I congratulate Emma Harper on securing this debate. We should be debating anaerobic digestion and biogas, which are really important as they can help us to meet our net zero ambitions and they can also strengthen our rural economy. I also thank the Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association.

The fact that there are now more than 90 AD plants in Scotland tells us something. We can see the success of AD in the Lothians. Facilities such as the Millerhill plant are taking food waste from households and businesses and turning it into renewable gas and nutrient-rich digestate, cutting emissions and supporting local agriculture. The plant will heat more than 3,000 homes in Shawfair through a local heat network. It will save about 2,500 tonnes of CO₂, which is the equivalent of taking 1,200 cars off our roads. That represents a solution to some of the issues that we face. We also have the Bangley Quarry Biogas AD plant near Haddington, which my colleagues Martin Whitfield and Douglas Alexander recently visited.

We should not miss the opportunities for the creation of jobs and environmental benefits. Instead of allowing methane to escape from manure, slurry and food waste, AD captures it and turns it into a clean, usable energy source. It transforms a climate liability into a climate solution. We should be doing more of that. It provides a kind of dual benefit.

Thank you. Back to you, convener.

I suppose that the challenge is that we need to get all of it right at the same time and think about how we future proof the bill.

In evidence to the committee, Professor Robbie highlighted the power of property rights and the risk of unintended consequences if certain items were given property status without our thinking through what the impact could be.

You have just talked about thinking ahead to the future, but there is nothing in the bill about how the legislation will be future proofed. How is that going to happen? It is not addressed in the policy memorandum. Will the Scottish Government commit to undertaking an audit of the potential impact of the bill across Government and non-Government activities?

That goes back to my question about whether the Government will consider undertaking an audit of the potential impact of the bill across Government and non-Government activities. Perhaps you will reflect on that.

Several witnesses from the technology sector have given evidence to the committee, and their view was that the concept and the definition were not easily recognised by those working in the field. The committee was given several suggestions in that regard, such as producing guidance or statutory guidance, or adding further clarification in the explanatory notes on the bill.

How does the Scottish Government intend to bridge that gap?

I suppose that we have to think about the bill from those two different perspectives. We have to consider how the bill will operate and how tech will change over time.

This morning, I was reading through the supplementary evidence from Greg McLardie following his evidence to the committee last week. He referred to Professor Robbie’s evidence and talked about a potential financial risk to the Scottish Government in relation to carbon credits, the woodland carbon code and the peatland code.

There are high-level issues, but witnesses have also given detailed evidence about their concerns. I was hoping that the minister would pick that up. We cannot make everything perfect, but, given that witnesses are raising concerns at this point, we need to tease out the issues in respect of what is in the guidance or the policy memorandum. Do you agree?

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent “ScotLand Futures” report, which found that 96 per cent of respondents believe that changes are needed regarding how land is owned and used, what steps it will take to ensure that land reform goes further than the current Land Reform (Scotland) Bill does to deliver land justice. (S6O-05296)

I am glad that the cabinet secretary has reflected on what further changes can be made, but, after the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed, many stakeholders and community groups were disappointed with the Scottish Government’s refusal to apply the bill’s lotting and public interest powers nationwide. As land justice is a nationwide issue, does the cabinet secretary agree that those crucial powers need to apply to land on a nationwide scale so that constituents across the country do not miss out?

I very much agree that the lack of action there has a cost. It is really important to look at it at a local level. Will the cabinet secretary comment on why we are not getting the same focus on the homes that are vulnerable to flooding? At the moment, the figure for that is 284,000 homes, and the Scottish Government’s website says that another 100,000 will be vulnerable to flooding over the next few decades. What will be done to ramp up support for households that are currently at risk?

It is challenging, but what colleagues have put on the record today is important, because it logs that there is an appetite for change and that there are both opportunities and major challenges. Before we get to stage 3, there is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to engage with us constructively so that we can reflect on the comments that have been made and make sure that, as this piece of legislation goes through, we do not miss another opportunity, because change is needed now.

Amendment 17, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 31 not moved.