The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19429, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1hr 45 minutes

Groups 4 to 5: 3 hrs 30 minutes

Groups 6 to 7: 5 hrs 15 minutes

Groups 8 to 9: 6 hrs 30 minutes

Groups 10 to 11: 8 hrs 45 minutes

Groups 12 to 13: 10 hours

Groups 14 to 20: 11 hours 30 minutes

Groups 21 to 24: 12 hours 45 minutes

Groups 25 to 27: 14 hours

Groups 28 to 29: 15 hours.—[Graeme Dey]

I call Edward Mountain.

I rise to speak against the business motion, which sets out the timings for the important stage 3 debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Before I say why, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that my family owns in the region of 202 hectares of land in Moray, that I rent about the same amount of land under a non-agricultural tenancy and that I have a tenancy for about 12 hectares under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991.

I have been embedded in land reform since the Parliament was reconvened in 1999. I have seen the 2003 and 2016 land reform acts. As convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I have followed and steered the current bill through stages 1 and 2—listening to witnesses, attending external meetings, visiting community groups and, ultimately, convening stage 2, which took 16 hours and 3 minutes.

I lodged no amendments at stage 2. I chose to listen to the evidence on the 507 amendments that were lodged. I weighed up the strengths and weaknesses of each Amendment and then voted independently on them. After stage 2 had concluded, I considered and formulated my stage 3 amendments.

The Government has lodged 245 amendments over stages 2 and 3. One has to ask why. The flawed bill consists of 137 pages that are riddled with errors. It is clear that, when the bill was presented to the Parliament, it had not been fully considered.

Presiding Officer, you do not have to believe me. One of Scotland’s pre-eminent lawyers, Don Macleod, has said that the bill is “junk law” and is

“an appalling mess that deserves no place on the statute book”.

If members do not believe him, perhaps they will listen to one of our most pre-eminent land reformers, Andy Wightman, who has condemned the bill. He said:

“It would be irresponsible of Parliament to impose new, complex, legalistic and bureaucratic mechanisms on the people of Scotland that will not deliver the outcomes that ministers say that they will. That is just making bad law.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 3 December 2024; c 64.]

The bill is bad, “junk law” that will not deliver land reform or any more agricultural tenants.

On the issue of new tenancies, I believe that the bill will go a long way in killing them off. Who would enter a contract with someone if that contract could be changed unilaterally by somebody else?

However, it is not all bad news. I believe that many of the stage 3 amendments—[ Interruption .] I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I am finding it quite difficult to hear, given the noise to my right.

Let us hear the member, please.

I believe that many of the stage 3 amendments would help to improve the bill. The problem is that we will not fully debate them. Why? The Parliament is limiting the speaking time for each Speaker to five minutes in each group of amendments. That is formulaic nonsense and it is being done because it has always been done that way. That does not make it right. Repetition of a mistake must be a mistake in itself.

I am grateful to Edward Mountain for taking an Intervention on this point. If we look to the timing motion that is before us today, outreach was made in the usual way, as Mr Mountain defines it, about The Times that are available for speaking. Did he have an opportunity to input into that with supporting evidence for why certain areas might have needed more time? That is the practice that has been used in the past and it has led to amendments and recommendations from the Parliamentary Bureau.

I did, and I will come to that. For example, in group 7, a member who has two amendments will get five minutes to speak to them, as will a member who has no amendments. A member who has 15 amendments will also be given five minutes—or 20 seconds for each Amendment.

The Parliamentary Bureau was asked for some latitude and to allow speakers up to 10 minutes in groups in which they have numerous amendments. That has obviously been rejected. It could be argued that, if the member with 15 amendments had split those among their colleagues, giving them one each, that would have created an extra 75 minutes of debating time. I am not going to play that sort of game. Ideocracy would perhaps appease some but would increase the speaking time by seven times--that is why it is a nonsensical format.

I am a committed parliamentarian. I am also a realist. I want to debate issues. I want to make good legislation for the people of Scotland that everyone in the chamber can be proud of. I accept that not all amendments will be approved, but preventing them from being fully explored when the advice is that the bill is flawed and ill-conceived is undemocratic.

I urge members to vote against the business motion. It shows the very worst of the Parliament, which is being given an archaic clerical formulary procedure that shuts down debate and increases the likelihood of bad legislation. To be clear, a vote for the business motion is a vote to put timekeeping before debate and over good legislation, which is an affront to democracy. On that basis, I urge members to vote against the motion.

I call Graeme Dey to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.

The Parliamentary Bureau appreciates that the member has a number of amendments at stage 3 and is keen to have an opportunity to discuss them all in the chamber. Equally, we must be realistic about the parliamentary time that is available in any given week and between now and the end of the session. The stage 3 in question is already slated to run into a third day.

I and my fellow business managers know that many members have concerns about late sittings. Providing longer speaking slots for members in each group is likely to mean that the number of late sittings between now and the end of the session will increase as we try to ensure that the legislation before us reaches a conclusion before March. Bureau members are very much alert to competing demands. I believe that the proposal that we have agreed and presented to members strikes the right balance.

I understand that the member did not feel able to lodge many of his amendments at stage 2, given his role as committee convener. However, we must recognise that the decision not to lodge them at stage 2 was a personal one, as it is possible for conveners to lodge amendments to Bills that are before their committee. I believe that a number of the amendments in question were lodged by another member, Tim Eagle, at stage 2, so they have received consideration from the lead committee.

We must keep in mind the volume of legislation that we have left to consider in this session and we must ensure that we are being as efficient as we can be with the time that we have left and leave chamber time available for other bills that are coming down the line. I ask members to support the timetable motion.

The question is, that motion S6M-19429 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a Division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

We move to the vote on motion S6M-19429. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not work. I would have voted no.

Thank you, Ms White. I note that your app was not working. Your vote will be recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a problem with my phone. I would have voted yes.

Thank you, Mr Kidd. Your vote will be recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a similar situation to Bill Kidd. My phone would not connect for the vote.

Ms Grahame—

Postscript: I would have voted yes.

Thank you, Ms Grahame. Your vote will be recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a similar issue. I would have voted no.

Thank you, Mr Balfour. Your vote will be recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had connection problems. I would have voted yes.

Thank you, Mr Leonard. Your vote will be recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Thank you, Ms McNeill. Your vote will be recorded.

The result of the Division on motion S6M-19429, in the name of Graeme Dey, is: For 86, Against 29, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1hr 45 minutes

Groups 4 to 5: 3 hrs 30 minutes

Groups 6 to 7: 5 hrs 15 minutes

Groups 8 to 9: 6 hrs 30 minutes

Groups 10 to 11: 8 hrs 45 minutes

Groups 12 to 13: 10 hours

Groups 14 to 20: 11 hours 30 minutes

Groups 21 to 24: 12 hours 45 minutes

Groups 25 to 27: 14 hours

Groups 28 to 29: 15 hours.