amount.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will Tim Eagle take another intervention?

You mentioned the proposals that you brought forward, which related to land of more than 3,000 hectares. With the reduction in area from 3,000 to 1,000 hectares, the number of agricultural holdings that are now in scope has increased from 285 to 874—it has tripled. Has the Government had any discussions with NFU Scotland on what impact that will have on our farming communities?

Will the member take an intervention?

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?

I was voting against, convener.