It is a difficult one. Christopher, do you want to add something?

Okay. Residual manual values, unexpired manual values and all the rest of that can wait until the day, but fixed equipment valuations can start earlier. That is helpful.

I will move straight to Sarah Boyack.

Jeremy Moody eloquently made that point previously and I have noted it. I am short of time, so I will move to Mark Ruskell.

That is very much noted.

The perspective that deer come from the landlord’s holding is very narrow. I think of the number of times that I have seen big herds of deer move a long way to eat rape. If 100 deer are in a rape field at night and have come out of adjacent land, under the bill it would fall to the landlord to compensate for that and to take responsibility for the fixed equipment that was damaged. I am thinking of fences that may be knocked over in the process, although a march fence, as I am sure that Jeremy will confirm, is a joint responsibility between the landowners of the two sides of the holding.

I see the principle of what you are saying if it is just an oasis or an island where the landlord—no one owns wild animals—owns the responsibility for controlling the deer and has the ability to do it, but just as the tenant could not go into neighbouring forestry, nor could the landlord if they do not own it. Jeremy, do you want to comment on that?

I have a question on the period of time after the end of the tenancy. Jeremy, you mentioned Martinmas. It might be that the hefted flock to the hill are being bought at that stage but the tup has only just gone in. If you set the date before or too shortly afterwards, you will have no idea what you are buying, as well as the crop. Is two months too tight? Where do you strike the balance?

I absolutely agree with Christine Grahame’s comment, which is why the fine needs to be sensible enough to stop them doing it in future. Paying a fine of £1,000 is just small change to organised crime; £5,000 might make those criminals sit up.

I am happy to listen to the arguments.

I move amendment 54.

I have some sympathy with the member’s point, but I would say that, if we want to be clever, we do not change the colour of the bin but instead change the colour of the lid, so that every lid shows up. That could easily be done if we came up with a plan.

I listened to what Murdo Fraser said and I am glad that, between them, he and the minister have come up with a solution that will help to remove the scourge of fly-tipping. Of course, a way of funding the removal of the waste is to make sure that we fine the people who deposit it around the countryside in such a cavalier manner, disregarding farmers, landowners and tourists, and causing a blight on Scotland. I have nothing further to say but, if we do not put a monetary value on that—at the same level as the value of fines for what, in my mind, may be lesser crimes—our approach is out of proportion.

I will press amendment 54.

I partly agree with what the minister said on amendment 11. It would be good to have the licence number on the advert, whether it be online or in the paper, to make sure that enforcement happens.

However, what we often see going around Scotland are vans loaded to the gunwales with a whole heap of waste. We do not know whether they are going to the right place or the wrong place, but we know that, if they do not have their licence number on the side of the van, there is a fair chance that they are going to the wrong place. Amendment 11 would allow a level of enforcement that we are not capable of at the moment.

It was not that long ago that the system through which our scrap dealers were paid had to change; people had to give their names and addresses for any scrap that they were dealing in. That did not cause a huge amount of problems. I am sorry, but I think that the minister is missing an opportunity to cut down fly-tipping and decrease the cost to people around Scotland who currently have to bear the costs of clearing it up.

I know that the minister wonders whether my research into bins across Scotland has gone too deep, but I agree with what Mr Macpherson said: if we increase the value of the recyclate, we will end up getting more operators. Let us not forget that only 43 per cent of our household waste is being effectively recycled. If we could find a way to improve the system in 10 years, there might not be a huge amount tomorrow, but we could work towards it. Instead of allowing the system to further fragment, as we have done in Aberdeen with the fiery-red bin that was introduced a couple of months ago, we could try to come up with a system that would help make our recycling more efficient.

If it is not possible to support my amendment 56, the minister could, of course, support Mr Golden’s amendment 57. I would not dare say that that one is secondary, but mine comes first.

I will press amendment 11.