Will Mr Greer take an intervention?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise to you and to members in the chamber, especially Mr Fairlie, for interrupting him with the noise of my telephone ringing. It was accidental—I thought that I had turned it off, but I had turned it off only on my hearing aids. I feel embarrassed enough to apologise, and I hope that you will accept my apology.

As convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I stand with something of a sense of déjà vu to express my regret that the Parliament is once again being rushed into expressing a view on a legislative consent motion because of last-minute changes to a bill at Westminster. This is the third time this year that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, as reporting committee on the relevant legislative consent memorandum, has found itself in this position. The previous two times related to the Great British Energy Bill.

Nothing that I say today will therefore touch on the substance of the latest motion, which is mainly about the Eskdalemuir seismic array. My contribution will be about the process and the respect that there should be for it.

The UK Government amendment that triggered the LCM was tabled on 13 October, when we were in recess. Eleven days later, the Scottish Government posted the supplementary legislative consent memorandum that is being considered today. Apparently, the Scottish Parliament must express a view on the consent this week. That rendered it in effect impossible for the committee to take evidence on the matter and come to any form of formal or collective view. Therefore, the committee has reluctantly agreed to support suspending standing orders in this case, so that we do not have to report.

It would have helped if the Scottish Government had been able to lodge the supplementary memorandum a little bit earlier—not much, but a little. However, I recognise that the root cause of this case was the late tabling of the UK Government amendment. I cannot state with certainty whether there is a trend of this happening more often, but perhaps others, such as the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, are monitoring it.

Asking Parliament to agree to something without any real opportunity to take evidence devalues the principle of legislative consent. There may be rare occasions when that is truly unavoidable, but to have it happen three times in one year to just one committee does not seem rare to me. Whenever it happens, it leaves the Scottish Parliament as a bystander and not a participant—there should always be a three-way conversation between this Parliament and the Scottish and UK Governments.

When this last happened, in April, the committee agreed that I should write to the leader of the House of Commons. I received a reply that was civil but, with respect, it did not show much willingness to make meaningful change—and now here we are again. My next letter will be to the Speaker of the House of Commons to raise this as a cross-legislative matter of ensuring meaningful adherence to the Sewel convention. I hope that the Conveners Group will also discuss the matter in due course and I appeal to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to ensure that he and his officials continue working on an early warning system for late-triggering amendments at Westminster in order to allay, as soon as possible, the use of supplementary LCMs.

The memorandum largely states that the Scottish Government is reserving its position, so I take the opportunity to add that leaving the committee waiting for a substantive follow-up is not helpful. I had recent cause to write in the same way to the Scottish Government about a different UK bill.

Returning to the case in hand, what would be most helpful would be to have a rule or convention that late-triggering amendments should stop the legislative clock at Westminster—not for long, but just for long enough to allow the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament to take stock, gather evidence and report to this Parliament so that we can make a meaningful decision about the process.

Like many members, I was not going to speak in the debate, but I have to correct one or two points. There has been talk about people not being here and whether they should be here. Some people cannot be here, and a lot of people will be unable to debate the amendments at stage 2 because they will be attending other committees. We should never criticise people who are unable to attend a meeting unless we know specifically why they cannot.

I agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy that the financial memorandum is in effect a blank cheque that is being written by the Government, which is saying that it will cover whatever the bill costs. I wish that that was the case when it comes to palliative care, because we know that palliative care is not correctly funded.

I have heard the arguments for supporting the financial memorandum because it will allow the bill to go further. However, my position has always been that I can never support the bill—not because of religious reasons but because of what I personally believe. It would be wrong for me to cast a vote this afternoon that would progress a bill that I cannot support in any shape or form, whether it is amended or not.

I will be forced to vote against the financial resolution today because of my conscience. I do not think that any member of this Parliament should criticise anyone who does that for that specific reason.

Thank you, convener. I understand why Paul White has lodged the petition. It is a matter of frustration to him and to many constituents that wildfires continue to be a problem. The issue was probably highlighted more than it has been by anything else by the wildfire at Dava, which burned thousands of acres. However, the petition comes on the back of other fires, on the Isle of Arran and in Glen Finglas, where wildfires have happened because of the use of disposable barbecues. I accept the Scottish Government’s comments about the 2020 act. I also accept SPICe’s comments about the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which might provide some scope for a ban to happen That is not something that the petitioner would reasonably expect to be achieved in this session of the Parliament.

When you come to consider closing the petition, which I am sure that you will do, convener, and, probably rightly so, given the time that the committee has left in the parliamentary session, a way forward would be to seek clearer guidance from the Government on when disposable barbecues could be used. It should be automatic that people are told not to use disposable barbecues when the fire risk goes up from moderate to high. There could also be a way of the Scottish Government making announcements so that people are asked to abide by a voluntary ban.

As a result of its slow action in relation to the Cairngorms byelaw, the Scottish Government has slightly provoked this petition. The Cairngorms national park submitted a byelaw for approval to the Government, and it has taken it a huge amount of time to consider it. Even as we speak, I am not sure that the byelaw has been passed by the Scottish Government. I tried to find out, but I have been unable to do so. Therefore, if I might be so bold, I suggest that it might be worth writing to the Scottish Government to say that the committee is closing the petition and that you hope that it would be more proactive in saying when disposable barbecues should not be used and that there would be a speedier response to requests from local authorities for byelaws to ban the use of disposable barbecues. I hope that that is helpful.

I am a bit confused because, when Alex Norris stood up in the House of Commons at 2 o’clock today to answer an urgent question, he said:

“My officials have been engaging directly and regularly in advance of this announcement with the Scottish Government, the relevant councils and local service providers, and will continue to do so.”

That does not quite chime with what the cabinet secretary said.

My constituents are rightly concerned about their safety—not on the streets but in relation to their health. There are simply not enough resources in the Highlands. Inverness general practices are creaking at the seams, Raigmore is unable to keep up with appointments, and there are not enough dentists to go round. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give me that people in the Highlands will continue to get some level of health cover, with the extra 300 people who will be moving into Cameron barracks?

I have 20 amendments in the group, but I will try to be as brief as possible. My amendments would make the proposed lotting process fairer and more sensible for all parties. They would enable the applicant to propose their own lotting plan, helping to tackle situations in which the landowner may be selling as a result of financial hardship, and to streamline decisions and help ministers.

Amendments 59 and 62 would enable the applicant to propose the lots within their application. They would oblige ministers to have regard to the lotting plan when they made the lotting decisions. Ministers would not be bound by the plan, so there is no real downside to agreeing to those amendments.

Amendments 66, 70, 73 and 74 would set out that the owner’s proposed lotting plan would be considered at different stages of the lotting decision process, appeal and any court consideration.

Amendment 60 would oblige ministers to rule that land need not be transferred in lots when the owner is facing financial hardship. I think that that is fair and equitable.

Amendment 185 would mean that lotting decisions concerning an owner who is facing financial hardship must be made with the help of a qualified specialist who has experience in the local area.

Amendment 66 would insert a subsection enabling the applicant to propose lots during the review of a lotting decision, and amendment 70 would simply oblige ministers to consider that plan.

Amendment 63 would reduce the period that ministers have in which to make a lotting decision from six to three months, in a similar vein to Tim Eagle’s amendment 189, which I hope that the cabinet secretary will support.

Amendment 67 would ensure that the individual from whom ministers seek advice on the lotting decision is suitably qualified, rather than just appearing to the ministers to be suitably qualified. Amendment 68 would ensure that that person had knowledge of the land market in the local area. Those are both sensible amendments. In my experience, somebody could get a person in from one area of Scotland who had no idea of the different land market in another area of Scotland.

Amendment 186 would link the minister’s lotting decision to land management plans and local place plans, and it would require ministers to determine that land need not be transferred in lots where lotting is not identified in the land management plan or the local place plan, both of which will have been approved. That amendment would increase the value and meaningfulness of land management plans and local place plans, both of which were, I believe, supported earlier in the bill process.

Amendment 77 is a technical amendment relating to amendment 186.

Amendment 291 would insert the provision that lotting is considered to be not in the public interest if it reduces the ability to achieve net zero emissions. We cannot lot a place if doing so will prevent our reaching the net zero targets that the Government is committed to.

Amendments 71 and 72 would oblige ministers to offer to buy the land if the lotting decisions that they make result in the land becoming less commercially attractive. That seems fair to me. Amendment 193 would further clarify that ministers’ offers to buy land must be specified at an open market value as determined by the appointed valuer or the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. Again, that is fair.

Amendment 64 would hold ministers to account regarding the time periods in the section.

I now turn to other amendments in the group. I do not believe that amendment 175, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is required.

On amendment 191, I find it strange that a minister who, at the time when decisions are going to be made on these matters, might have no experience of land sales or lotting would feel that they were in a position to make a decision without seeking expert advice. I cannot believe that the Government is considering removing the requirement to seek advice, as it would decrease the Government’s ability to stand up to legal challenge, which would therefore significantly increase costs.

Amendment 392, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is an administrative amendment that I do not believe is required.

Amendments 292 and 306, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, are sensible amendments because lotting will, without doubt, result in unemployment. Ministers should be held financially accountable if they demand that the land be lotted.

Amendments 189, 190 and 192, in the name of Tim Eagle, are eminently sensible as well. I will not go any further into them, because I think that I may have exceeded my time limit, Presiding Officer.

It sounds as though the cabinet secretary has been in negotiation with the UK Government for some time. [Interruption.]

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the housing of asylum seekers at Cameron barracks in Inverness.

It was deeply concerning for constituents across the Highlands to find out about this only on Monday. According to what the cabinet secretary just said, the issue was raised back in September. It may have been raised before then—clearly, Alex Norris believes that it was raised well in advance, as that is the evidence that he gave to the House of Commons. Surely the point now is that it is up to the UK Government to start speaking to elected representatives, Highland Council and service providers to make sure that we have the appropriate services in the Highlands.

I reiterate that highlanders have always opened our doors to allow people to come up. We welcomed Afghan people who had worked with the British Army to stay in Cameron barracks. This is a different ball game. Three hundred young men are moving to Inverness and we do not know what their requirements are or what the services are. Highlanders themselves are not even getting housing services.