Chamber and committees

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?

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?

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.

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

I hear what Monica Lennon is saying. If 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 the cabinet secretary agree that the public interest and the community interest are not always the same thing? There is often a conflict between community interests and what might be considered to be the public interest. For example, with a wind farm, there might be conflict between the two. How do we address that?