Members can make all sorts of noises, but let us wait until we get to the vote on that amendment, and then we will see where they go on that.

I acknowledge that the timescale might be tight, but, with fines as significant as the ones that are being suggested, there should be absolute clarity about when and on what scale those fines would be enforced.

My amendments 41 and 42 would ensure that the time periods in relation to community rights to buy and the prohibition on transfer were reasonable for all parties involved.

Amendments 155 and 169 are to do with communities raising funds to purchase land. They would insert provisions to ensure that ministers should not prohibit a transfer of land if there is no reasonable chance or proof that a community has the means to raise the funds to purchase the land in question. It is unfair on the landowner, who might be selling for a multitude of reasons, for a transfer to be prohibited for months on end for no reason, if there is no realistic chance of a community body ever purchasing the land.

I am always amused when I hear members’ amendments being accused of having drafting errors in them. I do not believe that that is anything but a simple excuse to avoid tackling the issue. Amendment 41 would impose a 14-day time limit on ministers to publicise a land transfer to ensure that there was no delay in the process. The cabinet secretary does not like 14 days. She says that the Government will try to achieve 14 days, but it cannot always do that. If there is a timescale, most things are achieved within that timescale. If there is no timescale, things are never achieved within a reasonable time.

Amendment 42 means that ministers would have to give notice within 28 days that the prohibition on a transfer has been lifted. That means that, again, ministers would have to make a decision. I know that it is sometimes difficult for Governments to make a decision and to focus, but my amendments aim to provide for that. Without those timescales, the overall process would be open ended and could prohibit the sale of land for an indeterminate period, which would not be acceptable to the owner and could have a serious impact on the owner’s ability to sell and manage land.

Amendment 155 would enforce that ministers may prohibit a land transfer only if they are satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of sufficient funds being raised by the community. Amendment 169 would add requirements on how funds will be raised to purchase land and on the details that a community body must submit. I think that those amendments are perfectly reasonable.

I also like Michael Matheson’s amendment 279, but it is not focused enough for me. It allows the process to be too drawn out and does not make time of the essence, which, to my mind, gives ministers far too much wiggle room. That is not something that I would like to see and I do not think that Parliament should support it.

Amendment 157, in the name of the cabinet secretary, provides for another obligation to fulfil a minister’s responsibility. It is a bit of an umbrella clause rather than one that helps the sale of land.

I do not fully understand amendment 286, in the name of Mark Ruskell, so rather than make the rather strange comment that I believe that it is incorrectly drafted or has drafting errors, I will be interested to hear what he says about it. Once I understand it, perhaps I will be in a position to make a decision on it.

Will the member accept my abject apology that I failed to talk about his sensible amendments in this group? I will, of course, be supporting them, because they make a lot of sense.

I said that the draft law that is being considered at the moment is, at best, fiddling round the edges.

I remind the Parliament that Mr Ewing said in 2016 that he would bring forward a crofting bill, which would be perfect and would replace the existing crofting acts. The trouble is that that bill failed and disappeared. The Government failed to grasp the nettle then; it has also failed to grasp the nettle effectively with smallholdings, so that they may be properly considered. To my mind, all that the Government has done is park smallholdings on the back burner—which is a failure of the Government and of the minister.

Michael Matheson, in lodging amendment 269, is getting the Government out of a pickle, I believe—which shows the inadequacies of the bill. He is seeking to find what is required under community engagement, which is an issue that the committee brought up and that the Government has failed to address at stage 2 or stage 3. I respect Mr Matheson’s position on the matter, and I am sure that he drafted his amendment without the help of the Government, which is probably thankful for his intervention. I am concerned, however, that the amendment will allow yet more legislation to be implemented by regulation, which I find difficult, as the best part of legislation should be in the bill.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Of course.

I understand the merits of some of the arguments that the cabinet secretary has put forward. However, we heard in committee at stage 1 that the costs of producing land management plans will probably be in the region of £10,000, at a minimum, and for a large estate they could be considerably higher than that. With my amendments in the group, I am trying to ensure that a small farmer with, say, 1,000 hectares does not have to spend £10,000 getting in specialist people and taking advice. If you are not going to support my amendments—

—perhaps the cabinet secretary will be clear that that is indeed her aim, and that it will be covered in regulation.

I did, and I will come to that. For example, in group 7, a member who has two amendments will get five minutes to speak to them, as will a member who has no amendments. A member who has 15 amendments will also be given five minutes—or 20 seconds for each amendment.

The Parliamentary Bureau was asked for some latitude and to allow speakers up to 10 minutes in groups in which they have numerous amendments. That has obviously been rejected. It could be argued that, if the member with 15 amendments had split those among their colleagues, giving them one each, that would have created an extra 75 minutes of debating time. I am not going to play that sort of game. Ideocracy would perhaps appease some but would increase the speaking time by seven times--that is why it is a nonsensical format.

I am a committed parliamentarian. I am also a realist. I want to debate issues. I want to make good legislation for the people of Scotland that everyone in the chamber can be proud of. I accept that not all amendments will be approved, but preventing them from being fully explored when the advice is that the bill is flawed and ill-conceived is undemocratic.

I urge members to vote against the business motion. It shows the very worst of the Parliament, which is being given an archaic clerical formulary procedure that shuts down debate and increases the likelihood of bad legislation. To be clear, a vote for the business motion is a vote to put timekeeping before debate and over good legislation, which is an affront to democracy. On that basis, I urge members to vote against the motion.

I rise to speak in support of Brian Whittle’s amendments, which I believe are entirely sensible and try to help community bodies to work out their organisational and succession planning. Amendment 259 makes it clear that, once a community body has purchased an area of land that has a plan, it must stick by that plan, but it can review the plan no later than two years after the purchase and come up with its own plan. That would help them and provide guidance.

I agree with Mr Whittle that the amendments do not place a greater burden on community bodies than they do on private landowners. I find the comment that community bodies are naturally better than private landowners because they are working for the community to be somewhat strange. I know plenty of landowners across Scotland who work very hard with their local communities. I gave an example at the beginning, which I am sure Ms Grant will know about, of a private landowner who kept open a school that Highland Council had agreed to close. The only reason that it stayed open and managed to get the pupils that it needed to stay open was because of the dedication and commitment of that private landowner. Ms Grant’s comments are totally disingenuous and unhelpful.

I support the amendments by Brian Whittle in the group—I hope that that does not jinx them.