Thank you, Presiding Officer—I have 16 amendments in this group, but I will be as quick as I can be. My amendments fall under four key themes: the development of land management plans; the contents of those plans; the proportionality and costings of community engagement; and the development of an online database for plans.

Amendment 17 would change the management plan review period from five years to 10 years. I am surprised that the Government has not listened to the clear evidence that we heard at stage 2 that five years for a management plan is incompatible with good land management and with achieving what is set out in the plan. Land management plans tend to last for long periods of time—20 years is not unheard of—and forestry plans last for much longer than that. Therefore, saying that a plan needs to be reviewed after five years is, to my mind, unhelpful. That is why my amendment would take the period to 10 years, which is a far more sensible timescale that is based on the experience that I have in the industry and as a farmer of more than 40 years’ practice.

Amendment 18 would impose an obligation on all parties to work reasonably regarding the development of, and changes to, the management plan. I know that the amendment is not supported by Scottish Land & Estates—it is good that I do not always have to toe its line—but we accept that there are people who might not act reasonably. They could be landowners or people in the community, and the behaviour of both needs to be curbed to ensure that the new legislation is not hindered but works as intended. I expect that the Government will feel that the obligation is not enforceable, but, in my view, inserting in the bill a requirement to work reasonably together would give the land and communities commissioner sufficient stick to bring either side back into the fold.

Turning to the contents of management plans, amendment 19 would remove the reference to the Scottish outdoor access code, so that landowners would not have to detail within their management plan how they intend to comply with the Scottish outdoor access code. That is not required, because complying with it is law.

Amendment 122 is an alternative to amendment 19. It would improve the subsection by clarifying the requirement to include within the management plan details of how the landowner intends to comply with the Scottish outdoor access code

“insofar as it imposes duties upon the owner”.

Therefore, there is a choice there for the Government.

Amendment 20 would remove the requirement that landowners detail in the plan how they will comply with the code of practice on deer management.

Amendment 245 is an alternative to amendment 20. It would require, instead, the disclosure of “the extent to which” landowners intend to comply with the code of practice on deer management.

Amendment 21 would remove the requirement to detail within the plan how landowners will manage the land in a way that contributes to increasing sustainability and biodiversity.

Amendment 125 is a wording change: rather than detailing “how” a landowner will comply with the local place plan, they would have to show “the extent to which” they will comply.

Amendment 246 is similar. Landowners would have to detail “the extent to which” they intend to manage the land in a way that will contribute to the achievement of the net zero emissions targets that are set out by the Government.

Amendment 248 would clarify that the achievement of net zero targets is a matter for ministers and that landowners’ efforts towards achieving those targets are just a contribution. As the targets are an obligation that is imposed on ministers rather than on landowners, that would be an important change to the bill, to make it legally viable.

Amendment 242 would ensure that a landowner’s obligation to include information about their potential plans to sell the land would be required

“only insofar as such information is not commercially sensitive”.

The cabinet secretary stated at stage 2 that management plans would not be expected to contain commercially sensitive information, and amendment 242 reflects that intent.

Amendment 120 would introduce a subsection to mandate that the engagement regarding land management plans must be “reasonable and proportionate” to “the resources available” to the landowner and relevant to the scale of the communities and the size of the landholding.

Amendment 128 would ensure that the cost of producing land management plans was proportionate. I heard what Mr Doris said earlier, but my experience tells me that £10,000 would probably be the minimum that a complicated land management plan would cost and that a more complicated one could cost considerably more—perhaps up to £40,000 or £50,000. There are members in this chamber who would question those figures, but, in the period from 1998 to 2003, when I was working on behalf of my client to resolve woodland grant schemes, it cost the client £45,000-worth of my time. That was not for a management plan—that was for a woodland grant scheme, which was fairly complicated.

Turning to the online database, amendment 22 would oblige the minister to

“establish an online database for the publication of land management plans”.

Amendment 308 would insert a function for the land and communities commissioner in relation to the maintenance of the online database that would be established by amendment 22.

Amendment 40 is a technical amendment that is consequential to amendment 22. It would help the Government by allowing ministers to modify this chapter if required.

Creating an online database for the publication of land management plans would be simple and straightforward. I know that the NFUS does not like amendment 22, but, even though I am a farmer, I do not have to agree with everything that it says. When it comes to this matter, we need to move with the times. Nearly everything that we do can be found online, including the NFUS’s policy strategy, which is why I am happy to see this proposal.

Presiding Officer, have I time to turn to the other amendments in the group?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I amend the record to say that I did work with the Government. As I am sure that the cabinet secretary will acknowledge, I specifically met the Government to discuss amendments on which I thought that common ground would be found. I can give the date of those meetings to the chamber if it is useful.

My amendments in the group are to do with proportionality and community engagement. Amendment 16 would provide that ministers must ensure that community engagement obligations are proportionate to the size of the landholding, the number of communities that are involved and the size of those communities. That is based on evidence that we heard at stage 2.

Amendment 118 would define proportionality in relation to the resources that are available to the owner, the size of the holding and the number and size of communities in the vicinity of the holding. In previous comments, the cabinet secretary has alluded to the fact that land management plans are intended to be high level and will not put an undue burden on landowners. My amendments seek to ground those reassurances in legislation—I am sure that she will be delighted to support that.

On the point that Rhoda Grant made about amendment 118, I encourage her to look on the bright side of life and not always on the negative side, which is what she suggests when she says that it would all be about giving landowners loopholes in land management plans.

Turning to amendment 132, in the name of Ariane Burgess, I have no issues with declaring publicly who owns what. In fact, my party and I recognise and support that approach. However, what is being proposed must be proportionate and reasonable. To move amendment 132 now, on the basis that the registrar is still trying to comply with the requirement to register all land at ownership, would be, frankly, unreasonable. I cannot therefore support the amendment.

Turning to amendments 263 and 133, Rhoda Grant will know that I am a great fan of crofting, but it is with such sadness that I have to say that the Government has failed to carry out crofting reform, despite what it said that it would do in 2016. The draft legislation that it has now put before the Parliament is, at best, fiddling round the edges.

As I have only five amendments in this group, I am pleased that I will not be incurring your ire for going too long over my time limit, Presiding Officer. I do not think that I shall use all that time, but maybe I will.

My amendments in this group are to ensure that modifications to legislation are properly scrutinised before they come into effect. Frankly, I see the amendments as a test of whether the Government believes in the parliamentary process of scrutiny. That is something that I am incredibly proud happens and which I want to ensure happens in such situations.

Amendment 39 would subject changes to legislation, including those that relate to the list of landholdings to which community engagement obligations may be imposed, the list of persons who may report a breach and the maximum amount of fine, to the super-affirmative procedure. That would ensure that any retrospective changes to legislation are properly scrutinised—specifically, by a committee of the Parliament that has regard to land reform. It would also ensure that the draft regulations are laid before the Parliament for at least 90 days. That seems to be the correct use of parliamentary procedure and of the committee procedure, which is incredibly important, as I said earlier.

Amendment 51 would do the same for the prohibition on transfer period and the land that is subject to prohibition. Amendment 75 would do the same for the exempt transfers and the various time periods associated with land transfers.

Amendments 113 and 114 would make the ancillary provisions subject to the affirmative procedure. I cannot understand why the cabinet secretary does not like those amendments.

I voice my support for Rhoda Grant’s amendments 275, 284 and 304, which were proposed by the Law Society of Scotland and would bring a bit more sense to this somewhat clouded and unhelpful bill.

Did you vote the wrong way, Angela?

There will not be many of these, Presiding Officer—not moved.

Amendment 33 not moved.

Amendment 34 moved—[Edward Mountain].

If I have time.

Okay—I will bring my remarks to a close.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. I do not support amendment 142, in the name of Rhoda Grant, because the definition of “community body” is so wide. I also cannot support amendments 270 and 144. All of Tim Eagle’s amendments in this group appear sensible to me, and I obviously support his amendment 148. However, if that amendment falls, my amendment 38 is the appropriate halfway house, and it should therefore attract the attention of the Government.

In your excitement in jumping to your feet, Mr Fairlie, you did not hear what I said—

I am surprised that the cabinet secretary does not accept the words “commercially sensitive”. When it came to buying Glen Prosen, for example, none of the information was made available to the public, because it was considered to be commercially sensitive. It appears that what is good for the Government is not good for a landowner. Will the cabinet secretary respond to that?