Chamber and committees

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.

I will go back to the point that the convener raised about potential sale. If you ask any landowner, they will say that everything is potentially for sale if the price is right. How do you see that working? Would it be about whether the land is up for sale?

I was voting against, convener.

I will briefly pick up on a point that Tim Eagle made. When we think about landowners, we might think of huge estates, but with the bill we are seeing more and more agricultural holdings being brought in that will have to produce a land management plan. If things had stayed as initially intended, only 285 agricultural holdings would have had to produce a land management plan. However, with the amendments that have been made, that will increase to 874 agricultural holdings across Scotland. Given what is happening in the farming industry just now, I think that that goes a bit too far and will have a huge impact on many of our farmers. I completely support what Tim Eagle has been saying and doing. The changes that we have made to the bill have gone much further than was intended, which I think is a negative.

It is the number of agricultural holdings that will be affected that concerns me. Although not all agricultural holdings will be in scope, the number that will be affected has tripled from 285 to 874. The issue is not just the pressure that that will put on our farming communities, but the pressure that it will put on the land and communities commissioner, who will have to review all the land management plans. Do you think that they will have the capacity to look at all the plans, now that the threshold has been lowered, given the number of plans that will come forward?

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.