Chamber and committees

I can give you the time back, Mr Doris.

That concludes this item of business. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow front-bench members to change over.

You need to conclude.

As I have alerted members, we have exhausted all our time and gone beyond the time that we had available. I am conscious of the business that we have scheduled for later this afternoon and this evening. Therefore, although I have been able to give the cabinet secretary some time back for the many interventions that he has taken, it will be difficult to sustain that through the remainder of the debate unless we are to run seriously over time, which I am keen to avoid if at all possible.

This has been a marathon process, which makes it all the more important that we acknowledge the work that has been put in by all those who have contributed. That includes parliamentary staff across the board; members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee; the cabinet secretary and her officials, who have kept Opposition spokespeople updated, including with meetings at the margins of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation dinner; and the stakeholders who have given evidence and provided briefings.

As a side note, it has been particularly gratifying to see Andy Wightman back in the Parliament—sadly, up in the public gallery rather than down here in the chamber. On occasions like this, his absence is keenly felt.

Whatever we might think about 400 amendments being lodged at stage 3 and the fact that so many were pressed to a vote, that has undoubtedly enabled debate to take place on a wide range of issues over the final four days of scrutiny.

The issue of land reform is one that successive Parliaments and Governments have wrestled with over the years. Despite previous reforms, the need for further action is indisputable. As others have observed, the concentration of land ownership in Scotland has continued to increase, resulting in a small number of individuals controlling an overwhelming proportion of privately owned land in this country, often shrouded in mystery.

There is also compelling evidence that the inequitable distribution of land ownership has resulted in fewer opportunities for rural communities to invest in affordable housing and economic development projects. When those communities cannot meaningfully participate in the land buying process, vital opportunities for community growth are lost. The Scottish Liberal Democrats therefore strongly support much greater transparency in land ownership, as well as steps to help to revitalise our rural and island communities.

How far to go with reform has always been contested, making agreement difficult and consensus probably impossible. For example, balancing the rights of tenants and landlords requires care if unintended consequences and perverse incentives are to be avoided. The requirement for land management plans is reasonable and the threshold that will be set will offer consistency and is broadly proportionate. At the same time, however, those plans must not create an unreasonable burden by being overly complex. I raised that point repeatedly with the cabinet secretary. The Scottish Liberal Democrats supported amendments in that area. Likewise, we supported amendments to make clear that the maximum fine for breaches of plans, which is set at £40,000, will apply only in cases of repeat offences. That was raised with me by constituents in Orkney, and it is something that I highlighted to the cabinet secretary on numerous occasions.

There were also concerns about the bill’s proposed changes to resumption, especially in relation to tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and incontestable notice to quit in relation to tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I recognise that, in response, the cabinet secretary lodged amendments at stage 3 that aimed to address some of the issues that were raised by NFUS and others, particularly around changes to 2003 tenancies.

For some, the changes will not go far enough, but I hope that the matter can be kept under review. For that to happen, we will need to understand how the legislation works after contact with reality. I am therefore pleased that Parliament agreed to changes that will require land commissioners and the Scottish ministers to undertake a thorough review of the “impact and effectiveness” of the bill after five years. I congratulate Martin Whitfield on securing that commitment and wiring in post-legislative scrutiny on an issue that I confidently predict, as others have done, will continue to occupy Parliaments and Governments for years to come.

At this point, however, although the bill is far from perfect, I believe that it represents a step in the right direction, which Scottish Liberal Democrats will support at decision time this evening.

We have used up all the time in hand. I expect to extend the debate a little, given the nature of the discussions, but, as I say, we are over time.

We move to the open debate.

Mr Russell, I advise you that you will need to wind up fairly soon. I suggest that you do not have time to take an intervention.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19512, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on Scotland’s maternity services. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Unfortunately, the baby cannot move the motion, Ms Baillie, so I would be grateful if you could do so. [Laughter.]