Perfect. I got it right, through you. Fergus Colquhoun is an advocate at the Faculty of Advocates. I also welcome Dr Jill Robbie, who is a senior lecturer in the school of law at the University of Glasgow, and Don Macleod, who is a partner at Turcan Connell.

Like last week, I want to declare an interest that I have in a farming partnership in Moray. It is all set out in my entry in the register of members’ interests. Specifically, I declare an interest as an owner of around 500 acres of farmland, of which around 50 acres is woodland. I declare that I am a tenant of around 500 acres in Moray under a non-agricultural tenancy and that I have another farm tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I also declare that, sometimes, I take on grass lets on an annual basis.

The deputy convener will now make a somewhat shorter declaration.

Oh, perfect. Thank you very much.

We will go through part 1 of the bill, and then we will suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a changeover of witness. Don Macleod will step down and Grierson Dunlop, who is also a partner at Turcan Connell, will take over. Dr Jill Robbie will leave us at that stage, too, because part 1 is her specialty.

Let us move on to questions—the easy bit. I ask each of you to explain briefly your experience in land management. We will start from my right—the witnesses’ left—then work along the line. Gail Watt, will you say a wee bit about your experience?

The first question will come from the deputy convener.

I apologise to Ben Macpherson.

Mark Ruskell wants to come in briefly with a supplementary question.

I agree with Rachael Hamilton. I also agree with Ariane Burgess that if someone has dishonestly claimed money they should lose their subsidy. They should lose all their subsidy, as far as I am concerned. However, if they have made a mistake, they should not be fined for that. I do not accept Ms Burgess’s argument that big landowners who make large claims will get away with more. They would have to pay all the money back and also receive a 10 per cent fine. For example, if they misclaimed a subsidy of £50,000—members will be able to do the maths—they would have to pay back the £50,000 plus a £5,000 fine. That is quite draconian when subsidies probably make up 18 to 20 per cent of farmers’ income.

I urge members to support my amendment 48. It represents nothing more than a way of trying to make the long nights of filling in claim forms easier for farmers, in the knowledge that if they genuinely make a mistake, say through misdeclaring a small amount of area, they will not lose all their subsidy.

Sorry, Presiding Officer. I decided not to move that amendment, because I had assurances from the cabinet secretary.

Amendment 48 not moved.

Section 17—Publication of information about support

Amendment 49 moved—[Richard Leonard].

Amendment 50 is a simple amendment to get to the bottom of what “sustainable and regenerative agriculture” means. It was driven home to me this morning at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, when we heard a call for that term, which is being used in relation to land reform, to be explained. I have been farming for 40 years, and I think I know what is sustainable and regenerative, but I do not know what it is in law, so I am calling on the Government to set that out within a year of section 26 coming into force, so as to explain it to humble people like me.

I move amendment 50.

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I voted, but I am not sure whether my vote has been recorded. I would have voted yes.

I will speak to a few amendments, if I may. Before I do so, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a third-generation farmer in Moray and have been farming for 40 years in a family farming partnership. I farm 500 acres that I own, 500 acres that I rent and 10 acres under an Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 tenancy. I employ three people and I produce beef, barley and vegetables. I receive payments under the current scheme. I think that is about as full and frank as I can be.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 2 is extremely useful. The Pack review and other previous reviews of agricultural policy led to a complete change in where subsidies are paid, so it would be useful to have an indicative multiyear financial framework that could allow farmers to see where the money is going. I also like the cabinet secretary’s amendment 8 about the overview of support and I support the amendments in Rachael Hamilton’s name, especially amendments 23 and 11A. They prove the importance of the Parliament’s committee system—we do Parliament a disservice if we do not recognise the importance of that system.

I do not support amendment 22, in the name of Ariane Burgess, because it appears that she wants the way that farming should be carried out to be written into the bill. I do not think that that is a role for politicians; it is the role of farmers in response to guides and nudges by politicians about what they want to achieve.

I support amendment 11, in the name of Mairi Gougeon. It is really important to support engagement and the people who engage with the process. That is something that I pushed for by lodging amendments at stage 2 and I am delighted to see that embodied in the cabinet secretary’s amendments at stage 3. I do not always say such nice things about the cabinet secretary, but it is a pleasure to do so.

It is also a pleasure to support amendment 10. I am not sure what amendment 10B would achieve, because the bill includes the ability to cap payments and I do not think that amendment 10B is much help.

Amendment 26 has already been covered, so I think that that is enough from me. Those were some thoughts on some of the amendments.