That brings us to the end of the session. Thank you very much for giving us your time—it has been very helpful.

We are coming to the end of our evidence taking on the bill. I think that Laura Hamlet and Megan MacInnes have kindly offered to feed in ideas on the costs of consultation, which would be helpful. If there is anything else that you want to feed in, that would be helpful.

We now move into private session.

Megan, with respect, I have to let some of the other witnesses come in as well. I think you have had a fairly good run at it.

I want to bring in Laura Hamlet on the issue of the prior notification for a crofting estate. If somebody wanted to buy their croft and their apportionment or have their common grazing apportionment tied into that, they would have to go through the prior notification period. Does that worry you? On the basis of the Scottish Land Commission’s latest recommendations, that might add 90 days to the process. Have you thought about that?

That is an explanation, not a question, but I understand the point that Mr Greer is making.

I am a staunch parliamentarian when it comes to these things, and you would expect nothing less from a convener. I absolutely believe that part of the process is that these issues have to be raised for debate at all the bill stages. It should have been raised during stage 1 at the committee and at stage 2.

Frankly, in my opinion—Mr Greer is entitled to have a different opinion—bringing forward an argument at stage 3 that has not been debated during the course of the bill is wrong. I have always called that out, and I always will call it out—it is disrespectful to the committee that has been considering the bill, and it is disrespectful to the Parliament.

On that basis, although I want with all my heart to support Christine Grahame’s bill this afternoon, I find myself in a position as a parliamentarian in which I will not be able to support it if the amendments that Mr Greer has proposed regarding shock collars and choke collars are passed by Parliament without having been properly scrutinised because they were not introduced through the correct procedure. I am sorry, Ms Grahame.

If we really wanted to legislate properly, the proposals could have been discussed at stage 1 or amendments on them could have been lodged at stage 2. Subverting the Parliament by slipping them in at stage 3 without discussing them properly has brought this Parliament and the committees into disrepute. Does the member not agree?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seem to be having problems with the app this evening. I would have voted no.

I want to debate the issue purely on technical grounds, but to put my comments into context, I mention that I have been training dogs for more than 40 years. In fact, I have successfully trained 15 dogs, and some of the puppies that I have seen bred from my dogs have gone to assist people as part of their treatment for cancer; some have become service dogs; and some have become buddies for children who have a short time on this planet. They are very placid dogs, and in most cases, they have been very easy to train.

Over the 40 years that I have been involved, training has significantly changed. I am glad that it has changed, because it used to be more about dominating a dog; now, it is more about rewarding a dog, which is the way that it should be. However, I have had two dogs that proved significantly difficult. For one of them, the only way to keep it in my garden was to put an underground electric fence around the garden and have a collar fitted to the dog. On the occasions that it did not have the collar on, it would definitely wander off. On one occasion, it was brought back to me by a friend who was a local farmer after it had had a go at his sheep. That, sadly, resulted in the death of the dog, because I felt that I could not keep it.

I am not sure that I agree that electric collars have much of a place, but I think that they have some place. I would like to debate that issue as a Parliament. I understand Mr Greer’s points about the previous evidence that has been taken, but let us debate it. The problem is that we did not debate the amendments at stage 2.

I specifically took part in stage 2—I debated various matters then and at stage 1. I am sure that I do not need to remind members that, during the stage 1 debate, Christine Grahame said that if I did not know where my marriage certificate was—because I had raised a question about certificates—my wife would surely tell me. I am delighted to confirm that my wife did tell me where it was—she keeps it under lock and key at home. My issue is—

I will do so in just a moment.

My issue is that we have not debated these amendments at stage 2 and, in fact, they have not been debated at committee.

I give way to Mr Greer.

In 2023-24, there were 3,170 incidents of violence in schools in the Highlands. That means that there has been a 548 per cent increase in four years, and the figures equate to 16 incidents every day. Does Roz McCall believe that teachers want action, not more task forces?

To ask the Scottish Government what the three main aims of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are. (S6O-04225)

I remind members that I am a landowner in Moray and that I own 500 acres of arable land.

More than 16 people and organisations that have given evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee have said that the bill will not deliver the aims that the cabinet secretary has described. Just this week, the Scottish Land Commission published 20 pages of advice on part 1 of the bill, which highlight what it believes to be failures, and I am told that it might publish more advice. Is the cabinet secretary still content with the bill as it stands, or will it need significant reform?