Thank you, convener. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I own part of a wild salmon fishery. I should also point out that I managed fisheries on the Ness and Loch Ness until 2006. My family has a strong connection with Loch Ness, having funded various expeditions to try to find the monster in the 1950s.

The petition has come about because of the work that is being proposed for pump storage in Loch Ness. I accept the importance of pump storage to our net zero demands in Scotland. It provides us with green energy and the ability to have a black start, should there be a complete failure in the national grid.

However, the pump storage at Loch Ness has proven that there are real threats to the environment that we do not yet fully understand. Pump storage will increase the temperature of the water that goes back into the loch. It will invariably require the feeder loch to have its height increased, which is what is being suggested for Loch Ness. That will damage the edge of the loch and cause problems for flora and fauna. The very edge of the loch is probably the most oxygenated area. NatureScot has objected to the proposal.

I know that it would be difficult for the committee to make a recommendation to stop everything when it comes to pump storage, because it is important to Scotland. However, we need to understand what we are doing when it comes to generating electricity.

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I say this with a bit of trepidation, because other members might not thank me for it, but this committee might think it appropriate to refer the petition to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee so that it can undertake work to ascertain whether there is a problem. I am not volunteering that committee’s services, because I might be killed when I return to it, but it might be an idea.

I have some questions for John Petticrew. I am sorry, John, that we have been talking about you while you have been in the room, but here is your chance to come in.

In February, on behalf of the committee, Jackie Dunbar and I visited the yard. We had a look around and saw what was going on. We were then somewhat taken aback by the change and your moving into post.

You gave some dates—four dates, in fact—for the delivery of the Glen Sannox, all of which were missed. I am trying to understand why those delivery dates were missed, because the reason given to the Parliament for David Tydeman’s departure was that he was continually missing such dates. You then went on to miss four handover dates. Could you enlighten us as to why that happened?

Again, I have another simple question. We seem to do land reform around every 10 years. Is it time for further land reform? [Interruption.]

I do not know what has happened to the screens. Is Calum MacLeod still there? I can see everyone again now—it was a temporary flicker.

Just in case you did not get that, I will repeat my question. We seem to do land reform every 10 years. Do we need to do it again? Will the bill improve transparency and the right to sustainable development for communities and ensure the adequate supply of land? That is a very simple question.

We have quite a few follow-up questions.

You know that there are five other shipyards around the world. Was David Tydeman right or wrong?

David Tydeman told us that it would cost £48 million, or nearly £50 million, to replace it. Overinsuring or underinsuring? What would it cost to build the ship today, if it had been done properly?

Thank you. We all hope for a successful outcome; however, I am not sure that I can see it. Unless there are any other questions, I will leave it there.

Thank you for giving evidence. In future, when it comes to giving the committee reports on problems, it is helpful for those to be as detailed as possible. I do not think that we were aware of the anchor chain incident from any of the reports that we have been given. Perhaps I am mistaken—perhaps I did not read it properly.

That is perfect. Thank you.

Time is always against us, and I think that we are only on question three of very many and only on the third committee member who wants to ask a question. I am looking for brevity from now on.

Before I come to the deputy convener, though, I have to say that I am slightly confused: I think that you are both suggesting that the land management plans and lotting ought to have the same threshold—unless I have got that wrong. However, I cannot work out whether you are suggesting that the threshold needs to be less than 1,000 hectares, or whether 1,000 hectares for both is right. Can you comment very briefly, Malcolm, and then Calum?

Welcome back.

Agenda item 3 is an evidence session on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. We will hear from a panel of legal experts, and our focus will be on part 1 of the bill.

I am pleased to welcome Malcolm Combe, who is present in the room and is a senior lecturer in law at the University of Strathclyde. I also welcome Calum MacLeod, who joins us online and is a solicitor in practice in Inverness. Calum, we understand that you are speaking in a personal capacity as a specialist in this area of the law, and not on behalf of your firm. You have nodded, so I am sure that you agree with that.

I also welcome Rhoda Grant MSP, who is online. She will get to ask some questions at the end of the session.

I remind members of my interest in a family farming partnership in Moray, as set out in the register of members’ interests. Specifically, I declare an interest as an owner of approximately 500 acres of farmed land, of which 50 acres is woodland. I also declare that I am a tenant of approximately 500 acres in Moray under a non-agricultural tenancy, and that I have another farming tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland Act) 1991. I also declare that I occasionally take on grass lets for my cattle.

We have allowed an hour and a bit for this part of the meeting.

We will now go to questions. I get to ask the first one, which is the easy one at the beginning. Malcolm, I ask you to say a little bit about your experience in land reform, so that people are aware of it.

I know that Kevin Stewart wants to come in, but before we move on, I will add that, in many cases, land management plans will be based on the principle of people running a business—they will have developed a land management plan to dovetail into their business and meet with the community needs where possible.

If my business was farming, for example—I have already declared that I am a farmer—my land management plan, if I were required to do it, would be about farming. If I sold the land, somebody might buy it to plant trees to meet the Government’s objective to plant trees, which might not meet the community’s need. By making a land management plan enforceable for a period of time, will you distort the land value? If so, how will you compensate it? I am saying that as a surveyor as well.