Chamber and committees

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.

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?

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.

That is not the intention, but however large or small a community group is, it should be listened to. I do not think that we could say that a group should be ignored because it is just a small community group—such a group could be impacted the most. If developers could work with even those small communities better, I am sure that many of the issues that we see across Scotland would not be happening.

On amendment 174, in the name of Mercedes Villalba, I asked whether the fact that somebody was not resident in this country for tax purposes would rule them out of making a purchase. I was not clear about the answer to the intervention. That is probably a dangerous line to go down without clarification, and I do not feel that we have that clarity.

For example, we heard from Gresham House, where sites were managed as one but there were multiple owners within that one site. Will what you are bringing forward address that situation?

I will leave my comments on amendments 400 and 404 at that, convener.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?