���˿���

I want to come in on that very point. Presumably, most of us agree that the SPS agreement in itself is fine, but dynamic alignment is a risk. I guess that my question is this: what does that mean? What could the risks be of looking through the looking glass? What are the risks for businesses, farmers or your own members?

Thank you.

I want to follow up on Elena Whitham’s question, and my question is probably more for Jimmy Buchan than anyone else, although I would be interested in whether there is an agricultural product point of view on this, too. To what extent will processors in Scotland benefit from the deal? I note that there has been a 68 per cent reduction in landings into Scotland by foreign vessels. Will there be more products coming to UK processors and then shipped on to Europe because of the deal?

I want to raise an issue with you, Elspeth Macdonald—it is one that has been slightly covered. In an ideal world—which we do not live in, but if we had one—when we balance the need for a trading relationship around the world and particularly with Europe, what would that arrangement look like? You mentioned annual negotiations, but what might the quota have looked like?

I am sorry, convener, but I will be slightly awkward. I have no issues with the seed fees instrument but, out of interest, do we happen to know the equivalent costs in other countries? There were no consultation responses, so I am just curious.

I just wondered whether the increase is fair. It is an increase of 6-point-something per cent, and I am always cautious of cost.

We had significant discussions on that behind the scenes. We came up with a period of 60 days because we thought that it was reflective of the current planning process. It fits in with the legislative requirements that already exist.

Amendment 157 therefore seeks to prevent landowners from being stuck because they have to wait for an undefined period for a decision and potential sales from being hindered in the process.

My amendment 448 would delete some of the conditions in proposed new section 67P of the 2003 act that relate to when an application that requests a review of a lotting decision is valid. The bill sets out that an application is valid if it is made

“(i) in the case of the first application to ask for a review of the lotting decision, more than one year after the decision was made, or

(ii) in any other case, more than one year after Ministers received the last application to review the lotting decision.”

Amendment 448 would delete those provisions. I do not believe that landowners should have to wait for a year before they may reapply.

My amendment 449 would also delete some of the conditions in proposed new section 67P of the 2003 act that relate to when an application that requests a review of a lotting decision is valid. As I said, the bill sets out that an application is valid if it is made

“(i) in the case of the first application to ask for a review of the lotting decision, more than one year after the decision was made, or

(ii) in any other case, more than one year after Ministers received the last application to review the lotting decision.”

Amendment 449 would replace that period with a six-month waiting period after a previous application for a review.

My amendment 457 would introduce a third option to the appeals process. Proposed new section 67U of the 2003 act provides that the landowner may appeal against a decision that their land may only be transferred in lots. On receiving such an appeal, the court will be able either to uphold the lotting decision or to quash it. Amendment 457 would also allow it to rule that the land is to be lotted in accordance with any plan that the landowner had submitted at the time when the lotting decision was made. That recognises that the proposals in that plan might be better, more sympathetic to the land use and more commercially realistic.

My amendment 163 seeks to add a new chapter to proposed new part 2A of the 2003 act. It would allow prohibitions on the land to be lifted if no lotting decision or review of a lotting decision was made within 60 days. That would prevent sales from being significantly impacted by the fact that ministers had made no decision. The most critical thing is that we ensure that the bill contains the right timeframes for ministers’ decisions on lotting.

My amendment 461 seeks to improve parliamentary scrutiny of this framework bill. It would require any regulations that are made under the provision in amendment 440 to be subject to section 98(5) of the 2003 act. That would mean that any statutory instruments would have to be laid before the Scottish Parliament and approved by it.

I move amendment 434.

My understanding is that the issue has been widely discussed among stakeholders and Government. Indeed, questions were raised about it in the Parliament during a rural affairs portfolio question time not that long ago.

I will not go into the full depth of it, but there are particular reasons for the approach in the legislation. NatureScot took the approach that Mark Ruskell is laying out now, but—I think that this might be in my notes—that was quickly changed back on the advice of a King’s counsel. I think that Mark Ruskell is trying to close that loophole, but there were very clear reasons why it is more appropriate for the grouse licence to apply only to the area where shooting occurs rather than the whole landholding where other shooters might be coming in or where there might be other issues with separate landowners.

I have a couple of comments. Overall, I think that some stakeholders are still significantly concerned that the lotting provisions are pretty unworkable. NFU Scotland published an interesting blog on that at the end of last week, I think, and Scottish Land & Estates has also commented on the issues. I have been reminded by someone that it is imperative that the European convention on human rights principles of public interest, rational connection to a policy intent, proportionality and balance should be satisfied when we look at lotting, and I am not completely convinced that those principles have been satisfied.

In saying that, I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for being willing to work with me on timeframes, which are very important. I am happy not to move those amendments so that we can have a discussion about it.

My amendment 434 looks at how landowners can be involved in the process of lotting, because they will know about services, water pipes and all those sorts of things that would be relevant. I will not press my amendment at this point and am happy to work with the cabinet secretary on potentially including such provisions in guidance instead.

Not moved, convener.