There is much that I agree with in what Ariane Burgess says about living closer to nature, getting to know our surroundings and becoming one with the environment. Those are things that I would always try to promote.

However, my problem with the proposed lease is that there is no definition of how it can be achieved in planning law. I am not sure how hutting fits in with local planning legislation on zoning and proliferation without control. To me, it is slightly dangerous, and I would be happy if the member could set my mind at rest on how it would fit in with local planning controls—otherwise, huts could be established in many locations with little or no knowledge of them. I would be happy for the member to make an intervention on that, but perhaps the cabinet secretary will have more details. I would be very happy to listen to them.

In 40 years of managing farmland and farming, and 15 years of managing upland estates, I have never yet been able to quantify in my mind what damage game can do to livestock. Sheep and deer seldom mix; and deer and cattle stay apart. I have yet to see a pheasant or a partridge chase a cow. If someone can tell me about their experience of that in the countryside I am happy to be corrected, but I have not seen it. I genuinely wonder what section 20 is trying to achieve. Perhaps at this stage I can say, tongue in cheek, that I do not believe that cows are frightened of pheasants. The only livestock that I have seen challenging pheasants have been pigs, who seemed to be intent on eating them.

Amendment 105, in my name, removes damage to livestock from the list of situations in which a tenant is entitled to be compensated by the landlord for damage resulting from game or game management.

Amendment 348 is a simple amendment that would change the definition of “game” in the bill to remove grouse. When I met the cabinet secretary, she kindly recommended to me a book called “Fair Game: The Law of Country Sports and the Protection of Wildlife” by Charlie Parkes and John Thornley. With a little bit of help, I managed to find it on Amazon and to buy it and read it. The cabinet secretary said to me that my amendment on the subject would be wrong, because grouse should be included in the definition of “game”. However, I do not believe that that is what the book says.

Let us be clear that capercaillie are grouse, and capercaillie are protected by law. Let us also be clear that there is a self-imposed moratorium on killing black game, which is correct. Therefore, to make the landlord liable for damage that has allegedly been done by species, one of which is protected by the law and the other of which is protected by a voluntary agreement, is fundamentally wrong, but that is what the bill is doing.

If the cabinet secretary meant red grouse, the bill should have said “red grouse”, but to simply say “grouse”, which includes ptarmigan, capercaillie and black game, is to use a broad-brush term. I do not believe that landlords can be held responsible for something that they cannot control by law and are advised not to. I have been managing livestock and wildlife for more than 40 years, and section 20 does not make any sense to me. I would be grateful to hear the cabinet secretary’s argument on why I am wrong.

I move amendment 105.

As this is the last group of amendments to be considered, I propose to make some general comments on this group and another matter.

I support the amendments lodged by my colleague Douglas Lumsden, which are in response to concerns raised at stages 1 and 2 regarding gaps in the rent review provisions. Mr Lumsden’s amendments 349 to 362 add reasonable provisions that improvements to the land made by the tenant should not be taken into account by the Land Court when rental value of the holding is being determined.

I do not support amendments 229 and 230, as both change ministers’ regulating powers so that they can make further provision, by way of regulations, on 1991 and 2003 act tenancies with regard to rent reviews. As I have detailed in my copious previous comments on the matter, I am fundamentally opposed to ministers retrospectively adjusting agricultural tenancies, because I believe that those kinds of changes are killing off the rental sector.

My experience of doing a rent review is that it usually involves a process that I have seen many times. The tenant and the landlord sit around a kitchen table, with some home baking and/or a bottle of whisky. At the end of the process, neither party has achieved exactly the figure that they wanted, but a fair compromise has been reached. That is what I would like to see here.

As this is the last group of amendments, I would also like to take a moment to remind the cabinet secretary of a seldom-used rule under the standing orders of this Parliament. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of rule 9.8 set out that, before the stage 3 debate, the member in charge of the bill may, by motion, propose that such parts of the bill

“be referred back to the committee for further Stage 2 consideration.”

I propose that the cabinet secretary take responsibility for the substantive changes that have been made to the bill, and send part 1, as well as sections 10, 10A to 10D, 11, 12, 13, 23 and 24, back to the committee for further consideration.

Ms Hamilton has asked me to move amendment 320 on her behalf.

Amendment 320 would require the Scottish ministers to produce a report on moorlands, including what proportion of land in Scotland is moorland; the rate of moorland habitat loss, broken down by region; and the land uses that are replacing moorland. It is a consequence of the proposed changes in the bill.

The amendment is drawn from a study that was produced by the Heather Trust, which found that, overall, heather moorland the size of Birmingham is lost every year in the United Kingdom. Research showed that 60,000km² of moorland in Scotland were lost between 1990 and 2023, in comparison with just over 600km² during the same period in England. It also highlighted that moorland is being replaced by grassland and woodland—particularly by woodland in Scotland—and that there is likely to be adduced pressure on moorland and habitat loss from the further expansion of more woodland in the future, and land reform.

Critically, the report found that there is a lack of data and a limitation in the data on what is replacing moorland, which is what amendment 320 hopes to address.

I move amendment 320.

The amendments in this group offer the Government a smorgasbord of choices regarding sunset clauses. Amendment 196 offers a sunset provision of five years on sections 2 to 5, on community right to buy and associated modifications and the lotting of large land holding and associated modifications. My amendment 197 does the same, but purely for the lotting sections of the bill. That gives the cabinet secretary a true choice as to which one she would prefer, although she could choose both.

Martin Whitfield’s amendment 89 is eminently sensible, as I would expect from him. It not only contains a sunset clause but would require the land commissioners to prepare reports and lay them before Parliament. That would allow the Parliament to consider whether the land reform legislation is making sense and doing what the cabinet secretary has promised that it will do, or whether—as a key land reformer says will be the case—it is not. If it is not, the Parliament can, at that time, make a decision to cease and desist.

That is right and proper, and amendment 89 is perhaps better—if I might be so bold as to say so—than my amendments 196 and 197; that is quite hard for me to admit. If Mr Whitfield indicates, therefore, that he is going to move his amendments, I could be pushed into considering withdrawing or not moving my amendments. That may delight him and every other member in the chamber, including the cabinet secretary, who made a point in that regard.

Amendments 89A to 89G would, to my mind, do little to add to the amendments from Mr Whitfield—they are, in my view, unnecessary and I therefore cannot support them. It may be, of course, that the cabinet secretary can change my mind; I will wait and see.

I move amendment 196.

I will listen to what the cabinet secretary says about amendment 207 before I make a decision on it.

I, too, welcome some of the amendments in the group. I only observe that the amendments at stage 2 and stage 3 mean that we are probably at the level of four amendments for every smallholding in Scotland, which seems an awful lot of amendments given that the original suggestion was to include them in the rest of the agricultural holdings legislation.

Amendment 209 agreed to.

Amendments 210 to 212 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

I lodged amendment 307 to ensure that the land and communities commissioner will have experience in land valuation. Why do we need to make sure that they have that? The answer is that the commissioner will give ministers advice regarding lotting. I absolutely believe that lotting will involve difficult decisions and that it will be open to legal challenge at all levels. My view is that, if the land and communities commissioner has experience in land valuation, there will be less chance of getting the lotting wrong. The landowner will seek to get full value from the land when they transfer it but, if the value has not been considered in the lotting decision, that will not be given. Amendment 307 was proposed by the Law Society of Scotland for the simple reason that it sees legal challenges coming.

I am extremely proud to be in this Parliament and I am proud that this Parliament does not view anyone or give anyone power based on how much they have, how little they have, where they come from, what their ethnicity is or what their religion is. Those things are all totally excluded from our decision-making process. They were totally excluded from my decision-making process before I was elected to this Parliament, and that has remained the case. I judge people on the evidence that they bring and on the contribution that they make to my business, and I have taken exactly the same approach here. I have dealt with every constituent who has come to me without favour and regardless of their political views.

I therefore find the cabinet secretary’s exclusion of those who, in her own terms, comprise a minority group from being the land and communities commissioner totally wrong. What do I mean by that? The cabinet secretary has deemed that a large landholder may not be the land and communities commissioner. I do not understand the reasons behind that. I believe that there is some perception that all large landowners are bad, but I do not believe that they are. In my experience, for every bad large landowner, I could probably produce you a bad tenant, too. In my mind, to decide to exclude somebody because of what they have is totally wrong.

My amendments in this group are simple. I want to test whether it is just large landowners that this Government particularly dislikes and distrusts with regard to being the land and community commissioner. My amendments would exclude anyone who is, or was within the two years preceding their appointment, in the following categories: tenant farmers and crofters whose land exceeds 1,000 hectares—believe you me, Presiding Officer, there are some crofters whose land exceeds 1,000 hectares—board members of Scottish Land & Estates Ltd; members of Community Land Scotland; board members of NatureScot; members of the Crofting Commission; members of the Scottish Crofting Federation; and members of non-departmental public bodies.

The purpose of the amendments is straightforward: to see whether the Government believes that all those categories are appropriate. If the Government believes that it is right to exclude large landowners only, my view would be that political appointments should not be made either. We had that argument earlier in the year over the appointment of Mike Russell to the Scottish Land Commission. That was more of a political appointment than a case of the best person for the job.

Amendment 88 removes from the list of functions of the land and communities commissioner the requirement

“to keep under review emerging problems in the operation of natural capital markets”.

I was involved in land management for more than 12 years, and I can tell members that the operation of natural capital markets is extremely complex. Even with 12 years’ experience, and having spoken to people about it for the subsequent 10 years while I have been in this Parliament, I am not sure that I fully understand it. I am not sure that the majority of people who might be considered for the appointment will have much knowledge, so to include that requirement in the portfolio of the land and communities commissioner is, to my mind, fundamentally wrong.

On the other amendments in the group, I see some merit in Rhoda Grant’s amendment 200, which adds reporting on the compliance of ministers to the list of functions—which I have no doubt that ministers will dislike. Amendment 309 was recommended by the Law Society of Scotland. I am pleased to see that Rhoda Grant lodged it, and it makes sense. Amendment 201, in the name of Tim Eagle, brings the issue of wildfires into the equation. For too long, we have ignored the subject, and we seem to have learned nothing from the Dava moor fire. It is right to include consideration of wildfires when we discuss land reform.

Amendment 202 promotes engagement rather than conflict. It is another sensible amendment from Mr Eagle, given that, if it is not correctly handled, the bill will build on the preconceived idea that landowners and tenants are always at loggerheads. My experience from my time managing land for landlords with tenants is that, if both sides talk, solutions can always be found. I will listen to the arguments.

I move amendment 307.

I lodged amendment 307 to ensure that the land and communities commissioner will have experience in land valuation. Why do we need to make sure that they have that? The answer is that the commissioner will give ministers advice regarding lotting. I absolutely believe that lotting will involve difficult decisions and that it will be open to legal challenge at all levels. My view is that, if the land and communities commissioner has experience in land valuation, there will be less chance of getting the lotting wrong. The landowner will seek to get full value from the land when they transfer it but, if the value has not been considered in the lotting decision, that will not be given. Amendment 307 was proposed by the Law Society of Scotland for the simple reason that it sees legal challenges coming.

I am extremely proud to be in this Parliament and I am proud that this Parliament does not view anyone or give anyone power based on how much they have, how little they have, where they come from, what their ethnicity is or what their religion is. Those things are all totally excluded from our decision-making process. They were totally excluded from my decision-making process before I was elected to this Parliament, and that has remained the case. I judge people on the evidence that they bring and on the contribution that they make to my business, and I have taken exactly the same approach here. I have dealt with every constituent who has come to me without favour and regardless of their political views.

I therefore find the cabinet secretary’s exclusion of those who, in her own terms, comprise a minority group from being the land and communities commissioner totally wrong. What do I mean by that? The cabinet secretary has deemed that a large landholder may not be the land and communities commissioner. I do not understand the reasons behind that. I believe that there is some perception that all large landowners are bad, but I do not believe that they are. In my experience, for every bad large landowner, I could probably produce you a bad tenant, too. In my mind, to decide to exclude somebody because of what they have is totally wrong.

My amendments in this group are simple. I want to test whether it is just large landowners that this Government particularly dislikes and distrusts with regard to being the land and community commissioner. My amendments would exclude anyone who is, or was within the two years preceding their appointment, in the following categories: tenant farmers and crofters whose land exceeds 1,000 hectares—believe you me, Presiding Officer, there are some crofters whose land exceeds 1,000 hectares—board members of Scottish Land & Estates Ltd; members of Community Land Scotland; board members of NatureScot; members of the Crofting Commission; members of the Scottish Crofting Federation; and members of non-departmental public bodies.

The purpose of the amendments is straightforward: to see whether the Government believes that all those categories are appropriate. If the Government believes that it is right to exclude large landowners only, my view would be that political appointments should not be made either. We had that argument earlier in the year over the appointment of Mike Russell to the Scottish Land Commission. That was more of a political appointment than a case of the best person for the job.

Amendment 88 removes from the list of functions of the land and communities commissioner the requirement

“to keep under review emerging problems in the operation of natural capital markets”.

I was involved in land management for more than 12 years, and I can tell members that the operation of natural capital markets is extremely complex. Even with 12 years’ experience, and having spoken to people about it for the subsequent 10 years while I have been in this Parliament, I am not sure that I fully understand it. I am not sure that the majority of people who might be considered for the appointment will have much knowledge, so to include that requirement in the portfolio of the land and communities commissioner is, to my mind, fundamentally wrong.

On the other amendments in the group, I see some merit in Rhoda Grant’s amendment 200, which adds reporting on the compliance of ministers to the list of functions—which I have no doubt that ministers will dislike. Amendment 309 was recommended by the Law Society of Scotland. I am pleased to see that Rhoda Grant lodged it, and it makes sense. Amendment 201, in the name of Tim Eagle, brings the issue of wildfires into the equation. For too long, we have ignored the subject, and we seem to have learned nothing from the Dava moor fire. It is right to include consideration of wildfires when we discuss land reform.

Amendment 202 promotes engagement rather than conflict. It is another sensible amendment from Mr Eagle, given that, if it is not correctly handled, the bill will build on the preconceived idea that landowners and tenants are always at loggerheads. My experience from my time managing land for landlords with tenants is that, if both sides talk, solutions can always be found. I will listen to the arguments.

I move amendment 307.

I am very proud that I stand in the Parliament as a parliamentarian to point out to the cabinet secretary what rules are available to consider before we get to the stage 3 debate. The point of the Parliament is to produce good legislation. All I am saying is that I do not think that we have achieved that—[Interruption.]