Gosh, that was a complicated start and we have not even got into the evidence.

Thank you.

I have one further question in this area. I always think that, when we as parliamentarians are asked to do something, it is because either there is a deficiency or there will be some big improvement. Now, section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 provides a way of prosecuting individuals who cause severe environmental damage, but it has never ever been used. Why do we need something else, if we are not using what we already have?

You do not all have to answer that question, but who would like to go first? By the way, if you all look away at the same time, I will nominate somebody. Ross, you were the slowest, so you can start us off.

Before I leave this point, I have one more question for you, Campbell—and I apologise to any committee member if I am standing on their toes and asking a question that they wanted to ask. If the bill had been introduced 30 years ago, how many times do you think that it would have been used?

We will leave it there at this stage.

Douglas Lumsden has some questions, and then I will go to Monica Lennon for a few questions at the end.

I am sure that it will be delighted that you forgot its name—

Therefore, with regard to the emissions targets—the parts that relate to the transport section of the draft climate change plan, when it is finally laid in the Parliament; we are still waiting for it, but I heard today that it is imminent—we will rely on technology on emissions reduction to reduce aviation emissions, we will continue to be able to use aeroplanes, and the Government has no intention of reducing people’s ability to be connected and to go on holiday by flying.

I am sure that that will make some people very happy, minister. Thank you. On that note, we have reached the end of the evidence session. I thank you and your officials for attending.

The committee will consider and agree a report to the Scottish Parliament on the two LCMs to the UK bill in the near future. If there is to be another supplementary LCM, we will also reflect on that.

Minister, I will just say that I stood up clearly and criticised the UK Government with regard to previous LCMs, but I also made the point that it is for the Scottish Government to let us have LCMs as soon as is reasonably possible—I think that those were my words. I just remind you that I said that and that, if something comes up that the committee should know about, the sooner we get it, the better.

I thank Mr Whitfield for those comments. He is entirely right, because the bill has changed fundamentally since it was introduced to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. That is why I suggest that there should be further consideration. So that there is no doubt, I point out that I say that as an individual, although I am a member of that committee.

The bill has fundamentally changed. I believe that it could now fundamentally harm the sector and that it will not fulfil the key objectives that the cabinet secretary laid out at the beginning of the year, which were to strengthen the rights of communities, to diversify land ownership, to support the use of land for environmental purposes and to modernise the legal framework for tenant farmers. As the bill has been amended, I believe that referring it back to the committee is the only appropriate step that would ensure that the provisions are sufficiently considered. Those provisions cannot be seen as a whole at the same time as they are being passed.

That approach would have benefits. It would allow ministers to defend themselves against the expensive legal challenges that I believe will inevitably follow, especially in relation to part 1, and which I hear are already being mooted.

The one thing on which I agree with Mr Greer is that I have no issue with openness about land ownership. I am very happy for people to hold their hands up and explain what land they hold.

My problem is that, in my mind, the matters that are raised in Mr Greer’s amendments 311 and 314 to 316 were not properly debated at stage 1. As someone who sat on the committee that considered the bill, I think that it would have been much more helpful if those matters had been fully debated at the outset, but we did not have the benefit of doing that. I have always held the view that the lodging of amendments at stages 2 and 3 on matters that have not been considered by the committee brings into question how the committee system works. For those reasons alone, I will reject Mr Greer’s amendments, because they have not been given the scrutiny that they should have been given at the committee stage, which is disrespectful to the Parliament.

I was listening for a question in that intervention, but I think that it was just a statement.

I do not detract from what I am saying. I have always treated everyone—[Interruption.] I know that people might not care for the comments that I am making—