 That concludes portfolio questions on social justice. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 11743 in the name of Marie Gougeon on the appointments of the chair and commissioners of the Scottish Land Commission. I call on Marie Gougeon to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, around five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In line with the requirements of the 2016 Land Reform Act, ministerial appointments to the Scottish Land Commission are one of a small number of public body boards where appointments are subject to parliamentary approval. Section 10.2 of the act sets out that the Scottish ministers may appoint a person as a member only if the Scottish Parliament has approved the appointment. It does not specify the process that must be followed to obtain parliamentary approval. The parliamentary process to be followed on this occasion was agreed with the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee following an exchange of letters with me. This correspondence was published in full on the committee website on 18 December. The committee agreed that it would take the same approach to consideration of these appointments as it did with the appointments to the Board of Environmental Standards Scotland. That was to consider the role descriptions and person specifications prior to advertising, receive information on the proposed candidates from the Scottish Government, consider and come to a view on whether the process followed and the proposed appointments were satisfactory and make this view known to Parliament prior to chamber motion. The convener also confirmed in a letter to me on 12 September that the committee had agreed not to hear from the candidates either at a formal meeting or informally as part of the appointment process. Appointments to the Scottish Land Commission are regulated by the Ethical Standards Commissioner and the appointment process has been conducted in line with the code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland. Details of the agreed parliamentary process were subsequently published in the applicant information pact for candidates, as required by the code of practice. I appointed a selection panel to carry out the appointment process on my behalf, consisting of the Deputy Director for Land Reform, Rural and Islands Policy at the Scottish Government, the outgoing chair of the Scottish Land Commission, Andrew Thin and an independent panel member, Dr Pratysia Armstrong. The Ethical Standards Commissioner decided that I should be overseen at all stages of the appointment process, meaning that an adviser from his office was also assigned as a full member of the selection panel. I delegated the creation of the appointment plan, assessment and undertaking of the fit and proper persons test to the selection panel. The code of practice requires that the selection panel only recommends the most able candidates to the appointing minister. I did not have visibility of the candidates ahead of the selection panel's recommendations. I received a summary from the panel once the assessment was complete. The posts were publicised widely online and circulated to a wide list of stakeholders. Applications were encouraged from a diverse range of backgrounds and the Scottish Land Commission also ran two information events for potential applicants to find out more about those roles. A total of 17 applications were received for the land commissioner roles and seven applications for the chair. I am grateful to the net zero committee members for their engagement throughout the process and for their careful consideration of the appointments. I therefore welcome its recommendation in its report to Parliament that Michael Russell be approved as the next chair of the Scottish Land Commission and that Craig MacKenzie and Deborah Roberts be approved as land ministers. In accordance with section 114 of the 2016 Land Reform Act, a statement was laid in Parliament on 29 November explaining how Scottish ministers have complied with their statutory duties under section 111 to 113 of the act. We have a process for those appointments and more generally for all ministerial appointments that is robust, fair, transparent and accountable. Cabinet Secretary, if you could just take a seat at the moment. I am hearing shouting and commenting and it is simply not going to continue. Members will be well aware of the standing orders of this Parliament and if they feel unable to adhere to them perhaps they might reconsider their behaviour as elected representatives. Cabinet Secretary, the commentary there was entirely unacceptable. Mr Stephen Kerr shouted out the word corrupt. I do not know if you heard that, Presiding Officer. I assume not, but that is entirely unacceptable. I would just point out to all members the need at all times to conduct one another in a courteous and respectful manner. For Scottish Land Commission appointments we also have a parliamentary scrutiny process underpinned by statute put into effect by the Scottish Government. That is rightly so. Ministers appoint Parliament scrutinises and I want to thank everyone who has played their part in this appointment round. I also want to put on record my sincere thanks to the outgoing commissioners David Adams, Megan McKinnis and the chair, Andrew Thin, for their achievements and contributions. With the other commissioners they have worked really hard to develop an incredibly effective organisation. From getting the commission up and running on time on 1 April 2017 to establishing it as a respected and authoritative voice on land reform have been marvellous achievements setting the commission on a really firm footing. The leadership of Andrew Thin has been key to all that and I also want to pay tribute to his long track record of effective and diligent public service. The new chair and land commissioners now have the opportunity and challenge to build on those achievements and continue the work to create a Scotland where everyone can benefit from the ownership and use of the nation's land and assets. As we enter a further period of land reform so too will the role and work of the commission enter a new phase and I look forward to working closely with it on that journey. That is why I am therefore pleased to recommend that the Parliament approves those appointments and I am therefore move the motion in my name. Thank you. I now call on Douglas Lumsden to speak to and move amendment 11733.1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's regretful that the committee was not able to come to a unanimous decision on this issue and perhaps the fact that the vote split along party lines tells us a lot about the situation that we are now in because make no mistake this is a political appointment for an increasingly desperate devolved government. Let's look at how the appointment was announced. On December 1, we heard that Mike Russell had stepped down from his role as president of the SNP. The SNP spin machine swung into action and a couple of hours later an SNP press release told us that he was taking up the role as chair of the Scottish Land Commission. No doubt to quell rumours on why he was leaving. No respect to process, no respect to this Parliament, this is what the SNP had decided and no thought at all for the respect to the other candidates, simply jobs for the boys. Presiding Officer, the job profile calls for someone with integrity and someone who can be an ambassador, yet Mike Russell has continuously made disparaging comments in the media about people in public life, describing a well-respected female MP as having a tantrum and another MSP as arrogant, shocking words from someone who is supposed to build relationships. In other comments, Mr Russell has described political opponents as enemies and conservative MPs as traitors and hard right. This is the person who will be speaking on behalf of the Scottish Land Commission, a person who has used a grade in language towards women in public and called people that don't agree with his politics enemies. Yet we are supposed to believe that he will now build relationships and engage with stakeholders. What an absolute joke, Presiding Officer. This is bad judgment appointment that will not build bridges but will sow division and be bad for our rural sector. This is the SNP politicising the commissioner role at the time when the Scottish Land Commission will play a vital role in feeding into the land reform process. It is the equivalent of marking their own homework and should be resisted. Jobs for the boys, Presiding Officer, and the fact that the SNP and their green lap dogs are simply going to vote this through to keep their cabal together and the last gas before Christmas recess is simply shocking, making bad decisions that will harm the future of our rural sector in a week that saw the worst budget for Scottish businesses and for our rural economy. Scotland's rural community deserves better than this. This parliament deserves better than this. This appointment simply reeks of nepotism and we all deserve transparency and clarity from the Scottish Government and ministers. His blatant lack of respect for democratically elected individuals, his use of derogatory language and his nasty comments about others on social media should have been investigated by the recruitment panel. If it is open and transparent then what did they make of those comments and if they did not take them into account then why not? The committee should be able to question the applicant prior to this appointment so that we can ask these questions in an open and transparent way. The sidelining of this parliament is a disgrace. The leaking to the press is a disgrace and this proposed appointment is a disgrace. We all deserve better than this and I move the amendment in my name. Members of the open government partnership, we are working alongside governments from all over the world to open up government by committing to the values of openness, transparency, accountability and citizen participation, the opening paragraph to the Scottish Government's open government partnership. As Juliet Swann from Transparency International has said, a lack of complete transparency leads to rumour. He has said, conjecture, which all undermine the principle of openness, which is so celebrated by this Scottish Parliament when it was first founded. To go back to a motion that passed this House on 3 May 2023, the Parliament agrees that good governance and transparency are matters of the utmost importance. To reflect again on the Nolan principles of objectivity, accountability and openness, holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and be held to account. Holders of public office should act and take decisions in open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear, lawful reasons to do so. Indeed, back in 1997, the very founding principles of this parliament are an accountability, open and encouraged participation, power sharing and equal opportunities. We have heard from the Minister the Scottish Government's commitment to this parliamentary scrutiny. We have before us a situation where, on 18 December, two of the Land Commissioner vacancies became vacant and that the chair vacancy does not arise until 18 March next year. The amendment that sits before us allows an opportunity for the committee to review the decision, not about all three nominees, but about one who will not take their seat until next year. It may well be, and I disagree with the previous contribution quite strongly, it may well be that this is the best person to hold the post. I also agree with the Minister that there is evidence that the committee, before they knew the names of any of the nominees, said that they were going to follow a procedure that had been adopted in the past. However, to honour scrutiny, to allow someone to take a role that they know that their appointment has been scrutinised fully and that the people of Scotland can have absolute confidence that they are the right people for the job, is something that this chamber, that this Scottish Government has spoken about for this session, for the previous sessions and indeed from the very founding principles of this Parliament. We have an opportunity for the Scottish Government to take, and I agree that it is a difficult decision, but one that will not prevent the work of the commission, because two of the commissioners have been supported and can take up the vacant post, and the chair, I am sure, and I do not speak on behalf or even intend to speak for the committee, can have a public hearing before that date to reassure themselves that, just as the Minister is confident that the information that she was given in the recruitment process is accurate, they can be confident that it has been applied accurately and the right person is being appointed for the job. It is an opportunity, and I think irrespective of the individuals that are concerned in this, we have an opportunity to say to the people of Scotland, we are transparent, we do stand by that, and even when it is a challenge, we support it. I am grateful, I call Bob Doris. I am relatively new to the net zero committee, so my role in this process is to content myself that the previous members of the committee that had agreed a process between the net zero committee and the Scottish Government that had been fulfilled, fidelity to the process, had been carried out and all underpinned by the office of the commissioner for ethical standards. That was my duty as an individual new member of the committee. Having looked at the information available to us, it was clear that that was the case. My following comments, I do not include Mr Whitfield in the observations that I am now about to make, but we have to look at motivation for objecting to this appointment. We have already heard the Scottish accusations for the dead's position from Mr Kerr, shame on him, and Mr Lumsden has said in public what his motivations are. Is it to rerun an interview process that was independent of government and overseen by the office of the commissioner for ethical standards? Is it to make up unsubstantiated inflammatory and superiorist political points at a committee? I suspect so. Is it to honour the fidelity to the process that our committee signed up to? Absolutely not. I look forward to the new chair when he takes place to having an early attendance at our committee, and I fully expect robust exchanges. That is absolutely as it should be. My role here is simple. I need to assure myself that what the committee said would be a robust, clear, open, certain, independent, scrutinised process, not just by our committee, but the commissioner for ethical standards has been adhered to, and it has. On that basis, and on that basis only, I will support all appointments this afternoon. First of all, I thank Kevin Stewart for making his point of order and putting into the official record the comment that I made from a sedentary position, which, at this process, has every sign to those who are observing the proceedings of this Parliament, this has every sign of something that could easily be perceived as being a corrupt abuse of power. Mr Kerr has been mindful of the fact that this process in terms of the public appointment that we are considering today has been undertaken in the same way as every other public appointment through the same process. Is Mr Kerr unwisly, in my view, if this is the case, questioning the ethical standards commissioner for public life in Scotland? I am questioning the suitability of the former president of the SNP and the former interim CEO of the SNP to be an appropriate person to hold such a critical and sensitive role. On top of that, there is the stench of cronyism and deep cynicism from the SNP to put forward this name at this moment, on the very last moment of the very last sitting day before the Christmas recess. Mike Russell has engaged in personal abuse as stocking trade for his style of politics. He has gone beyond the boundary of robust political debate and he has described those who disagree with him as being—yes, I will. Kevin Stewart. Kerr has just said that Mr Russell has gone beyond robust political debate—a situation of pots, Colin Kettle's black, I would say. I would say, of course, that it is up to you in the chair, that what Mr Kerr has said today has gone way beyond robust political debate. I was not sure if that was an intervention or a point of order. Stephen Kerr, I will address Mr Stewart and just let Mr Stewart be reassured that I will intervene as and where I think it is appropriate. Stephen Kerr. I believe in robust political exchanges. I believe in robust political debate and I would never deny that. However, when it comes to personally attacking or abusing political opponents, when describing those, when describing—when you have a robust debate in exchange of ideas, you are not attacking the person, you are attacking the ideas and to engage in political debate— Mr Kerr, if you might conclude your remarks, thank you. It is wholly unacceptable for someone who has used political debate as a means of personal abuse to attack people on a personal basis, who has described those who disagree with his ideas as being enemies—enemies of Scotland—that person is inappropriate to sit in this role, and it is deeply cynical of the Government to even suggest this and Scotland can see it. You must conclude. Thank you, and this is entirely a matter for you, but I seek your guidance on whether the member who has last spoken has crossed the line between criticising an individual and casting doubt upon the efficacy and propriety of the processes of this Parliament. Thank you, Mr Allan, for his contribution. As I have previously said, I will intervene as and when I think it is necessary, and we now move to winding up. Given Mike Russell's legendary reputation for modesty and self-effacement, I, like the chamber, will be astonished that he has managed to overcome this and consented to be nominated, how he must have agonised, as he resigned, from those so many prestigious, if empty, political honorariums that only days before he had so coveted. One can only speculate that what this was about was a well-remuniated role that first appealed to him. We know this master of self-awareness will have realised the problem already. In a second, we know he'll do anything for independence, even ride around in a horsebox for a summer tour, but can he truly be independent? The evidence is clear that he cannot. I'll take the intervention. I thank the member for taking the intervention, and just so we can be clear that what the acme of good practice is and appointments, what does the member think of the appointment of people like Michelle Moan or other people to the House of Lords? The appointment that we are discussing right now is about Mike Russell, the previous chairman of the SNP party. Mike Russell has called his political opponents enemies. He's called his political opponents anti-Scottish. This is a man who just blamed last month the Scottish Conservatives for the scandal over Michael Matheson's £11,000 iPad bill for streaming Celtic games in Morocco. His judgment is skewed, he is biased beyond repair, and he is clearly unfit for such an important role. Although the SNP Government have delayed it, we are about to embark on important legislation regarding land reform. This process was supported by the formation of the SLC in 2017 chaired by Andrew Thin. For five years, he and the SLC have stimulated debate based on issues, not politics. Mike Russell's uncompromising and entrenched political views and his divisive approach will undermine that important work. Not only is there a fear that politics will dominate land reform and not the issues, but that many organisations who know Mike Russell and his views will cease to engage. So this job for the boys is going to compromise land reform, not to facilitate it. Why has the man infamous for his died-in-the-wil nationalism suddenly decided he wants to move away from party politics? Earlier this year, the former SNP president said, in my 50-year association with the party, this is the biggest and most challenging crisis we've ever faced, certainly whilst we've been in government. So when the tough gets going, Mike gets going. In that same interview, he said, my main focus is how to create a yes movement that allows for different visions but conducted in an atmosphere of mutual trust. That should disqualify him for this post. He made it abundantly clear that his main focus in his own words was creating a new yes movement. The SLC doesn't need a yes man. It needs someone credible to make their own decisions, not toe the party line and act on the SNP's behalf at every turn. Mike Russell will do the SNP bidding. He won't act in Scotland's best interests. I urge members to vote against this appointment. I now call on Mary Gouzon, Cabinet Secretary, to wind up the debate. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I was going to say that I'm just really disappointed at the turn that this has taken today, but I'm actually not just disappointed. I'm actually disgusted at some of the comments that I've heard about the process through the chamber this afternoon. The only thing that's been a disgrace about this today is Douglas Lumsden's politicisation of this process and the disgraceful comments of Stephen Kerr. Land reform is, of course, a key priority for this Government and our co-operation partners. From the contributions across the chamber, I know that this is an issue that's important to the Parliament. The Scottish Land Commission is clearly important to the delivery of land reform measures already enacted and to supporting that further reform with advice and research. Those appointments are therefore significant, so it's important that we get this right. I would say that we have done that. The ministerial appointments process has been adhered to fully and, additionally, I just want to reiterate a few points. The parliamentary scrutiny process was agreed with the lead committee via correspondence in advance of the appointments being advertised. The details of the role that the committee would play were subsequently published in the applicant information pack for candidates, as required by the code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland. In addition to complying with the statutory requirements and the lead committee's handling preferences, the appointments were fully regulated by the ethical standards commissioner and their adviser was a full member of the selection panel that I appointed to oversee the process, not at the moment. However, Mr Lumsden's amendment to the motion infers that the committee, in which he is a member, was not given the opportunity to scrutinise the appointments. That is patently not the case. It was offered that opportunity back in September, yet chose not to do so. In fact, in a letter from the NZ committee to myself, dated 12 September, the convener stated, for clarity, that the committee has agreed not to hear from candidates, either at a formal meeting or informally, as part of the appointment process. It feels really disingenuous and inappropriate for some members of that committee to now seek to change their minds. I will repeat that last bit, because I think that it is really important that it feels really disingenuous and inappropriate for some members of that committee to now seek to change their minds once they know who the successful candidate of this process is. Indeed, I would contend that, to allow such an approach, we would discredit and threaten the whole viability. Sorry, cabinet secretary. A point of order, Monica Lennon. I regret that the cabinet secretary did not take the intervention, but that is not appropriate. What I wanted to ask was, yes, we put out that letter in September, but information about the process was leaked to the media, and that should not be lost. Ms Lennon, can I just confirm that points of order refer to whether correct procedural matters in this item of business have been or are being followed? The cabinet secretary has accused the committee of being disingenuous. Part of our scrutiny was to react to information about this confidential process being leaked to the media. Ms Lennon, I will again say that this is not a point of order, and I am going to ask the cabinet secretary to resume. I would clarify that I did not accuse the committee of being disingenuous and inappropriate. I believe that the member has made her point for some members of that committee to seek to change their minds when they know who the appointment is. I want to focus on the independent nature of that process. Following my appointment of the selection panel, I delegated the creation of the appointment plan, assessment and undertaking of the fit and proper person test to the selection panel, and that is entirely in keeping with usual processes for public appointments. I had no sight of that process again until the panel sent me a summary once they had made their assessments, just as happens in all other ministerial appointment processes. For the chair role only, agreement was also required by the First Minister. This is the standard process for the appointment of chairs to public bodies in accordance with the ministerial code. Further, I want to assure the Parliament that this process has been conducted in full adherence with the requirements of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016, the preferred handling of the lead committee, and it was fully regulated by the Ethical Standards Commissioner. If you could conclude please, cabinet secretary. I am drawing out my comments to a close, Presiding Officer. That is why I am confident that the nominated chair and the two nominated land commissioners will join the Scottish Land Commission and contribute their talents, knowledge and expertise. As with all other commissioners, they will make their contribution to the work of the commission with integrity, passion, impartiality, transparency and enthusiasm. I look forward to working with them in the coming months and years to make further vital progress on our land reform journey. That concludes the debate on appointments of the chair and commissioners of the Scottish Land Commission. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is the amendment 11733.1 in the name of Douglas Lumsden, which seeks to amend motion 11733 in the name of Mary Gougeon on appointments of the chair and commissioners of the Scottish Lands Commission be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore, we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.