Chamber and committees

I hear what Monica Lennon is saying. There is misinformation, we should do everything that we can to stamp it out and decisions should be based on evidence.

However, when it comes to some community groups being loud, a lot of them are loud because they are angry at what they see on their doorsteps and they do not feel that they are being listened to. We need to do more about that. If we can bring communities with us on our journey to net zero, that will be a win for us all. I do not feel that that is happening now, and that is why I lodged amendments in that regard.

Will the member take an intervention?

At the committee stage, we heard evidence about the ownership of landholdings—for example, a unit trust—being split into small packets, even though they are managed as one. Will those amendments cover that?

Does Bob Doris anticipate any costs arising from his amendments requiring another location for all land management plans to be held?

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?

We have heard that having a threshold of 1,000 hectares would not bring in huge amounts of farmland—I think that the cabinet secretary said that it would be 1.3 per cent. If the threshold was reduced to 500 hectares, for what percentage of farmland would land management plans be required?

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 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?

I will not repeat myself, convener.

On my amendments—especially in relation to amendment 343—it is good to hear that Ariane Burgess and Mercedes Villalba recognise that some landowners own land that is scattered across all of Scotland. Some of those landowners are electricity infrastructure companies, so I am sure that those members will have no problem in supporting amendment 343. All that I am proposing is that landowners who have land scattered across Scotland that

“is used for the purposes of electricity infrastructure”

must produce a land management plan that would go through the same community process as everyone else.

I will speak to another couple of amendments. I completely agree with the deputy convener’s points about urban Scotland. We all have areas in our constituencies and regions where there are absentee landlords and derelict sites, whether that is in city centres or on brownfield sites. It would be good to explore that issue further and consider whether an amendment can be lodged at stage 3 to address some of those concerns.

I want to speak about the threshold for obligations potentially being reduced from 1,000 to 500 hectares. We heard that that would widen the scope, with applicable land that is used for farming increasing from 1.3 per cent to 3.6 per cent—I think that that is the figure that Mercedes Villalba mentioned. However, that does not give the full story. How many farms would that cover? How many farms would then have to produce land management plans? We do not have the figure and we do not know what impact that change would have.

Farmland is changing, too. I imagine that some farms might be getting bigger as Labour’s cruel family farm tax kicks in and we see farmland being bought and sold. That might have a big impact on farmers, so the last thing that they need on top of that cruel farm tax is to have more red tape, bureaucracy and cost built in.

I will leave it there.