That was three questions, as well. I call Mark Ruskell—Mark, perhaps you can do two questions for me.

I thank Liz Smith for bringing this members’ business debate to the chamber today.

I am slightly nervous standing here, because my ex-brigade commander, Brigadier Garry Barnett, is sitting up in the public gallery. I would just like to say to him that I have spent time in the Parliament trying to convince everyone that I was a good soldier. Brigadier, your memories of all the good things that happened in your brigade were, of course, down to me—I do not know who was responsible for the bad things. It is delightful to see you all here today and to look back on the Black Watch.

It is probably quite odd for a Household Cavalry man and for somebody who represents the Highlands to be standing here paying tribute to the Black Watch. We are now joined as one, but maybe there is a certain amount of rivalry, as there was before. There is no doubt that, as an ex-soldier, I have a huge amount of respect for all the work that the Black Watch has done during our long history, including our recent history, especially in Korea, Kenya, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Iraq. Huge areas of our history have relied on the Black Watch.

I would like to talk about one particular member of the Black Watch who I find quite interesting. I am sure that I am going to get this story wrong, but I did as much research as I could on William Speakman-Pitt, who served in Korea in 1951. He was a Victoria cross winner and, I think, a worthy one. Let us look at his history.

On 4 November 1951, when things were particularly difficult, he filled his pockets with grenades and charged the Chinese, hurling his grenades until they ran out. He then ran back to his lines, collected more grenades and some of his colleagues, and charged back to the Chinese lines, throwing more hand grenades to break up their charge. Sadly, that did not work, so they had to resort to throwing anything they had, which appeared to be mess tins, cans and a large amount of beer bottles. I am reliably informed by the record that those beer bottles came to be in the Black Watch lines purely to be filled with water so that they could cool the machine guns—how they were emptied was not actually clear in the dispatches. William was obviously a worthy VC winner.

I have seen other acts of bravery in the Black Watch history, and that is one that I like. I have heard that William was represented as beer-bottle Bill, the VC winner. I do not know whether that is right, but I am sure that the brigadier will correct me afterwards. He was a worthy winner. People like him typify the valiant soldiers who have served in the Black Watch. When I was a soldier in the British Army, which I was for 12 years, I would have liked to have had the Black Watch at my side, but not always to have had a brigade commander from the Black Watch in charge of me.

That is not entirely true. Some of the people who opposed part 1 were people who manage land holdings across Scotland, whether in the private or public sector.

Whether stakeholders were supportive of further land reform or not, there was consensus that the bill as drafted risks not delivering on its aims. There was a clear fear that the proposed changes would be burdensome and bureaucratic without delivering any real benefit.

On the detail of the bill, the committee is supportive of the provision to allow Scottish ministers to create community engagement obligations. However, only a majority of the committee think that the land size threshold for community engagement obligations—which is 3,000 hectares for mainland estates—is too high. The committee is not agreed on the appropriate thresholds for landholdings to allow the bill’s obligations to kick in. However, we agree that, when they are adopted, those thresholds must be kept under review by the Government.

One community engagement obligation that is set out in the bill is for large estates to produce land management plans. The committee is supportive of such plans, as they could create an accessible one-stop shop for information about large parcels of land, which would improve transparency about estate ownership and use. That provision in part 1 gained clear support, but we heard pleas not to allow it to become a box-ticking exercise with a long list of things to say in those plans, which could remove the local and distinct tailored elements that are required to make the plans truly useful documents.

We also heard concerns about the potential cost to estates of producing plans. However, it is difficult to assess those concerns fully when the details of the obligations for what will be set out in the plans will not be set out until later, in regulations. The committee was not in a position to assess the unknown. That is why our report recommends that there should be additional parliamentary scrutiny of regulations that set out community obligations.

The committee supports the principle of extending communities’ right to buy land. However, the changes in section 2 are unlikely to accomplish much on their own. A wider review of the community right to buy is under way, and we are disappointed that it was not completed before the bill was introduced. It would have been much more useful to consider the matter in the round.

We support giving Scottish ministers the ability to determine that large landholdings should be sold in lots. However, the basis on which such decisions would be made is unclear. We recommend that the transfer test in the bill be reconsidered to make it clear that the public interest will at least be at the heart of lotting decisions. We also recommend that guidance be produced to provide more clarity about the circumstances in which Scottish ministers would or would not expect to make lotting decisions. We are broadly supportive of the new role of land and communities commissioner.

Turning to part 2 of the bill, I note that the most significant changes in that part relate to agricultural tenancies. The starting point for those changes is a consensus that the tenanted sector is in long-term decline and that things need to change. Taken together, the changes in the bill could be said to rebalance the landlord and tenant relationship by giving more rights to tenant farmers. However, some stakeholders thought that those changes would make owners even more loth to offer tenancies in the first place. We are deeply concerned about the risk of a further decrease in agricultural tenancies, so we have recommended broader consideration of how to actively encourage the leasing of land for agriculture.

Although we support most of the individual provisions in part 2, we recommend that the Scottish Government considers how best to proceed with the provisions on resumption. Resumption is when the landlord takes back part of the tenancy. The methodology for compensating that, as proposed in the bill, has faced significant criticism. The view is that it perhaps rebalances compensation too far in favour of the tenant.

We need to clarify the meaning of “sustainable and regenerative agriculture”. That is a central feature of many of the changes in part 2, but it is as yet undefined. This is a familiar discussion for those who have been involved with the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. That act requires a code of practice to be created, which would provide meaning to the term.

I think that the committee was more concerned that constantly changing agricultural tenancies retrospectively could cause problems for the letting of land in future, because it would give landlords no surety that what they agreed with a tenant would be carried forward.

We also talked about the need for sustainable regenerative agriculture to be included. We think that that should be in the bill.

Overall, the bill needs significant changes to make it fit for purpose. Although it is normal for a bill to undergo some adjustments at stages 2 and 3, the changes that are needed in this case appear to be more fundamental. That puts pressure on us, as a committee and as a Parliament, to make sure that we get things right at the amending stages, and that we take the views of experts and stakeholders as we do so.

A majority of the committee supports the general principles of the bill. However, we want the Scottish Government to engage constructively with our recommendations to ensure that the bill can be improved.

I am pleased to speak in this debate on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

In accordance with parliamentary rules, I will make a full declaration of my interests so that there is no dubiety. I declare that I have an interest in a family farming partnership in Moray, as set out in my register of interests. Specifically, I declare an interest in approximately 200 hectares of farmland, of which 20 hectares is woodland. I am a tenant of approximately 200 hectares in Moray on a non-agricultural tenancy, and I have a farming tenancy of approximately 5 hectares under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I also declare that I sometimes take grass lets on an annual basis.

I thank my committee colleagues for their diligent work in considering the bill. I acknowledge the useful input from the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I also thank our clerking team for its support, especially in getting our report out so promptly after it had been agreed.

The committee began its work on the bill in April last year, when we issued a call for views. We started taking oral evidence in June, and we heard from 13 different panels of witnesses. We also got out and about in rural areas to meet people on the ground. We held a successful panel event at the Royal Highland Show and an online engagement event with tenant farmers. I thank all the people who contributed to our work.

The bill is split into two distinct parts. Part 1 sets out new methods of land reform and part 2 relates to the leasing of land. Each part has raised separate issues, and I will take them in turn.

On part 1, stakeholders were fundamentally split on a central intention of the bill, which is to diversify land ownership. Those who were supportive of that highlighted that Scotland has a more concentrated pattern of ownership than most international comparators. They said that that creates an imbalance of power and can prevent rural communities from feeling in charge of their own destinies. Their view was that reform has lost momentum and that further change is needed to address that imbalance.

Those who were opposed to part 1 often considered it hard to justify the interference with property rights, and they were also concerned that the bill would scare off investment. They considered large estates to be better able to deliver change at scale, making them assets in tackling the twin climate emergency and biodiversity crises.

That is not entirely true. Some of the people who opposed part 1 were people who manage land holdings across Scotland, whether in the private or public sector.

Whether stakeholders were supportive of further land reform or not, there was consensus that the bill as drafted risks not delivering on its aims. There was a clear fear that the proposed changes would be burdensome and bureaucratic without delivering any real benefit.

On the detail of the bill, the committee is supportive of the provision to allow Scottish ministers to create community engagement obligations. However, only a majority of the committee think that the land size threshold for community engagement obligations—which is 3,000 hectares for mainland estates—is too high. The committee is not agreed on the appropriate thresholds for landholdings to allow the bill’s obligations to kick in. However, we agree that, when they are adopted, those thresholds must be kept under review by the Government.

One community engagement obligation that is set out in the bill is for large estates to produce land management plans. The committee is supportive of such plans, as they could create an accessible one-stop shop for information about large parcels of land, which would improve transparency about estate ownership and use. That provision in part 1 gained clear support, but we heard pleas not to allow it to become a box-ticking exercise with a long list of things to say in those plans, which could remove the local and distinct tailored elements that are required to make the plans truly useful documents.

We also heard concerns about the potential cost to estates of producing plans. However, it is difficult to assess those concerns fully when the details of the obligations for what will be set out in the plans will not be set out until later, in regulations. The committee was not in a position to assess the unknown. That is why our report recommends that there should be additional parliamentary scrutiny of regulations that set out community obligations.

The committee supports the principle of extending communities’ right to buy land. However, the changes in section 2 are unlikely to accomplish much on their own. A wider review of the community right to buy is under way, and we are disappointed that it was not completed before the bill was introduced. It would have been much more useful to consider the matter in the round.

We support giving Scottish ministers the ability to determine that large landholdings should be sold in lots. However, the basis on which such decisions would be made is unclear. We recommend that the transfer test in the bill be reconsidered to make it clear that the public interest will at least be at the heart of lotting decisions. We also recommend that guidance be produced to provide more clarity about the circumstances in which Scottish ministers would or would not expect to make lotting decisions. We are broadly supportive of the new role of land and communities commissioner.

Turning to part 2 of the bill, I note that the most significant changes in that part relate to agricultural tenancies. The starting point for those changes is a consensus that the tenanted sector is in long-term decline and that things need to change. Taken together, the changes in the bill could be said to rebalance the landlord and tenant relationship by giving more rights to tenant farmers. However, some stakeholders thought that those changes would make owners even more loth to offer tenancies in the first place. We are deeply concerned about the risk of a further decrease in agricultural tenancies, so we have recommended broader consideration of how to actively encourage the leasing of land for agriculture.

Although we support most of the individual provisions in part 2, we recommend that the Scottish Government considers how best to proceed with the provisions on resumption. Resumption is when the landlord takes back part of the tenancy. The methodology for compensating that, as proposed in the bill, has faced significant criticism. The view is that it perhaps rebalances compensation too far in favour of the tenant.

We need to clarify the meaning of “sustainable and regenerative agriculture”. That is a central feature of many of the changes in part 2, but it is as yet undefined. This is a familiar discussion for those who have been involved with the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. That act requires a code of practice to be created, which would provide meaning to the term.

Has the member thought of a way of resolving that? If the landholding is not contiguous, should its inclusion be based on a commonality of machinery, management and staff that makes it contiguous as far as land management plans are concerned? If one landholding is in Orkney and one is in Lewis, they should not be seen as being contiguous.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

It seems as though there is going to be a long list of amendments to the bill. How is the cabinet secretary going to ensure that the committee has enough time in which to consider those before we go into what is bound to be a fairly lengthy amendment period?

I think that I am short of time, but I would like to give way.