I have listened to the arguments today, and I listened with care to what Martin Whitfield said about his constituent, Andrew Stoddart. To be clear, my understanding of that situation was that it came about because of flawed legislation in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

I am very happy to take interventions. I failed to take one this evening from Ariane Burgess because I did not notice her request to intervene, for which I apologise now. However, I am happy to take interventions from anyone on this matter if they wish to intervene. I am looking at members now, but they are not prepared to make interventions. I will stick with my amendments, and I will press them.

When someone enters a lease, they enter it for the land for agricultural use. They do not enter it in the hope that a better value will come along if it is not an agricultural lease. That would be a bit like renting a Mini and hoping that it will turn into a Rolls-Royce. That is what I am trying to stop. I am trying to make sure that the tenant farmer gets compensation for exactly what they entered into, and not for the hope that it might change into something else. I am not sure why the cabinet secretary does not accept that. I would be grateful to hear her views.

Amendment 220 would reverse the current assumption in the bill that a landlord has consented to a tenant’s request for an improvement to the land if they do not respond to a notice requesting consent. I have lodged the amendment for the same reason that I lodged a similar amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill: there is no stipulated way for serving notices. I, along with probably many other people, have been caught out by not getting mail that was supposed to have been delivered. I get mail three days a week, but they are not always the same days every week, so people cannot rely on the mail. Through amendment 220, I am trying to introduce the assumption that—[Interruption.] I am sorry—does somebody want to intervene?

I listened to the cabinet secretary’s explanation. I would be interested to know whether she could give me an example of an infection that game birds can give to livestock. I have never come across one. I am not sure that there is such an infection—in fact, I am 99 per cent sure that there is not—but I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could define that or give me an example, given that she is using it as her reason for opposing my amendments.

I see that the cabinet secretary is not about to provide any examples.

Leaving gates open and causing damage to livestock through vehicles moving around on game shooting days have already been covered. Those are simple acts of damage that tenants can claim for and are ones for which the landlord would be responsible. Goodness knows, considering the value of some livestock—I am thinking of the very high value of pedigree cattle in particular—most farmers would be acutely aware if they felt that things were unfair, but no one has mentioned that to me.

As far as grouse moors are concerned, we are talking about defining grouse as a game bird species. I have already said that those species are protected and that no one can do anything about that, so it seems unfair and blatantly wrong in law to hold someone responsible for something that they are not legally allowed to do anything to.

I press amendment 105 and urge members to support it together with amendment 348.

I listened intently to what Ariane Burgess said. Her amendment 207 is interesting, but for reasons that I find odd. She seems to be prioritising energy over food production, which is strange. To be entirely clear, given that I have mentioned food production, I remind members, as I did when we previously discussed the issue, of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I have an interest in a family farming partnership in Moray that extends to about 202 hectares.

As a Highlands and Islands MSP, Ms Burgess knows that, across the Highlands, there is dislike of the current swamping of the Highland landscape with energy products that industrialise the landscape in which we live. Therefore, amendment 207 makes no sense to me, and it brings Ms Burgess into direct conflict with the communities that she and I represent. Most of those communities now believe that, when it comes to onshore wind energy and the battery stations and pylon lines that go with it, enough is enough. The amendment would go against what Highland communities want.

I find Ariane Burgess’s excuse for amendment 207—that Forestry and Land Scotland has swapped trees for turbines—somewhat disturbing. If Forestry and Land Scotland concentrated on growing forestry rather than cutting it down in order to put up turbines, it would be more interesting.

I am pressing it.

I want the cabinet secretary at least to consider the options that are available to her under the standing orders of the Parliament, which I constantly adhere to.

I remind members—I want to make this point clear—that I am a tenant under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 and that I am an agricultural tenant under a non-agricultural lease that is now covered by the 1991 act, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016.

I support tenancies. It has always been my intention in the Parliament and in my practice as a private surveyor to increase the number of tenancies in Scotland. I believe that agricultural tenancies in Scotland are the way forward. That is certainly the case in relation to people who, when they retire from being farmers, might look for tenants to take on the role of farming until their children return to carry on the farming. [Interruption.] I am sorry—is someone wanting to intervene? Oh, I apologise for drawing attention to that noise—I misheard.

I want to encourage tenancies across Scotland, and I would like there to be more tenants.

My amendments in this group all relate to retrospective changes to agricultural tenancies, with which I fundamentally disagree. Amendment 90 would mandate that the respective changes to the legislation would not apply to agricultural tenancies in which the agricultural lease was entered into before the day the bill gains royal assent, stating that

“modifications made by this Chapter”

would not be applicable to the tenancy.

Amendments 91 to 95, 97, 98, 100 to 104 and 106 to 112 would remove sections of the bill that make retrospective changes to tenancies. As I have explained, I fundamentally disagree with such changes.

Let us be clear: land letting to tenants is declining in Scotland. Very few landlords are prepared to offer agricultural tenancies at the moment, because they are terrified of the retrospective changes that the bill will introduce. In 2000, there were more than 19,000 holdings with rented land in Scotland, but that figure had declined to 13,738 in 2024. That represents a reduction of 29 per cent. In 2000, there were nearly 1.8 million hectares of rented land in Scotland, but, again, that figure had declined to 1.3 million in 2024. That represents a 27 per cent loss of land in agricultural tenancies, or half a million hectares. That is significant. A 29 per cent decrease in rented holdings and a 27 per cent reduction in hectarage must not be ignored.

The cabinet secretary and the Government must take ownership of the fact that retrospective changes to agricultural legislation such as this bill are undermining confidence in the tenant farming sector, which is wrong. Furthermore, during the meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on 17 December 2024, I asked four witnesses—Hamish Lean, Martin Hall, Tom Oates and Andrew Wood—whether the bill would encourage more tenants into agriculture and increase the tenanted farm sector. All four of them said no.

The last land reform bill was passed in 2016. It was defective, and the cabinet secretary at the time, Richard Lochhead, forced the ending of various tenancies because of the way in which the legislation was enacted. That resulted in the famous Salvesen v Riddell case, which was the tip of the iceberg, with tenants with agricultural leases being forced off the land. That has cost the Government a huge and yet undisclosed amount of money, all because of unwise and retrospective changes to legislation. In my opinion, if the Government learns anything from that, it should be that it should not make retrospective changes, which is why I move the amendment in my name.

I move amendment 90.

I have listened carefully to the debate. Let us first go through the amendments that I can easily agree with. I agree with Tim Eagle’s amendments in the group, and I agree with Rhoda Grant’s amendment 200.

I listened to Michael Matheson’s argument, and I thought about what he was driving at, but, in this debate, I agree with the cabinet secretary, as I think that most of the functions concerned are already within the responsibility of the Scottish Land Commission. I therefore think that Michael Matheson’s amendment 310 is overly prescriptive and is not needed.

I turn to the other amendment that it is easy to agree with. Hooray, cabinet secretary—in my 121 amendments, I appear to have one such amendment. There may be more to come forward. I am referring to amendment 88, on emerging problems in markets.

Let us be entirely clear when it comes to the other amendments in the group, on who can and cannot be the land and communities commissioner. I have no fear, and I have no reason not to accept that parliamentarians or committee conveners could be the land and communities commissioner. In fact, I sincerely hope that they are not—I sincerely hope that everyone gets a chance at it—but by continuing to push the matter and allowing that large landowners cannot be in the commission, the cabinet secretary is forcing me to press my amendments relating to everyone else, just so that I can test the depth of her dislike of large landowners and why other people who are invested in land are better than large landowners.