I remind members that amendments 201 and 121 are direct alternatives. This sounds very odd, but I now call amendment 121, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 201. I am not sure if I am supposed to move chairs, but in any case I will not move amendment 121.

Amendments 121 and 202 not moved.

Amendment 203 moved—[Douglas Lumsden]—and agreed to.

Amendment 204 not moved.

We have now come to a gap, and it is appropriate to take a short break.

I reconvene the meeting. We are making slow and steady progress with stage 2 of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill.

Amendment 157, in the name of Monica Lennon, is grouped with amendments 158, 159, 216 and 170. I call Monica Lennon to move amendment 157 and speak to all the amendments in the group.

Of course, that is in direct contravention of what islanders wanted and what they told the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I am surprised that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, who was a member of the committee when it took that evidence, has not briefed the First Minister about that.

Would the First Minister consider the decision to give the contract to a company whose parent company made a £16 million profit from delivering poor services in 2022-23 to be against the wishes of the islanders?

To ask the First Minister, in light of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry service contract expiring in September, when the Scottish Government will publish the tender process for the new contract. (S6F-03119)

I am not sure how amendment 161 cuts across that work. It applies to people “in receipt of support”. If co-development is being pursued, surely they would be consulted anyway. I do not quite follow your logic. Could you explain that to me, please?

My amendment 169 is a probing amendment, because I want to see where the cabinet secretary is going with the power in section 10. It seems to be a fairly draconian power, as it will give the Government the absolute right, without any right of appeal or ability for the person involved to speak to the Government, to withdraw all payments—and, in fact, to reclaim payments.

In the past, with regard to reclaiming payments, the Government has, interestingly, been draconian by demanding all the money back at very short notice or by refusing support on the basis of rules that some people did not understand. However, when the Government makes a mistake, it is, of course, not held accountable at all.

The aim of my amendment is to get an undertaking from the cabinet secretary that she will meet me to discuss section 10 and see whether there is a way that we can build in a right of appeal, so that anyone who has that draconian power used against them can speak to the Government without the impenetrable barriers that people sometimes meet in the rural payments department.

I propose not to move the amendment if the cabinet secretary gives me that undertaking. If she does not, I will move it and we will see where we go.

I will not be any more verbose than I have been already, convener, so I will just press amendment 183.

I speak to amendment 183 with some trepidation, because the last time that I questioned the Government on enforcement and regulation, I received—surprisingly—a whole farm inspection and a 100 per cent cattle inspection within three months of doing so. I am sure that there was no connection, but we will see whether the same thing happens this time.

I am glad to say that I did not fall foul of the system, but there is genuine fear among farmers when it comes to enforcement and the way in which it is carried out. I have particular concerns about certain provisions in section 16, particularly section 16(2)(i), which relates to monetary penalties. The problem with the European Union with regard to single farm payments was that, if we made a minor error, we got a monstrous fine. For too long in my professional life, when filling out single farm payment claims for clients, I noticed that the Government itself had made mistakes, for which there were no fines and as a result of which farmers were adversely affected.

Amendment 183 seeks to test the water, as it were—or the Government—by proposing that appeals be made within three months. I am trying to see whether the Government agrees that it is reasonable for a farmer to appeal within three months, and if it accepts the amendment, whether it accepts that that appeal must be determined within three months, too. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I will be moving and pressing amendment 183, but I want to discuss the whole section with the cabinet secretary, as I have grave concerns that it will be very inequitable to people who inadvertently make a mistake when filling in a claim. There is just no flexibility in the system.

I move amendment 183.

A constituent has written to me to say that they appealed something and have been waiting for a determination for five years. Surely that cannot be equitable—it must be equitable to sort that out much quicker. After all, people’s lives and businesses are on the line if their appeals are not heard on a reasonable timescale. Do you not think that my amendment proposes a fair way of doing that?