³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Yes, amendment 372 covers all those things. Where communities have the right to buy, that should be taken into consideration. I have heard stories from constituents about energy companies using the threat of compulsory purchase to force what they want on to communities and landowners, and my amendments are about ensuring that communities, landowners and land are protected.

I move amendment 371.

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?

I want to briefly add a couple of things. I am interested in the discussion about the £40,000 fine. We all agree that that should be a last resort—we do not actually want anyone to be fined £40,000. That is why I was making the point that we need to have guidance around the fines—there could be some sort of sliding scale or something. I hope that that might come through at stage 3 if a fine at that level is agreed today. The move from £5,000 to £40,000 is significant, so I think that something else is required for people to know exactly what they might or might not be hit with.

It is good to hear that the cabinet secretary is not minded to take up the compulsory purchase powers that Rhoda Grant has proposed. We must remember that some of those landowners are not only landowners but major businesses, and there would be an implication if they were to suddenly be compulsorily purchased.

In relation to fines, I am looking for guidance—not in the bill but in the regulations that are coming forward—so that everyone understands what is going on there.

On compulsory purchase powers, the point that I was going to make about major businesses is that they are not only landowners but employers. What would happen to all those people who were employed on an estate? Would they then be transferred across to the Government, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006? There are real concerns around that. At the end of the day, the commission is working with landowners to ensure that everyone works together and that the land management plans are in place.