 Rhyw pethau hynny. Rhyw pethau ein gweld ffuznes yn ymwethaf diweddwg yn 1, 4, 8, 3, 3, The next item is stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is Scottish Parliamentary Bill 24A, the marshaled list and the grouping of amendments. I would remind members, although many will be aware of this, that the division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds, thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request to speak button as soon as possible after I call the group. I will turn now to the marshaled list of amendments. I will call amendment 1 in the name of John Scott, grouped with amendments 2 and 4. Amendment 2 would require the creation of a list of assets to be managed by Scottish ministers or Crown Estates Scotland and would create a duty to consult individuals or bodies mentioned in 2A or B before making regulations regarding the transfer of assets. The amendment has been brought forward in response to evidence presented to the committee at stage 1, when the committee came to the view that some assets should remain under national management at recommendation 16. That is the view of Crown Estates tenant working group, the NFUS and Scottish tenant farmers association. It is also the view in evidence that has taken about the risk of fragmentation and the loss of critical mass of knowledge within the Crown Estates. Those amendments seek to respond to those concerns and maintain a critical mass of expertise within the Scottish Crown Estates. Amendment 4 would make section 3 1A subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby ensuring a wide consultation process before making any transfer of assets. Amendment 1 is a technical amendment supporting amendment 2. There are no other members who wish to speak. I call the cabinet secretary, Roseanna Cunningham. I thank John Scott for lodging those amendments and for raising the issue for debate. The committee expressed support for some activities to be managed at the national level. Mr Scott has laid amendments that require regulations to be made to list assets to be managed at the national level either by the Scottish ministers or Crown Estates Scotland. The bill allows for management of assets to be devolved to public authorities and community groups that wish to take on this responsibility and who can demonstrate that they have the requisitability and experience to do so effectively. That allows decisions as to who will manage a particular Scottish Crown Estates asset to be taken on a case by case basis. This is an approach that was supported by respondents to the Scottish Government's consultation on the long-term management of the Crown Estates in Scotland in 2017. I believe that Mr Scott's amendments would undermine the case by case approach that the Scottish Government has advocated for the transfer or delegation of management of Scottish Crown Estates assets. As I outlined during the course of stage 1, there may be circumstances where assets may need to be managed on a national basis and any proposed transfer of management will be subject to the Parliament's approval. The Scottish Government's response on the matter to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee's stage 1 report stated that it would regard the question about which assets should be managed on a national basis and which can be devolved to a local level to be a strategic matter that could evolve over time. It would also be dependent on the level of interest expressed by persons wishing to actually manage an asset. I am aware of the strong preference of the tenants for the rural estates to continue to be managed at the national level. I am also aware of the views that exist that some other assets need to be managed at the national level. I considered that to be valid arguments for some assets to be so managed, particularly management of the rights in the 12 to 200 nautical mile zone and leasing for strategic national infrastructure such as telecoms, cables, oil and gas pipelines and offshore wind leasing. I firmly believe that the case by case approach to reform of management, provided for by the bill, can achieve the aim of ensuring that each asset is managed appropriately and at the appropriate level. I therefore ask Mr Scott not to press his amendments. John Scott to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendments. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much appreciate the tone and the tenor of what the cabinet secretary has to say. I hear exactly what she has to say. However, my view remains that it would provide clarity for those considering taking on management of assets or not, if they were clearly defined as to what those assets that the Government would consider allowing to be taken on by others or not. Indeed, the publication of a list would not preclude a case by case approach, which I understand the value of and would support. However, I would press those amendments. Very good. As the member is pressing his amendments, I think that this question is the first question of the day. Hold on one second. I think that I know the answer, but I have to ask first of all. Do members agree to amendment 1? No. Therefore, this is the first vote of the day. Parliament will be suspended for five minutes while we ring the bell and call members to the chamber at which point we will have a division. Thank you very much, colleagues. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. That will be a 32nd division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1, in the name of John Scott, is yes, 28, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of John Scott. Already debated with amendment 1, John Scott to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. We turn now to group 2, which is a minor and technical group of amendments. I call amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 20, 22 and 23. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 9 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendments in this group are all of a minor or technical nature. Amendment 9 simply corrects a reference to subsections, plural in section 3, subsection 2, as a reference should be to a singular subsection. Amendment 20 amends section 13 of the bill so that it is clear that Scottish ministers cannot make directions about charges for the use of assets, where the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017 regulates the amount that can be charged in relation to agreements concerning the granting of rights in certain circumstances, for example rights in tidal waters, pipelines and transmission or distribution of electricity. Amendment 22 will correct a typographical error in section 31, subsection 1, and amendment 23 is a minor technical amendment to ensure that the definition of heritable security is introduced in a way that is consistent to the other definitions in the interpretation section of the bill. I move amendment 9. Thank you very much. No member seems to wish to speak in this group, therefore we move straight to the vote. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 3, which is the transfer or delegation of management to harbour authorities or trust ports. I call amendment 10, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 10 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Government amendments 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 24 have been developed following careful consideration of the amendments lodged by Andy Wightman at stage 2, which sought to allow trust ports to be eligible to become a manager of Scottish Crown Estate assets. I will also discuss Tavish Scots amendments 25, 30, 32, 39 and 40. I accept the principle behind Mr Wightman's original and Mr Scott's now wish to include trust ports and consider there to be merit in expressly allowing harbour authorities, operating within Scotland to be eligible to seek and be given the right to manage Scottish Crown Estate assets. The foreshore and seabed around Scotland forms a significant part of the Crown Estate in Scotland and may include land within a designated harbour area that a particular harbour authority operates in. While the concept of a trust port is recognised within Scotland, it is in fact a type of body that is not actually defined in legislation. Each trust port is an independent statutory body that has a unique governance arrangement and is governed by its own legislation, created by an active Parliament. Mr Scott's amendment 40 would insert a particular definition of trust port in legislation, and the definition of trust port being used is defined as being a port that is the physical structure of a harbour rather than a legal person. The definition also does not make any reference to the need of the trust port to have been given a statutory authority to maintain or manage a harbour. I therefore question whether the definition of trust port in amendment 40 would work as intended. Moreover, trust ports are not the only models of harbour ownership in Scotland. Private ownership and local authority ports, along with trust ports, make up the three main models. I consider that to be merit in not just allowing trust ports to be eligible to become a Scottish Crown Estate asset manager, but also bodies that come under one of these other types of harbour ownership in Scotland as all operate under similar legislative powers and duties. Amendments 10, 13 and 15 have the effect of adding Scottish harbour authorities as a category of eligible Scottish Crown Estate asset manager by way of both transfer and delegation. Amendment 14 provides that, similar to a community organisation, Scottish ministers do not have the power to be able to direct a Scottish harbour authority who is already a manager to delegate to another manager. The definition of Scottish harbour authority set out in amendments 16 and 24 will allow trust ports such as Lorwick Port Authority within Mr Scott's constituency and other Scottish harbour authorities, such as the Tobermorey Harbour Association, to be eligible for a transfer or delegation of the management of a Scottish Crown Estate asset. Although, as far as I am aware, there are no private ports in the Shetland Islands, there are private ports elsewhere, some of them large but also some small private ports, and it would be inequitable to restrict the provision to the pattern of port ownership in Shetland. However, desirable, Tavish Scott may feel that that is. Although my amendments open up the possibility of other types of harbour authority becoming a Scottish Crown Estate asset manager and is not just restricted to trust ports, it remains the case that any regulations transferring management of the seabed will be subject to the affirmative procedure in this Parliament. The Scottish Parliament therefore has the final decision on such transfers of the seabed. In addition, the provisions in the bill that require separate accounting arrangements for Scottish Crown Estate assets from any other money that a manager may hold will provide adequate protection for the asset in such circumstances. Amendment 12 provides that the transfer regulations can make provisions in respect of what happens to the management functions and rights and liabilities in respect of an asset if a harbour authority ceased to exist or no longer had statutory powers to manage a harbour. The provisions are similar to those contained within the bill to deal with the situation where a community organisation ceases to exist. In most circumstances, the Scottish ministers will be aware in advance that a harbour authority is likely to cease to have the statutory power to manage a harbour, as they would be involved in this legal process. However, in the unlikely event that a private harbour authority suddenly ceases to exist, the amendment has the effect of ensuring the continuing management of the Scottish Crown Estate asset. Although I have not yet heard his arguments, I would encourage Tavish Scott not to press his amendments. As explained, I believe that the Government amendments deliver the same objective as his amendments and indeed deliver more. I move amendment 10. I call Tavish Scott to speak to amendment 25 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I entirely take the minister's reason thinking on this matter? I am grateful to Andy Wightman for his previous work on the issue of trust ports in committee. This is about trust ports having the management responsibility for seabed in their area, which is a very important principle of this bill. It was a principle of the Smith commission. A number of us in this place worked on that some years back in relation to island authorities and island responsibilities. It is also a recognition that trust ports, as the minister alluded to, invest all of their income in the facilities that they therefore have to serve the clients of a port—in other words, the harbour users of an area. That is why this measure that is being spoken to today, I believe, is an improvement in the bill. I take entirely the minister's thinking on the amendments that the Government has moved today. The final point, and the only other point that I wish to make in this area, is that, on Friday, Sandra Lowenson, the former chief executive—indeed, the first female chief executive at any port across the whole of the UK, retired after 44 years of service to Lerwick, and I would argue to the port sector at large. For some of us, those amendments today are very much in the honour of her great commitment to the people who serve in ports, the length and breadth of our country. I call two members who have indicated their wish to speak. The first is Claudia Beamish. I would like to speak extremely briefly in support of the amendments and recognise that the reasons for Tavish Scott were during his amendments. I would like to seek some reassurance from the cabinet secretary that the authorities and trusts are constituted in the public interest, just for reassurance, as it is the devolution of the Crown estate that is in the public interest. I also support the affirmative procedure arrangement. It would not be considered to be so. The amendments in this group in response to Andy Wightman's amendments introduced at stage 2 and would further devolve responsibility from the Crown estate to harbour authorities or trust ports, providing more local autonomy. At stage 2, Government concerns centered around the control of ports and harbours in relation to local authorities. We welcome the Government's amendment brought forward in response to Andy Wightman's probing amendments at stage 2, and we welcome the amendments that will be subject to the affirmative procedure. With regard to Tavish Scott's amendments to extend management functions to trust ports, we have concerns over whether individual harbours and ports should have control in the decision-making process and whether or not they should take on management functions. We note that the cabinet secretary still has concerns over Tavish Scott's amendments, and we share those concerns. I am not certain that Mr Scott said that he would press or withdraw his amendments, but we will hear in due course, I dare say. Thank you very much. The cabinet secretary may have already clarified in an interjection, but does the cabinet secretary wish to wind up in this section? No, other than to say that the only concern that I have with Tavish Scott's amendment is that it does not go as far as the Government's amendment, so I am sure that Tavish Scott would be happy to concede that. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. No, we are not agreed. Thank you for clarifying that. We are not agreed. We will move to a division, and this will be a one-minute division. Members may cast their votes now. Amendment 10. The result of the vote on amendment number 10 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham is, yes, 114. There were no votes against four abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 25, in the name of Tavish Scott, has already been debated, but Tavish Scott has to move or not move. We turn now to group 4, which is the management of marine assets by local authorities. Amendment 11, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with the amendments that have been shown in the groupings. Andy Wightman is to move amendment 11 and to speak to all amendments in the group. The Smith commission has already been mentioned, recommended in paragraph 33 of its final report, that, following the devolution of the management of the Crown Estate and I quote, responsibility for the management of those assets will be further devolved to local authority areas. Nowhere in this bill is that pledge fulfilled. As drafted, section 3 gives authority to ministers to make regulations to transfer those management functions to any person mentioned in subsection 2. It remains possible that ministers may not choose to make regulations or may choose to revoke any regulations. In addition, it remains possible that regulations may be drafted in a way that makes the transfer of management functions unduly onerous or complex. The Smith commission recommendation makes clear, however, that the responsibility will be further devolved. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that would have given a statutory right to local authorities to manage the foreshore. I did not press it on the basis that I would have further discussions with the cabinet secretary. I had those discussions with her officials and herself but got no response back, and so I lodged amendment 11, which is less prescriptive than the one that I lodged at stage 2. Amendment 11 is designed to do little more than give a nod to the cross-party consensus of the Smith commission by providing that section 3 regulations enshrine a presumption in favour of transferring management of the foreshore to local authorities. The amendment relates only to the foreshore because it is one of the distinctive ancient crown property rights. Ownership by the crown is regarded by the Scottish Law Commission as a patrimonial right derived from the crown prerogative. It is nowhere defined in statute but is, as the commission notes, merely the predominant modern theory. It plays a distinct and critical role in coastal management, a function that more widely falls into the realm of local authorities. Its history is set out in a recent book by John McCaskill, published by Edinburgh University Press. It is one of which the public interest in the foreshore has frequently been compromised by uncertainty in legal dispute. Such disputes included through the 19th century, including disputes over the rights of crofters, to gather kelp, a topic that will be returning to today. A right that would by now have been enshrined in law, had the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission in 2003 to enact the Seashore and Inland Water Scotland Act being implemented 15 years later. It has not been. Such an act would have enshrined the statutory right to, among other things, make sandcastles, beachcombs, sunbathe and have picnicks on the shore and foreshore, but I digress perhaps. All the other amendments in this group are in the name of Liam McArthur and seek to ensure that section 3 regulations also make provisions for the transfer of management of the seabed within the Scottish Marine region to any local authority that requests such a transfer. Again, those amendments fulfil the recommendations of the Smith commission. Recommendations, as I recall, were drafted by Tavish Scott, who is a former chair and trustee of Lerwick Harbour Authority and knows the thing or two, about the long and malign influence of the body corporate that is the Crown Estate Commissioners. We support all of Liam McArthur's amendments. I move amendment 11. Thank you very much. I call Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 26 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Andy Wightman says, much of what we are talking about this afternoon will draw heavily on the recommendations of the Smith commission. I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of my colleague Tavish Scott for ensuring that the recommendations did indeed fully address the concerns around the Crown Estate. As I said at committee at stage 2, devolving management of Crown Estate in Scotland to the communities with most direct interest in and reliance on the future use of those assets is something that I have been pursuing since before I was elected in 2007. I welcome the bill and what it can help to achieve, but, as many believe, it can and must go further, not least in unlocking and securing the benefits for communities arising from developments in the marine environment at this stage out to 12 nautical miles. It is not just about the revenues, though, it is about how those assets are managed. My amendment 26, much like Andy Wightman, makes clear that relevant local authorities would have the right to request the transfer of responsibility for the management of any area of the seabed from the mean high water spring tides out to 12 nautical miles. The details of the process would be set out in regulation by ministers, subject to review by Parliament, and would give effect to recommendation 32. I think that the member will recall that I previously raised the issue of the sea between Bute and Arran, where the distance between the two islands, which are in different local authorities, is less than 24 miles. Therefore, the way that the amendments before us are constructed would make it impossible for both councils to get out to 12 miles without overlap. I wonder whether the member has given further thought to how that particular issue is a special case that I accept and does not attach to the generality of the argument, and how he thinks that would be dealt with. I appreciate the fact that Stuart Stevenson did, as he said, raise the issue at stage 2. It is not a unique concern in relation to this specific bill. I believe that it could be dealt with through the regulation powers that this amendment puts in place. I return to the Smith's Committee recommendations. As Andy Wightman reminded us, Andy Wightman called for the devolution of those assets to the Scottish Parliament. He went on to state that following the transfer, responsibility for the management of those assets will be further devolved to local authority areas such as Orkney, Shetland, New Helensiaire and other areas that seek such responsibilities. I know that there will be some who argue that communities, not just local authorities, should have the option of making those requests. That will be a point that I think raised in terms of my amendments in amendment 11 that I referred to. I have some sympathy for that, but I am sure that that can again be addressed through subsequent regulation. In any event, devolving management responsibility to local authorities does not preclude and should encourage local authorities to then further devolve that responsibility to local communities where appropriate. The other amendments are consequential in amendment 26, with the exception of 41. I know from speaking to colleagues in other parties over recent days that there are questions about limiting the application of the request power to local authorities defined in the islands act. That might seem a little overzealous, though I believe that those listed in the schedule to the islands act are most likely to have the opportunity, the appetite and indeed the experience to make the best use of those powers. I recognise, though, that in the future perhaps other local authorities and communities might wish to make requests to manage the marine assets of their shores. I will listen to what other colleagues have to say before deciding whether or not to move amendment 41, but I would move amendment 26. Thank you very much. John Scott is to be followed by Claudia Beamish. John Scott. This group of amendments in the name of Liam McArthur and Andy Wightman seek to devolve the management of marine assets, including the four shore and seabed, to local authorities, where they request it. Stage 2, the Government expressed concerns that local authorities might always be the best place to manage the seabed and the four shore, and that is a view that we share. In addition, the committee came to the view in the stage 1 report at recommendation 362 that the seabed is a national asset and should be managed nationally, so we are unable to support that group of amendments. I thank the Presiding Officer. We will be supporting the amendments in group 4 points that have been made about the Smith commission, so I will not elaborate on that, but it is a very important aspect of the devolution that we recognise those commitments that were made at that time in a cross-party way. I wonder whether Andy Wightman, in summing up, might highlight something about the presumption in favour of local authorities, which he has highlighted in his amendment 11, which in his view would not preclude going further to community groups. Liam McArthur has also highlighted that point. I also just want to highlight some concerns that we have on the benches about the points that John Scott was making, although we will support the amendments. Those are particularly in relation to the capacity of local authorities with training and the capacity to monitor seabed issues, particularly in the face of council cuts. I think that the issue around other local authorities is a complex one. Within the Smith commission, as has already been highlighted, it is the island community, the island local authorities, to which these amendments should refer. We are minded to leave it in that way at the moment, but if, in the future, as Liam McArthur made the point, other local authorities had an interest, it might be that regulations might have to be considered or reconsidered. Presiding Officer, the Government will not be supporting those amendments. It cuts across the policy of giving community organisations the opportunity to take on the management of a Scottish Crown Estate asset, including the foreshore. Amendment 26 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to make regulations to transfer to a relevant local authority that requests the right to manage an area of seabed, including the foreshore. It could therefore prevent a community organisation from taking on directly the management of a Crown Estate asset. As yet, although no community organisations from Orkney and Shetland have so far expressed interest in the local asset management pilots, there is interest from community organisations in the western isles, Argyll and Bute, Highland Council and Clyde area. I recognise that Mr Whiteman seeks only to create a presumption in favour of local authorities by amendment 11. Nonetheless, I am of the view that there should be as much of a presumption in favour of community organisations managing Scottish Crown Estate assets. The bill does not contain any presumptions over who should manage any particular Scottish Crown Estate asset. That is, as I believe it should be, as it allows for consideration on a case-by-case basis and allows those who wish to manage an asset to demonstrate why they are best placed to do so. Amendment 26 seeks to require ministers to transfer the right to manage the seabed out to 12 nautical miles if any of the following local authorities request that. Argyll and Bute Council, Western Isles, Highland Council, North Esher Council, Orkney Council and Shetland Council. There are technical issues with this amendment, including its reference to an area of seabed within its relevant Scottish marine region. While the reference to the Scottish marine regions order 2015 may work for the northern and western isles, it is less useful for the other islands councils where the marine regions do not directly correspond to local authority boundaries. For example, there are three Scottish marine regions that include parts of the marine area adjacent to Highland Council, and one of those, the Murray Firth Scottish marine region, also includes the marine area adjacent to Murray Council. Also, the Clyde marine region includes part of the marine area adjacent to Argyll and Bute Council and also includes part of the marine area adjacent to North Esher Council, as well as the marine areas adjacent to other councils, including Inverclyde and South Esher. There is also no parliamentary procedure specified for those regulations. While the bill requires regulations under section 3.1 to be subject to the affirmative procedure, if they relate to an asset, all or part of which is situated in or relates to the Scottish marine area or the Scottish zone, that provision would not apply to regulations under new subsection 3.2a, which would be inserted by amendment 26. It is also unclear what is meant by the transfer of the right to manage the seabed rather than the transfer of the function of managing it. Amendment 31 is similar to amendment 26, but requires ministers to direct Crown Estate Scotland to transfer part of the seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit to a local authority if the local authority so requests. That amendment refers to the transfer of an asset rather than to delegation of the management of an asset, which is what section 4 of the bill is about. However, I think that the intention is to require delegation of the management function rather than transfer of ownership. That also creates a similar problem to amendment 26 in terms of cutting across ambitions of community organisations to become a manager of a Scottish Crown Estate asset. I would expect that local authorities would seek a transfer of management under section 3 of the bill, and it would be more likely that, under section 4, ministers would use that power to direct a local authority to delegate the management of an area of foreshore managed by them to a community organisation. However, it is also possible that a community organisation would like the management of an asset to be delegated to them directly by Crown Estate Scotland. Mr MacArthur's amendment 33 appears to be intended to prevent that. I cannot understand why community organisations should not have the ability to have delegated to them management of an area of the immediate foreshore they have a particular interest in managing. Perhaps it would be helpful to explain the effect of section 4 2. Section 4 2A covers the rather obvious point that ministers cannot direct themselves to do anything. The assumption underlying section 4 2B is that a community organisation is managing its local asset, so it is unlikely that it would seek to delegate that management to another person. To do so, it would be giving away the community's control over decision making. If it does not want to continue the management of the asset, then it can then ask ministers to transfer the management to another manager, be that a local authority, Crown Estate Scotland or another Scottish Public Authority. We would not want to preclude community organisations from managing local Scottish Crown Estate assets, whether under transfer or delegation. For that reason, I cannot support Andy Wightman's amendment 11, nor Liam McArthur's amendments 26 to 31, 33 to 38 and 41. Moreover, there are some serious technical deficiencies with Liam McArthur's amendments, as I have outlined, rendering them unworkable. I would urge Mr Wightman and Mr McArthur not to press their amendments. Andy Wightman, to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 11. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In response to Claudia Beamish, no, it won't preclude transfers to others. Those amendments, I can't speak for Liam McArthur, but certain my own ones, are designed to uphold the fundamental principles that was agreed by the Conservatives, by the SNP, by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Greens in the Smith commission. I reject the notion that it cuts across community bodies. We don't believe that Scottish ministers in any event should be the final arbiter of that anyway, and underpinning my amendment is the notion that it's the place of local government to be making these decisions, not Scottish ministers. Furthermore, those amendments are only concerned with regulations, in particular number 11, stipulating that regulations should only provide for a presumption. Regulations are well capable of incorporating such a provision. Liam McArthur's amendments again place clear duties to be implemented by regulations, again providing plenty of flexibility to frame the duty in the most appropriate manner. I note that the Government is not supporting those amendments and neither the Conservatives. I won't detain members any further, but I should say that I am disappointed in the Government's response to this. I think that it is a betrayal of a clear commitment made by the Smith commission, and I am further disappointed that we weren't able to reach an agreement on the principles behind the amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I press amendment 11. Thank you very much, and the question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We're going to move to division. This will be a one-minute division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 11, in the name of Andy Wightman, is yes, 33, no, 85. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 26, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 11. Liam McArthur to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. This will be a 32nd vote. The result of the vote on amendment number 26 in the name of Liam McArthur is yes, 33, no, 85. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 12, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 10. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 27, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 11. Liam McArthur to move or not move. That's not moved. I call amendment 28, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 11. Liam McArthur to move or not move. That's not moved. I call amendment 29, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated. Liam McArthur to move or not move. That's not moved. I call amendment 13, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 10. The question is that that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. A call amendment 30 in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 10, Tavish Scott to move or not move. That is not moved. A call amendment 31 in the name of Liam McArthur, Liam McArthur to move or not move. Not moved. That is not moved. A call amendment 14 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. That is not moved. Maen nhw'r ddwych wedi'n gwneud. Siwg adnig iawn, 36-38, namesh cookarther. Siwg adnig iawn, 36-37, namesh cookarther, or 38. Siwg adnig iawn, 15, na addedw'r ddweud. Maen nhw'r ddweud. Siwg adnig iawn, 15-32, namesh cookarther, sgw Psychiatraeth, 39, na addedw'r ddweud. A call amendment 16, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. A call amendment 40, in the name of Tavish Scott. Tavish Scott to move or not move. That is not moved. That is not moved. A call amendment 41, in the name of Liam McArthur. Liam McArthur to move or not move. That is not moved. That is not moved. Thank you. We turn now to group 5, which is the duty to maintain and enhance value. A call amendment 17, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Grouped with amendment 18, cabinet secretary to move amendment 17 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 17 has been developed in response to a debate at stage 2 on the amendments lodged by both myself and by Mark Ruskell in respect of the duties on any manager on how it should manage a Scottish Crown Estate asset. I want to put on record my thanks to Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish for the constructive conversations that we have had between stage 2 and today on this particular issue. Amendment 17 places an obligation on managers that, in maintaining and seeking to enhance the value and return of Scottish Crown Estate assets, they must act in the way that is best calculated to further the achievement of sustainable development in Scotland and must seek to manage the assets in a way that is likely to contribute to the promotion and improvement of the wider socio-economic and environmental factors listed. Amendment 18 is consequential on amendment 17. It deletes sustainable development from the list of socio-economic and environmental factors in subsection 7.2b, as the duty to manage an asset in a way that contributes towards sustainable development will feature on its own within section 7.2a if amendment 17 is agreed. I recognise the concerns that are expressed by section 7.2 of the bill that is introduced, and that is why I lodged an amendment at stage 2. That amendment was not accepted, although I undertook to discuss the issues further with interested members. It is as a result of those discussions that I lodged at these amendments. They retain the overarching commercial duty but give greater prominence to sustainable development. I have listened to the concerns of members about the need to strengthen the duty and to the other concerns expressed about the need to maintain the revenue and capital value of the estate. The solution that I have proposed seeks to maintain the value and income from Scottish Crown Estate assets, while requiring managers to act in a way that they think is most likely to further sustainable development and to strengthen the requirement on managers to actively try to achieve the wider socio-economic and environmental factors in carrying out that management. I move amendment 17. There are two members who wish to speak. I call John Scott before by Claudia Beamish. Amendment 17, which has already been discussed by the cabinet secretary, is the May versus must argument. As Scottish Conservatives, we believe that section 7.11 in the bill is introduced at stage 2 was perfectly adequate and left discretion with Crown Estate managers as to whether or not they needed to consider economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing and sustainable development. That presumably was the view of the cabinet secretary at the time that the bill was introduced. However, following the stage 1 report, the Government introduced an amendment in response to the majority of the committee that Crown Estate must, perhaps, consider the above list, which some colleagues thought did not go far enough. My colleague Claudia Beamish, while we on those benches thought that the amendment went too far. The status quo on the bill is introduced remained in place. Today, the Government has reintroduced must back into the remit of a manager at amendment 21 and that managers must now, once again, seek to further sustainable development, as well as deliver economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing. However, while we support the aspiration to do all those tasks, we remain to be convinced that there is an improvement on the bill as introduced, so we will not be supporting amendments 17 and 18. Claudia Beamish This is an important aspect of the devolution of managerial responsibilities. Sustainable development should have the must rather than the may, so I am delighted that the cabinet secretary agrees with that position. I thank her for discussions after stage 2 on Mark Ruskell's amendment, which was supported by my colleague Alex Rowley and I in committee. It is important to highlight that economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing are lists that are of fundamental importance in taking forward the future of the people of Scotland. Therefore, we are very supportive of the two amendments today. John Scott I do not wish to say too much extra, other than to perhaps point out to those such as John Scott, who are not happy about the idea that sustainable development should be one of the things that is taken on board. In actual fact, there are at least three other mentions in other pieces of legislation where sustainable development or similar functions would actually already be part of a manager's duty. John Scott I take an intervention. Sustainable development is very much part of the bill as introduced and we are happy to support that position for the avoidance of doubt and misunderstanding. John Scott I think that the argument is about may and must, which is an argument that has probably been had in this chamber in many different sections of the bill. We wanted simply to place it beyond doubt that it is something that must be considered rather than perhaps be regarded as an optional extra, which was perhaps a suggestion that that might be the case. What I was trying to point out was that Crown Estate managers are under obligations that derive from other pieces of legislation as well. What we want to do with this particular piece of legislation is to make sure that it is very clear on the face of this bill that it applies. The First Minister Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. This will be a one-minute division. Members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 17 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham is yes, 89. There were no votes against 28 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I will call amendment 18 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated. Cabinet secretary, to move. The First Minister Thank you. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. This will be a 30-second division. Members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 18 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham is yes, 88. There were no votes against 28 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I will turn now to group 6. This is on the harvesting of sea kelp. I call amendment 6 in the name of Mark Ruskell, grouped with amendments 7, 8, 19, 21a and 21b. Mark Ruskell, to move amendment 6 and to speak to all amendments in the group. The amendments in this group deal with both a threat and an opportunity. The threat is to our last great wilderness in Scotland, the ancient kelp forests, hidden rich nurseries of nature and commercial fish, vast stores of carbon larger than our rainforests, defenders of our coastlines against the storms to come. The threat comes not from the harvesting of kelp, per se, but from harvesting of kelp in a way that prevents it from re-growing. We know that if kelp is removed in its entirety from the seabed, it may never grow back, and once it is gone, its benefits may be lost forever. The opportunity, however, is to recognise that kelp, if harvested and farmed sensitively, is a wonderful material for food and industrial purposes that can support livelihoods in remote communities. It is then the job of government to set the bar high for the public interest, but allow industry to innovate and respond within the environmental limits. My amendment 21A and B seeks to insert a golden rule into the licensing framework spelled out by the cabinet secretary's amendment 21. The golden rule simply being that kelp must be harvested in a way that does not prohibit the regrowth of the plants. The golden rule is well established and the wording is reflected in the existing licenses for those already harvesting kelp using non-industrial methods. The amendment is worded carefully to ensure that it only covers situations in which kelp material is being used for commercial purposes. Where kelp is removed and discarded, as is the case with clearing navigation channels and harbours or other infrastructure such as nuclear power plant cooling systems, the amendment would not apply. In relation to amendments 6, 7 and 8, those are Latin corrections. It is embarrassing for somebody who has a biology degree, but I will blame Microsoft's spellchecker. I will not be moving them, as the cabinet secretary has corrected my Latin homework in her amendment 21. We will also be supporting amendment 19, which removes my golden rule amendment from stage 2 but allows it to be reinserted again via amendments 21A and B, which I now move, Presiding Officer, in my name but with the valued support of my colleague Claudia Beamish. Thank you very much. I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 19 and other amendments in the group. We all want to protect kelp as an important feature of our marine biodiversity and because of the habitat it provides for other species, including fish, playing a key role in coastal and climate protection. I have listened to views on this important but complex issue. I have decided to lodge amendments at stage 3 to remove and replace section 8A, because a section on kelp that was inserted at stage 2 would not achieve what was intended and could have had serious unintended consequences. The test to be met in section 8A of not inhibiting the regrowth of an individual plant when combined with an absolute prevention on harvesting that inhibits regrowth could in fact prevent the very scientific research that we need to better understand the recovery rate of those species in various conditions in Scottish waters. Section 8A would also have prevented non-commercial but essential maintenance work for safety reasons, such as removing seaweed around cooling systems in power stations or from navigation channels in ports. For example, a marine licence was issued to EDF Energy, operator of Huntingston B power station in August 2017, for the removal of 150 tonnes of various species of seaweed in an area local to the Huntingston cooling water intake. Nor can I guarantee that section 8A will have no impact on existing sustainable seaweed harvesting and the associated income and employment that our rural areas depend on. For all the reasons that I have outlined, particularly because section 8A would clearly prevent activity of public interest such as scientific research that is needed to improve our scientific knowledge of kelp habitats and their rate of recovery, I do not support section 8A and that is existing section 8A. For those reasons, section 8A cannot be left in the bill at this important and final stage of the bill's progress through this Parliament. If I turn now to amendment 21, I remain of the view that the Scottish Crown and State Bill is not the optimal place to control seaweed harvesting. However, Mark Ruskell's amendments have surfaced a range of issues regarding the regulation of current and proposed harvesting activity in this emerging sector. The issues are complex, many are varied and require the gathering of further evidence. Does she accept, however, that the report of the law commission in 2003 that proposed a considerable modernisation of the law of the foreshore and the seabed included, for example, provisions around kelp and crofters right to gather kelp would have been a better place to put this, and would she consider introducing such a bill this session? I am not going to be drawn on increasing the legislative programme in this particular parliamentary session. I am happy to talk to Andrew Whiteman and anybody else who has any further bright ideas, but I think that I would rather focus simply on where we are at the moment. We are having this debate in the context of the Crown and State Bill and there are some issues that, because we are having the debate in the context of this bill, there are some issues that need to be put before the chamber. We need to ensure that existing activity and future proposals are sustainable. However, I have listened to all the views expressed. Amendment 21 would put on a statutory footing that a Scottish Crown and State Manager cannot grant a right to remove wild kelp if the removal is a marine licensable activity and no marine licence has been obtained. That would apply to all managers and would therefore future-proof current good practice that is not, as we speak, a requirement in legislation. Amendment 22 also makes clear that granting such a right is void if a marine licence is required and the marine licence has not been given. In addition, amendment 22 would meet the important test of ensuring that we can still undertake scientific research to enhance our knowledge of kelp that would be put at risk by section 8A, as introduced at stage 2 of the bill. Mark Ruskell lodged amendment 21A to my amendment 21, which reintroduces the key provisions from his original amendment prohibiting the removal of certain species of wild kelp where removal inhibits the regrowth of an individual plant and a critical difference is that it is now limited to commercial use only. As I have already mentioned, this bill is not the best place for a control of this type. For example, it only applies to a manager of the Scottish Crown Estate and only half of the foreshore is part of the Scottish Crown Estate, so it would not deliver the protection sought in all parts of Scotland where the species are found. There is also a risk that Mark Ruskell's amendment could cut across the marine licensing system that Parliament voted for and which is contained in the Marine Scotland Act 2010. However, I am also very aware of concerns that have been expressed in this debate over the past weeks. I have listened carefully to those concerns and having considered them at length, I am willing to provide my support to this amendment. I have concerns about the lack of definition provided in the amendment as to the meaning of the terms commercial use and removal. Therefore, I want to make clear that I support this amendment on the basis that what is not being sought is to prevent scientific research from continuing to improve our scientific understanding of kelp habitats and recovery potential or appropriate research and development for public health purposes such as pharmaceuticals. It will not be preventing power stations—perhaps Mark Ruskell has already alluded to this—to prevent power stations, commercial ports or other similar public infrastructure from removing kelp species for maintenance purposes or other public interest reasons, and it would not prevent hand-cutting above the base of the meris stem where growth occurs or prevent harvesting via hand-cutting, which Scottish natural heritage has advised is sustainable. It is important that I make those assertions on the floor of the chamber. I am confident that those who have proposed amendment 21A would agree that there is no intention for the amendment to cut across the points that have just outlined, and I am highlighting those points just to ensure and invite them to confirm that this is the case for the sake of clarity as to what the chamber's intentions are in voting on this amendment. I cannot guarantee that amendment 20A will have none of those unintended impacts or that it will have no impact on existing sustainable seaweed harvesting, but I would obviously have to consider the need to legislate further if some of those specific issues did arise. I will also consider the need for guidance or directions to managers on these issues if those amendments are passed. Furthermore, I would plan to keep the situation under review and would not wish unreasonably to block the future development of forms of harvesting, which we might in time establish through a proper assembling of the evidence as sustainable. For the time being, given the increasing profile of kelp harvesting as an activity and a view of the need to further our understanding of kelp species, kelp habitats and kelp recovery potential, it is also my intention to keep those matters under review. I am therefore announcing to Parliament today a review of the regulatory regime of all kelp harvesting activity. Members in the chamber may be interested to know that currently there are five different ways in which kelp can be harvested commercially, but it is not simply hand versus mechanical. All those particular ways of doing that should be part of the review. That will therefore include harvesting that is not currently a licensable activity, which I am advised is deemed to be sustainable, but where it seems proportionate and appropriate to examine whether it should be included within an expanded licensing regime. I am confident that the licensing process is robust, thorough and does what it is supposed to do effectively. I am also very conscious of the need for continuous improvement in how we regulate activities in our marine environment, particularly when there is interest in undertaking new or novel activities. I am now forgiving the commitment to Parliament today that Marine Scotland will undertake a strategic programme of work to undertake a review of the regulatory regime for all kelp harvesting activity in Scotland. That will recognise the need to understand and take fully into account in licensing decisions the environmental implications of the removal of kelp from the marine environment by any method, develop locational guidance for potential kelp resources areas and outline the research and evidence-based requirements so that we are better informed on the environmental impacts of developing a kelp industry. That will enable us to make informed decisions on sustainable development of the seaweed sector. Mark Ruskell I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way and the commitment to the review. Can she also confirm that there will be independent scientific advice brought into this, particularly from seaweed academic specialists who understand this area? I will expand on that. The work that I am talking about will involve consideration of the need for a pilot project at an appropriate scale, design and location to collect evidence of the potential environmental impacts of seaweed harvesting and regeneration. I have instructed officials to form a steering group for the strategic programme of work with representatives from key environmental agencies, NGOs and sectoral stakeholders, which will firstly establish the timetable for the work programme in the coming months, including arrangements for reporting progress before ultimately overseeing delivery of the work programme. I want to make it clear that the review is not being undertaken because of any deficiency that is identified in the marine licence system. In fact, the system, in my view, is robust and is being shown to work, but I am conscious that there is current interest and there may be more interest in future in new types of seaweed harvesting in Scottish waters. The review seeks to promote a spirit of continuous improvement and to ensure that we are pushing at the limits of having the very best regime possible. I hope that I have outlined a proportionate way forward, given the current evidence base and complexities. There is a number of five members who wish to speak of this section of the debate. I have called John Scott to be filled by Claudia Beamish. A group of amendments around the harvesting of sea kelp is the only really contentious part of the bill, and the cabinet secretary has just outlined why. In fact, I welcome her announcement. That amendment 42 was lodged by Mark Ruskell at the stage 2 process and accepted for consideration was a surprise, as it was widely accepted that this matter is a licensing issue and should not have been part of the bill. However, the green amendment became part of the bill as amended at stage 2. Today, we welcome the Government amendment 19, which leaves out section 8A, and there the matter should have rested and the proposal for kelp harvesting from MBL should have been dealt with in the normal, well-defined licensing and regulatory way. However, the Government has acknowledged and we too have acknowledged that there are valid concerns to be addressed about the harvesting of laminaria hyperburea. Those have to be dealt with. Those concerns have developed, notwithstanding what the cabinet secretary has just said. It suggests that the public have no faith in our licensing system or our regulatory bodies and developmental agencies, such as Marine Scotland and the Scottish Enterprise and other investment agencies, whose advice and help MBL have sought and relied on in developing the harvesting process as well as the development of a range of groundbreaking medically significant products. Those well-articulated public concerns are what is now driving this debate and support from Mark Ruskell's amendment. It leaves me too wondering if the whole developmental process is indeed fit for purpose, because despite MBL proposals having passed through every regulatory hoop for the last eight years, we have reached a position today where we and Parliament will accept Mark Ruskell's amendment 21A because we accept the concerns expressed by Mark Ruskell and others may be valid. However, if companies such as MBL are not to be forever deterred from carrying out research and development work with a view to bringing new products to markets, rather not—if you forgive me, I'd rather not—derived from natural resources, the whole regulatory and developmental system has to be changed, perhaps radically, or would be investors and innovators will never again look to Scotland as a place to do business. Therefore, in that regard, I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement today of essentially a route and branch review into this whole matter, which, given the circumstances that we find ourselves in, is perhaps long overdue. Claudia Beamish will be followed by Gil Ross. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to speak in support of Roseanna Cunningham, the cabinet secretary's amendment 21 today. I think that this is a helpful amendment and, in terms of, as has been said, future-proofing good practice. I particularly welcome the review of the regulatory regime and the issues that she has highlighted that will be looked into on a scientific basis. That is very important for the future sustainable development of our shores. The Crown Estate Bill, of course, devolves management of the assets, and those are owned by the Crown in the public interest. The seabed forms part of those assets. Thus, my view is owned by the people of Scotland and is a public good that must be managed in all our interests. That means that sustainable development must be at the core of all decision making by managers. The amendment by Mark Ruskell, supported by myself at stage 3, has been highlighted as one by which the Scottish Crown Estate must not grant the right of harvesting wild kelp from any area of the seabed under their management, where such harvesting would inhibit the regrowth of the individual plant. That is fundamental to sustainable development. As such, it is stated robustly as part of the framework of the future kelp harvesting in our inshore waters. It is particularly important in view of the review that the cabinet secretary has announced today of seabed licensing more broadly. Why? Because kelp forests are protected as priority marine features and because of blue carbon issues, which I have worked with over a number of years, not least with the now energy minister, Paul Wheelhouse, to get those into the climate change plan. That is very important in relation to our future emissions. The national marine plan details the issue of climate change and Scottish Environment Links, which is in its submission to our Committee on the Climate Change Bill, that it is essential that Scotland seeks to reduce pressure on carbon sinks and considers opportunities to enhance blue carbon habitats. I would add that it does not diminish them. We must not take that risk. Eco-system protection, coastal erosion, the protection of juvenile fish, the protection of seabirds who feed on sand eels, which I have seen for myself on the North Harris trail this summer, and our protected species are absolutely fundamental. Any future harvesting of the range of kelps in a devolved arrangement should continue to be sustainable, as is at present the case. I now turn very briefly to community and industry concerns and the support of the regrowth of kelp amendment. There have been a wide range of submissions after stage 2. I acknowledge to the Eichler committee expressing cogent and clear reasons why this amendment is valid and should go forward today. Some are scientific and well referenced. Others are about the right to our kelp forests as a public good. The submissions include fishermen's organisations, such as the Scottish Creel Fishermen's Association with 400 members, hand divers for scallops, trawlemen, not always in harmony with those groups. However, on that, indeed, which is a good step, hand gatherers of kelp for artisan youth, marine tourism companies and some community councils. I welcome many of those, along with some primary school children today, into the public gallery to hear how that progresses. I would also point out that there is research work and now some limited farming of seaweed in Scottish waters. As I understand it, the cabinet secretary confirmed that it would not be affected, and that is a welcome statement. At stage 2, I stress that, while supporting the amendment, that this is about the future protection and sustainable harvesting arrangements for Scotland. It is not about any individual application. If this was a land issue, there would be no question of not upholding the principle of sustainable harvesting, and there must not be in our inshore waters. While planted forests are harvested on land, native forests, woodlands and forests are not, with the exception of copicing, which allows regrowth on a limited scale. In the view of Scottish Labour, that is a sea justice issue, parallel to a land justice issue. I add our support to those amendments. I thank the huge contribution that was made by the people, some of whom are with us today in the public gallery, Noel, Janice and the Ulipill Sea savers, Fin, Maya, Alicia, Kaelin and Poppy, and those who cannot be with us today, the sunny side ocean defenders, and all those individuals and businesses that got in touch, signed open letters, petitions, and especially to Ailsa McClellan, whose tireless campaigning has been nothing short of inspirational. The position that is outlined by the cabinet secretary is one that I very much welcome. I also thank Mark Ruskell, Claudia Beamish and Finlay Carson for the way in which they have looked to work on a cross-party basis to deliver the result. In supporting those amendments on the restriction on removal of wild kelp from the seabed, we not only ensure the sustainability of the marine environment but also the sustainability of the local hand harvesters who do so much to manage the kelp supply. However, that is not to suggest that we want to restrict economic or research activity far from it. The proposed regulatory regime outlined by the cabinet secretary gives us the opportunity to ensure that we protect our marine environment and encourage sustainable business along with a wide range of research opportunities open to us. I also welcome the review announced by the cabinet secretary and this will give us all a chance to hear and put on record the necessary evidence to ensure going forward we can achieve the aims that we outlined here today. Presiding Officer, some people in industry have been quoted recently as saying that this gives out the wrong message economically. I do not agree. I would say that it sends out the correct message environmentally. I declare an interest and note that I have less expertise than probably everybody else that has spoken in this regard thus far. My interest is that my forebears would have harvested kelp when cleared off the land and relied on the sea for some kind of sustenance. My forebears, too, had to leave the land and where they wanted to stay, is part of the significant migration out of the highlands and islands into our cities simply because there was not work for them to do. I think that we need to see this debate on kelp and the interest that is generated in that context, not something obscure that is happening somewhere else but something that happened generations ago where there was a failure to create economic opportunities for our communities. I have welcomed—let me make some progress—the willingness over time of Governments of all stripes to seek economic opportunities to sustain fragile and remote communities and rural ones, a willingness to harvest the energy of the wind and the sea in the interests of the people of those communities. I think that we need to see that issue in that context as well. There has to be environmental protections, but it is right that we should be willing to look at the economic social impact as well as the environmental impact. I know what the cabinet secretary has said, and I welcomed her reassurance that she sees this in the context of protection, not just the environment but the economy of local communities. I would ask her if she is coming back in again to make a further commitment to economic regeneration in those times for those communities. When we talk about the commercial interests—perhaps in summing up, Mark Russell can address this question—is all commercial interest bad? If it were a community enterprise or a cooperative enterprise, it still has to be commercially viable. We should be looking for commercial opportunities for people in those communities with the protections that have been identified. I would seek reassurance from the mover of the amendment that he is not suggesting that kelp, where it may be a commercial interest to do so, should be ruled out. I am sure that we are all committed to understanding the protections of our environment, but we also have a duty in terms of the social economic impact of communities to look at proposals. I reflect again on what the cabinet secretary has said. Some of the conversation around this, I think that the language itself has created a reaction. To say that something is an industrial approach is a pejorative term in my view. I think that it has to be an economic approach that secures the environment but creates jobs for people who want to stay in those communities. There needs to be protections, but we should be seeing it in the context of communities that have the right to say that we want economic opportunities in our communities as well as elsewhere. In conclusion, it was important, because we have been lobbied on this, to recognise that people who may want to see kelp being taken from the seas do so as a desire to create economic opportunity, to develop a scientific understanding of the environment. My final point would be to be reassured that we are not simply putting science to one side in those regard. John Finnie. I am grateful for the member for taking intervention. When the member accepts that proponents of the amendment do not want to see an end to kelp harvesting, we want to see sustainable kelp harvesting, which is a different thing. Johann Lamont. Of course, sustainable and commercial seem to be applied as contradictions to each other. They are not contradictions to each other. Perhaps we need to have a conversation about what sustainable is and have a mature conversation across all of us about what we are prepared to see being developed in our remote and rural communities, because there will always be a trade-off. I want my nephews to have the opportunity to live within the communities in which they were born, in jobs that will keep them sustained and keep those communities viable and alive. I do not think that there is a contradiction between those two. I do not even think that people in this chamber are in contradiction with one another. However, I hope, as I think that the cabinet secretary has indicated, that the importance of science and evidence being used is not to suggest that, simply because something is a commercial opportunity, that is a problem for communities. I, as somebody who supports co-operative initiatives, know how they have to be commercially viable and how successful they can be in sustaining the communities that we all care about. I am the biggest fan of kelp with anyone else, including Mark Ruskell, and I share all the environmental observations that have been made that have considerable merit. That is what I said at stage 2, when the amendment that brought section 8 alpha into the bill was brought forward. That was an amendment that was passed by the committee with three votes only in favour and six votes who abstained. Why did that abstention take place? Not because we thought that kelp was not worthy of protection, we do. I think that everyone fought that and continues to think that, but because the process causes us considerable difficulties. Mark Ruskell, in an intervention in this brief debate, said that we now need independent scientific advice. That is a fascinating way to legislate. We pass the law first and then we go into looking at the independent scientific advice. It is simply doing things and I am not allowed to use the colloquial back to front. I speak to the process, not to the substance, which I am slightly reluctantly being persuaded that I should vote for, because that is the best way of protecting kelp, which we all want to do. Kelp is a valuable harvest when Lord Leverhulm opened a herring and kelp harvesting farm at Norfton in Harris 100 years ago, or thereabouts. That was an indication of the value that there is. I just want, since so much has been said, to bring my remarks to a conclusion, by making perhaps unusually a plea to yourself. One of your colleagues chairs the convener's committee in this Parliament, what has happened here has all the marks of what happens in the South African legislature and the United States legislature is what is called ear marking. In other words, introducing something that was not part of the bill at stage 1 when we passed the general principles of the bill—this is outside that altogether—using an instrument perhaps within the rules of the Parliament, to absolutely accept. However, it may be useful for guidance to be given to committee conveners as to the admissibility of amendments that they may select, because it is their choice. Andy Wightman Those amendments were deemed competent and within scope. Remind the member that this is an act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about the management of the Crown Estate among other things. Those kelp species are part of the land in which they grow by law. They are the property of the crown and those amendments are designed to govern the management of a very critical part of the Crown Estate. They are wholly within the scope of the bill. Stuart Stevenson I am not going to engage with that directly, because Andy Wightman is correct, a perfectly valid amendment to the bill. I am simply saying that in an environment where the committee has not received, taken and challenged a single piece of evidence on the subject and where we even have the mover of an amendment, he is saying that we now need independent scientific advice. I think that there is a wider issue about how we take those things. Mark Ruskell Mark Ruskell I am giving way to that point. Of course, we need independent scientific advice, but in the context of the legislation that we are passing here today, which will put in a clear backstop, a golden rule and set the context for that independent scientific advice and set the context for commercial development. Stuart Stevenson I simply conclude, Presiding Officer, by reminding us that, if the Presiding Officer allows me. John Scott I thank Stuart Stevenson for taking intervention and appreciating the indulgence of the Presiding Officer in this regard, but we have already heard today from the cabinet secretary in admission that the licensing regime and the regulatory regime is not fit for purpose. As he knows, as I think he is, and I am tended to agree with him, and he is one of the fathers of this house, so to speak, that indeed the processes of this Parliament as well are being called into question here because they have not allowed this matter to be properly debated and aired and evidence taken in Parliament, and that is allegedly within the processes of this Parliament, so are they themselves to be called into question? Stuart Stevenson Well, let me really, finally, for the third time try and conclude. I do not think that we should push the boat too far on the subject of our processes, but I think that it is an unusual approach, and when we have taken it the past, it has sometimes led us to difficulty when a committee has not had the opportunity to take evidence from all the interesting parties, and I am absolutely certain that the committee would conclude that we should protect Kelp and that we should legislate to do so. Andy Wightman I very much thank the member for taking intervention. He will be familiar with the standing orders of this Parliament. Standing order 9.85d allows the mover of the bill, the Government in this case, to move a motion to return something back to stage 2 for detailed consideration for as long as may be the case if they feel that that is necessary. So I would just challenge the idea that the process of this Parliament is not up to the kind of developments that we have seen in this bill. Stuart Stevenson Well, for the fourth time I will try and finish. I think that it is a very simple matter that I am trying to address. The committees of this Parliament have not had the opportunity to consider in detail what is precisely the importance of the issue that causes me to say that we should have done this. I hope that in future we will do it, and I will vote for the amendments before us when we vote very shockly. Thank you. Just for clarity, there are no procedural questions for me to rule on. All the amendments were deemed admissible. Those are arguments, and there are arguments for you as a Parliament to consider. I call the cabinet secretary before I call Mark Ruskell to wind up. Mark Ruskell Thank you, Presiding Officer. You will be very grateful that, despite my legal background, I have absolutely no appetite for extended discussions about parliamentary standing orders or anything connected there, too. I want to correct one thing, which is that I do not recall at any point saying that the licensing regime was not fit for purpose. I said exactly the opposite. I think that the issues around seaweed harvesting have shown that there are some serious questions that we need to have a look at across all the forms of seaweed harvesting. I think that Johann Lamont made some very, very fair points. This is already a growing industry and the potential, for example, of farming has not yet been fully explored in Scotland, much less the harvesting of wild kelp. I think that members need to be aware that right now there are five different methods of harvesting kelp, only one of which has become controversial and only one of which currently would have required to go forward for a licence if there was going to be continuing activity. In view of that, and I am happy to share that with the members in the chamber if they wish to see the difference between those five different methods and that might help them to understand some of the issues, because some of what is called hand harvesting is a fair scale and arguably, in my view, might be something that you might want to look at licensing for as well. That is the kind of thing that I want us to look at with the whole of this seaweed harvesting review. I think that, although we have all become rather more expert in seaweed harvesting than we were when we began the process, there is still a great deal to learn about it, a great deal to understand about it. I think that some of the issues and some of the concerns that have been raised today are absolutely valid. However, the debate is being had, decisions have got to be made and I have made it very clear where the Government stands on those. Mark Ruskell, to wind up and to press or withdraw the amendment. Sometimes in politics, we have moments where we can make a change for good. They may be unexpected. They may appear to sit awkwardly within a legislative process, but to ignore them would be wrong. We have just passed a continuity bill in this Parliament that dealt with a wide range of issues over a very short period of time. There was limited time to take evidence and to scrutinise it, but I believe that we came up with a robust piece of legislation. I am looking and Mr Ruskell nodding his head on that point. In terms of Johann Lamont's point, is all commercial interest bad? Of course it is not, but commercial interest and commercial activity need to sustain itself over generations and generations to come. Generations of her forebears and generations of the young people that are in the gallery here today need to be sustainable and in the long-term interests. That is why it is important that the Government has launched a wide sector review, looking not just at the current applications that are being put through licensing but at other forms of harvesting extraction. We have learned so much about farming in the last few weeks, the experience of the Faroese in developing a vibrant sector that can create those jobs of tomorrow for generations and generations to come, serving our pharmaceutical industry, serving our food sector, growing jobs, growing growth in remote and vulnerable communities in the north-west. I think that we are at a moment here today where we can take this decision, and I welcome the constructive discussions that I have had with the Cabinet Secretary over the last few weeks, particularly over the sector review. I also welcome the support that I have had in committee from Claudia Beamish and Alex Rowley, and the open-mindedness of members such as Finlay Carson on the issue. I also welcome the work of John Finnie and Gail Ross channeling those concerns from businesses in the west coast of Scotland into this committee, into this chamber, and I particularly welcome the work of Elsa McClellan and the Olaffel sea savers who are with us here today. We are in a good place now with this. There is a sector review, and there is a hard backstop now in this bill. It is up for industry to innovate around that and to come up with the industry that is needed for the future. I believe that Mr Ruskell wishes to withdraw amendment 6. I think that you have to withdraw amendment 6. You have to move it for us to have the debate, so if members could withdraw. Does any member object to amendment 6 being withdrawn? No, that is good. Can I call amendment 7, in the name of Mark Ruskell, to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 8, in the name of Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 19, in the name of the cabinet secretary, to move. Moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Thank you. I turn now to group 7, community benefit requests. I call amendment 42, in the name of Lee MacArthur, grouped with amendment 44. Lee MacArthur to move amendment 42 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you. dweud i y cwmian y Big Gunonau. Llym MacArthur, chwyf i ddweud amunig 42 neu ddim o'r dweud a llwyf gael gennym yn ddigon. As hefyd, mae y byw y bill oedd oedd o'r myndrif iawn i chi, mae oedd o'r effeithrataeth ac ond o'r cyfrifwylol y cyfrifwylol ar y cyfrifwylol iawn i yma. Rwyf yn cael ei prifwylol i chi cwestiynau mai cyfrifwylol iawn i ddweud i'r cyfrifwylol iawn i chi amser ei ddweud, ac ei ddweud i chi ddweud eich credu i ddweud i chi raised and allocated. I have taken on board some of the concerns raised by the cabinet secretary and committee members, including the oversight of my part, which seems to suggest that Orkney would be the sole beneficiary of the amendments. I hope that amendment 42 and 44 will secure the support across the chamber. Over the past 40 years, local management and commercial extraction of marine resources have been achieved through formal arrangements such as works licensing under the Orkney and Zetland ac nhw'n cael y dwylliant gyda'r oedl ystod, ac mae'r aethau gyrwyr fawr yn gweithio gydigol ar fryd aethai yn ei gyrdal. ein pwysigol ar eich allyw yn gweithio i fwyaf i ddraeth mewn cymdeithasol atod, ac mae'r rhaid i'r grwyffydd i ddwylo cymdeithiasol i gwyffruno i ddysgrifatigil gyrdydd i gwyfnwyr o'r drafodd. Fodd ar gyhoi'r ysgwyl Bwysigol Teresio'u bydding, ac rwy'n cael ei ddweud, We are also seeing it in the offshore sector, albeit on a voluntary and patchy basis. Fundamentally, however, communities that have to endure the burden of development, dislocation, risk and exploitation of scarce resources must be involved in decision making about which developments happen and which do not. They should also determine how related community benefit is agreed. As I said at stage 2, much of what I have said sits very comfortably with commitments made by the Government in their prospectus empowering Scotland's island communities. Like the island authorities, I believe that that commitment needs to be in this act, and therefore I move amendment 42 in my name. Andy Wightman, to be followed by Claudia Beamish, and two indications for members, I call Andy Wightman to be followed by Claudia Beamish. I thank you, Presiding Officer, just very briefly. Again, this is an amendment that seeks to introduce a regulation making power for community benefit request scheme, request that must not be unreasonably withheld. Again, this seeks to uphold the Smith commission recommendation in paragraph 33. Responsibility for the management of those assets will be further devolved to local authority areas. I very much support amendments 42 and 44, and Greens will be voting for them this evening. I call Claudia Beamish to be followed by John Scott. I would just like to seek clarification from Liam McArthur, or indeed Andy Wightman. I think that it's Liam McArthur, Presiding Officer, who sums up. Just about other parts of Scotland beyond the islands, and if he's got any thoughts on community benefit in relation to those. If indeed, for instance, they don't apply or are not able to apply at present for any management of the seabed, he would see that they could still possibly get some community benefit from what they might visually see or have some impact on their environment. I wonder if he might answer that in his concluding remarks. John Scott, be followed by the cabinet secretary. Amendment 42 and 44 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to make provision for a community benefit request scheme, if asked for by a local authority. A similar amendment was introduced at stage 2 and was regarded as being unnecessary, as Scottish ministers already made a commitment that Scottish coastal communities will benefit from the net revenue from the Crown and State marines assets. In addition, the Scottish Government encouraged developers to deliver community benefit on a voluntary basis, and the Scottish Government has already discussed with COSLA and agreed how to deliver those benefits to coastal communities from the net reserves. On a different but related point, one has to wonder how landlocked local authorities are not to be disadvantaged by such payments being made only to coastal authorities, but perhaps that's an issue for another day. The purpose of those amendments appears to be to create a process whereby particular local authorities can request permission to generate community benefit from marine development occurring within the relevant Scottish marine region in relation to Scottish Crown and State assets out to 12 nautical miles. It doesn't create a process about how those benefits are actually to be generated. I'm of the view that those amendments are unnecessary. There is no need to include within legislation a right for a local authority to seek permission from the Scottish ministers to set up such a scheme. A local authority can already implement a scheme of this nature without permission of the Scottish ministers. The Scottish Government also has no powers to oblige developers to pay community benefits for such schemes, and there are examples of local community benefit schemes being put in place on a voluntary basis by developers in Scotland. Against that background, we are resisting amendment 42 and consequential amendment 44. Firstly, as there is no need to include within legislation a right to do this, local authorities can create such a scheme themselves. Secondly, as there are a number of practical difficulties in how those amendments would work in practice, and some of them were referred to by Claudia Beamish. As a result of the way that the amendment defines a relevant local authority, it has the effect of only applying to six local authorities—Argyllan Bute Council, West Ineils Highland Council, North Ayrshire Council, Orkney Council and Shetland Council. It therefore excludes all of the other coastal local authorities, which may be in advance on Liam McArthur's Orkney-specific proposal at stage 2, but is still a rather odd formulation. Additionally, it is unclear how amendment 42 will work in practice. The amendment seeks to create a process whereby one of the six local authorities that I have mentioned can request permission to generate community benefit from marine development within its relevant Scottish marine region from the foreshore to 12 nautical miles, as defined by the Scottish Marine Regions Order 2015, but marine development is not defined. The marine areas as defined in the Scottish Marine Regions Order 2015 do not correspond exactly with the local authority boundaries. We have already had this discussed. Some of the marine areas are shared between more than one local authority. The amendment does not set out a mechanism whereby competing claims to generate community benefit from the same marine area by different local authorities are determined. A further technical concern about the amendment is that imposing a duty on ministers to make regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure is problematic, as the regulations can only be made if a draft is already approved by the Parliament. I also remain of the view that those amendments are not necessary. The Scottish ministers have already made a commitment to ensure that island and coastal communities will benefit from the net revenue from the Scottish crime estate marine assets. We have had constructive discussions with COSLA and have agreed an interim mechanism for local authorities to receive a share of the net revenue out to 12 nautical miles. That local funding will not be hypothecated, but we would expect the local authorities to be transparent and accountable to their communities on how that money is spent. Arrangements are currently being made to distribute the revenue to coastal councils later this year. We have agreed with COSLA that we will review the interim arrangements, including whether we can establish a closer link with the net revenue raised in a local authority area. I would ask the member not to press amendment 42 or 44. I thank all those who contributed to thank Andy Whiteman. Having mentioned the Smith commission enough of my last contributions, I would avoid doing so, but he was not so inhibited. He is absolutely right that this does honour the recommendations of the Smith commission. In terms of Claudia Beamish, I have acknowledged the constructive engagement that she has had with me on the amendment. I think that the regulatory powers would enable some of the concerns that she expressed about other local authorities to be addressed. John Scott picked up a very similar issue and went on to insist that this was captured in terms of net benefits. I very much look forward if he is going to vote down the amendment for his support when we turn to the next grouping on the issue of net benefits. He and the cabinet secretary referred to the discussions with COSLA. It should be pointed out that however the discussions with COSLA are going, there are still anxieties among the island authorities about the way in which those revenues will be distributed. To suggest that all is well and there are no concerns to be addressed is perhaps a little naive. On the basis of what I have heard this afternoon, I think that it was probably best not to press this amendment at this time and return to it under the net benefits groupings in the next session. I am happy for amendment 42 to be withdrawn. Can I call amendment 21, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated? Before we vote on that, we will call the amendments to the amendment. Can I call amendment 21A, in the name of Mark Ruskell, already debated? Mark Ruskell to move or not moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 21A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. This is the first division in the group, so we will have a one-minute division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 21A, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is yes, 89. There were no, sorry, nobody voted against and there were 28 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 21B, in the name of Mark Ruskell, already debated. Mark Ruskell to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 21B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. This will be a 32nd division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 21B, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is yes, 89. There were no votes against. There were 28 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 21A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. We turn now to group 8, which is a list of the Scottish Crown estate assets and liabilities. I call amendment 3, in the name of John Scott, grouped with amendment 5. John Scott to move amendment 3 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 3 and amendment 5 place a duty on Scottish ministers to maintain and publish a list of assets and make the list available for publication. Such a list would provide at a glance what is owned by Scottish ministers. I hope that this opportunity to lead by example will be accepted by Scottish ministers, given the current expectation raised in the land reform legislation that who owns what, under private ownership, should be easily accessible and public knowledge in Scotland. The amendment responds to the stage 1 report in recommendation 334, in which the Crown of State Scotland should establish and maintain a list of assets and liabilities. Such a list, if published annually, would also provide an annual inventory, which again would allow comparison year on year of assets and liabilities and make very public and available for scrutiny the evolving shape of the Crown of States under their new obligations. I hope that those amendments will be accepted by Parliament. Thank you very much, and no member has indicated the wish to speak of this group. I will call the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary is in a conversation, but no other member has indicated the wish to speak. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I just apologise to the chamber. I thank Mr Scott for lodging those amendments and for raising the issue for debate. There was considerable interest at stage 1 in the assets and liabilities of the Scottish Crown of State, and those amendments reflect some of the concerns that are expressed. In the stage 1 report, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recommended that Crown of State Scotland establish and maintain a list of Crown of State Scotland assets and the liabilities that are attached to those assets. I certainly acknowledge the need to know who is the manager of any particular Scottish Crown of State. The information is needed to determine who is responsible for the asset, who can give permission to access the land and who can grant a lease. Those are legitimate questions. At present, Crown of State Scotland interim management maintains details of the assets that it manages, and the annual report and accounts will give a picture of the value of the assets by key sectors. The accounts also contain information on the liabilities of the organisation. Crown of State Scotland interim management has an interactive map on its website, showing indicative locations of assets under their control that have live agreements, including leases, in place. Crown of State Scotland interim management also undertakes condition surveys and valuations of buildings and other property as appropriate. Ministers can also direct managers to maintain an asset register in addition to the requirements on managers regarding management plans and annual reports. Collecting, managing and reporting information on assets and liabilities forms part of the business's usual approach that has been operating since devolution, while of course respecting that some information is commercially sensitive and needs to be treated as confidential. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for taking an intervention. Can I just ask the cabinet secretary if she could tell me how publicly available, how readily available, those list and inventories would be at a glance, so to speak, three clicks and could somebody find them? I would like to reassure Mr Scott that we are as concerned as he is that the public is easily able to find out what assets form part of the estate, what are the categories of liabilities and who is managing any Scottish Crown of State asset. Officials are currently in discussions on how the information on assets can be made more widely available, so that is an active consideration. I can provide reassurance that there will be publicly available information on asset assets and liabilities, but I do not consider there to be a need to require that under legislation, and I ask Mr Scott not to press his amendments. Thank you very much, and I called John Scott to wind up to press or withdraw amendment 3. I will withdraw the amendment. Mr Scott wishes to withdraw the amendment 3. Does anybody disagree? Thank you. Amendment 22, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 9, which is the transfer of net revenues to relevant local authorities. Amendment 43, in the name of Liam McArthur, grouped with amendment 45. Liam McArthur, to move amendment 43 and speak to both amendments. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We have covered some of this ground before. I have moved amendments earlier in relation to the devolution of management powers over the Crown of State assets and the devolution of responsibility for determining community benefit. Those two amendments follow a similar pattern in relation to net revenues that were mentioned by John Scott and the cabinet secretary in relation to the last grouping. I do not think that they would necessarily be hugely controversial. Quoting from the Scottish Government's Empowering Scotland's Islands communities perspective, it talks about net income from activities within 12 nautical miles would be passed to individual councils and each will be responsible for administering their own fund. The First Minister, back in 2016, two years later, was talking about not only will our island communities benefit from 100 per cent of the crime state revenues that they raise, but they will have a greater say in how the assets of the crime state are managed. Uncontroversial support for those aspirations across the chamber, the island authorities, not unreasonably are looking again for those specific commitments to be attached to the bill. That is what amendment 43 and 45 seek to achieve. I move amendment 43 and look forward to the debate. A couple of members have indicated their wish to speak. I call John Scott to be followed by Andy Wightman. Amendments 43 and 45 would create a duty for Scottish ministers to make provision for a scheme to provide for the transfer of net revenue to relevant local authorities, where that relates to marine developments and other matters, as Scottish ministers consider appropriate, and are similar to amendments 43 that are already debated at stage 2 by the committee and by the Government. As before, we believe that those two amendments are to be unnecessary, as the Scottish Government has said and made commitments that Scottish coastal communities will benefit from the net revenue from the Scottish county state marine assets. I believe them, notwithstanding Liam McArthur's concerns about the believability of Government assurances. Further, those amendments would require that 100 per cent of net revenue from development and marine areas from county state assets would be given to relevant local authorities, with which we simply do not agree. As I said before, no such similar scheme to benefit landlocked local authorities has been suggested or provided for in this bill. Although I understand Liam McArthur's ambitions behind those amendments, I regret that I do not think that they are entirely fair to others. Andy Wightman Thank you, Presiding Officer. We support amendments 43 and 45. They further the commitments that are given by all parties in this Parliament in the Smith commission. Again, I quote paragraph 33. Responsibility for the management of those assets will be further devolved to local authority areas. Liam McArthur's amendment places on a statutory footing, a long-standing promise made by the First Minister at a meeting of the convention on the Highlands and Islands in Kirkwall on 1 June 2015. I am very pleased that John Scott believes the Scottish Government's commitments on the matter. I do, too. I have no doubt about the Scottish Government's commitment to transfer the net revenues, but we are passing law today. The current Government's commitments may not last beyond the life of this particular administration. A future Government, perhaps including Mr Scott, might not want to transfer those revenues. The question today is whether the Parliament feels that those net revenues should be properly transferred to Scotland's local authorities. Therefore, we support putting the commitment—the welcome commitment—that has been made by the Scottish Government and upholds the commitments that are made by the Smith commission by all parties. We support putting that on a statutory footing. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution has committed to providing the net revenue generated after all costs have been deducted from Scottish Crown and State marine assets out to 12 nautical miles for the benefit of coastal communities. Indeed, the Scottish Government and COSLA have agreed an interim formula-based approach to distribute the net revenue from Scottish Crown and State marine assets out to 12 nautical miles to each island and coastal local authority. Therefore, there is no need for legislation on the matter, given the commitment given and the agreement with COSLA. In addition, there are technical issues about the operability of amendment 43, and this amendment would only cover part of the agreement with COSLA. The amendment is only applicable to relevant local authorities. Those are listed in sections 61 to 66 of the schedule to the island Scotland Act 2018, namely the Shetland Islands, Orkney Island, Western Isles, Highland, Argyll and Bute and North Ayrshire. It excludes all of the other coastal local authorities. Amendment 43 requires that a scheme should set out a process by which each of the relevant local authorities is to receive 100 per cent of net revenue, insofar as that revenue directly relates to marine development in its respective marine area, from Scottish Crown and State assets, from mean high-water spring tides out to 12 nautical miles, as defined by the Scottish Marine Regions Order 2015. The Scottish Marine Regions Order 2015 created 11 marine regions in Scotland, the boundaries of which are described in the order. They do not necessarily align with boundaries of local authority areas in Scotland, as we have already spoken to this afternoon. In my view, that creates a particular problem in the delivery of the effect of this amendment, in particular the boundaries of Highland, Argyll and Bute and North Ayrshire local authorities do not correspond directly to any one particular Scottish marine region. Again, what is meant by revenues relating to marine development is unclear, as that is not defined. A further issue with amendment 43 is that imposing a duty on ministers to make regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure is problematic, as the regulations can only be made if a draft is approved by the Parliament. I also believe that amendment 43 and consequential amendment 45 are unnecessary in light of the Government's commitment that coastal and island local authorities will benefit from the net revenue from Scottish Crown and State marine assets. That commitment is demonstrated by our agreement with COSLA. Moreover, as I have highlighted, it is not clear that amendment 43 will work as intended, as the marine areas set out in the Scottish marine regions order 2015 do not correspond to each of the local authority areas. The amendment would also create a different procedure for those six councils, compared with the other coastal local authorities that will benefit from the net revenue from the marine assets of the Scottish Crown and State out to 12 nautical miles, as currently agreed. As a result, the marine areas of each of the following local authorities are not properly defined. That is Argyllin bute council, Westin Isles, Highland Council, North Ayrshire Council, Orkney Council and Shetland Council. That amendment creates difficulties, particularly where there is an overlap where more than one local authority area has its boundaries within a particular marine region and where a marine region is within the boundaries of both one of the six relevant local authorities and another local authority. The effect of the amendment being that a relevant local authority would be entitled to 100 per cent of the net revenues of marine development in that marine region to the detriment of the local authority, which also shares that marine region in which the revenue was generated. In particular, Highland Council shares the Moray Firth Scottish Marine Region with Moray Council and Aberdeenshire Council. It would be inappropriate for this amendment to result in all of the Scottish Crown and State net revenue resulting from marine development in the Moray Firth marine region to automatically be transferred to Highland Council to the detriment of coastal communities in Moray Council and Aberdeenshire Council areas. In addition, Argyllin bute and North Ayrshire councils share the Clyde Scottish marine region with other local authorities, including Scythaercia and Inverclyde. It would be equally inappropriate for Argyllin bute and North Ayrshire to receive 100 per cent of the net revenue resulting from marine development in the Clyde Scottish marine region to the detriment of the other coastal communities in Scythaercia and Inverclyde local authority areas. It is also unclear how Argyllin bute and North Ayrshire local authorities could both receive 100 per cent of the net revenue for marine development in a Scottish marine zone that lies within both of their local authority boundaries. Those reasons are the ones why I do not support amendments 43 and 45, and I would urge Mr MacArthur not to press them. Thank you very much. I call Liam MacArthur to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 43. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am being encouraged to clarify what assets in airdrie and shots will be protected as a result of those amendments. I thank John Scott, Andy Wightman and the Cabinet Secretary for their contributions. Andy Wightman is absolutely right. It is not about whether or not you believe the Government. It is about legislating and ensuring that those assurances succeed in any current Government. John Scott himself was on record as saying that he does not support the 100 per cent net benefit to local authorities, and therefore immediately there is a question mark about how resilient the assurances that the cabinet secretary has given would be into the future. I think that, as Orkney Islands Council has made clear, it sees that commitment as being about fairness and equitability, about providing an incentive to encourage and promote marine activity in our respective waters. I listened very carefully to what the cabinet secretary had to say, and I think that she outlined a number of legitimate concerns about where that net benefit would accrue. I think that there is still a concern in Orkney, in Shetland, about where that net benefit is going to accrue. It cannot be some algorithmic concoction come up by the Scottish Government. I think that there is rightly an expectation on the basis of the Smith commission recommendations that the net benefits accruing from the activity in the waters around Orkney should accrue to Orkney Islands Council and to the Orkney community. I give way to Claudia Beamish. Claudia Beamish I thank the member for taking intervention, because in terms of what the cabinet secretary has highlighted, surely he would not agree with me that there are now councils that have been identified, which are not in schedule 60 to 61 of the islands act, which may be disadvantaged by this amendment, if it goes through, in that they could well have looking out over offshore wind installations or having involvement in some way. It will be very hard to divide it up. I wonder whether he might consider that in whether he is going to press the amendment. Dean MacArthur I mean that there is a spoiler alert. I think that I am going to withdraw the amendment, not least because of the protestations of my colleague from the north-east in response to the cabinet secretary's intimation about what is happening in the Murray Firth. However, there is a real issue here about going forward beyond the first year or the second year, where in a sense there is an approximation made of the revenues that accrue to different local authorities, something more specific, particularly in those areas such as Orkney and Shetland, where there is no dubiety in terms of where those net benefits should accrue. I hear the member's intention to withdraw. The member will be aware that, understanding orders 9.85C, the minister would be able to lodge a motion without notice that the remaining proceedings of stage 3 would be adjourned to a later day. That would allow the cabinet secretary, if she were so minded, to put on the face of the bill statutory provisions about net revenue transfers to be remitted to stage 2 committee to be sorted out and to be brought into the bill. That is an option that he might wish to pursue with the cabinet secretary. I am very grateful to Andy Wightman for that. I have to say that he will want to look at the video later to see the body language of those members sitting behind him, as he suggested that. I think that there are concerns around the way that this amendment would apply. I am prepared to accept those, but I think that there is an opportunity for the cabinet secretary, if she so wishes, to give an undertaking along the lines that Andy Wightman has suggested. However, I am trying to put on to the record that there is an expectation now that the commitment that was given by the Government in its empowering are on the communities and in its commitments as recently as June 2018. There is now an expectation that 100 per cent of the net benefits that are accruing in developments in the waters around Orkney in Shetland and Northern Ireland and coastal communities will accrue to those communities. However, on that basis and the concerns that you have raised, I will seek to withdraw amendment 43. Thank you very much. The member wishes to withdraw amendment 43. Does anyone object? No one objects. Very good. I call amendment 4, in the name of John Scott, already debated with amendment 1. John Scott, to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. Accord, amendment 44, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 42. Liam McArthur, to move or not move. Not moved. Accord, amendment 45, also in the name of Miss MacArthur, to move or not move. It's not moved. Not moved. That's not moved. amendment 23, in the name of the cabinet secretary, has already debated with amendment 9, cabinet secretary, to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 24, in the name of the cabinet secretary, to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and that concludes the amending stage of the bill. The stage in proceedings, members might be aware, I am required understanding orders to decide whether or not in my view any provision of this bill relates to a protected subject matter, that is, whether it modifies the franchise for the Scottish parliamentary elections or the electoral system. In the case of this bill, my view is that no provision of the Scottish current state bill does so, therefore my determination is that the bill does not require a supermajority at stage 3. So now we are going to move on to a debate on stage 3. I think that we will just take a few moments. I am going to suspend just for a few minutes to allow the minister and other members to take a short break, and we will resume in a couple of minutes. Thank you. Short suspension. I am going to call you to order a short list so that you can all make sure that you are in your seats, please. The next item of business is the debate on motion 14822 in the name of Zanna Cunningham on Scottish Crown Estate Bill. I can invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Zanna Cunningham to speak to remove the motion. Cabinet Secretary, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today is an historic occasion. This bill is the first time that this Parliament has ever legislated on the management of the Scottish Crown Estate. It is therefore a landmark bill and continues the process of the devolution of the Scottish Crown Estate that started with the Smith commission and the Scotland Act 2016. Until now, the management of the Crown Estate has been governed by the Crown Estate Act 1961, which is a reflection of its time predating the discovery of the North Sea oil fields, the development of aquaculture and, of course, offshore renewables. However, administrative arrangements need to change with the times and arrangements for the management of the Scottish Crown Estate should reflect devolution. The bill enables local authorities, communities and harbour authorities to take on the management of Scottish Crown Estate assets and to manage them in a way that benefits local communities within an overall national governance framework. Our ambition is for the Scottish Crown Estate to make a difference for the people of Scotland at both the local and the national level. The work of the Parliament today and during the course of the bill will help to deliver that ambition, ensuring that the management of the Scottish Crown Estate has the statutory basis to contribute to the economic development, regeneration, social and environmental wellbeing of Scotland and, of course, to sustainable development in Scotland. The net revenue from the assets will be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund and those out to 12 nautical miles will be distributed to coastal local authorities. It is important therefore that the estate is overall run in a way that protects and enhances the public finances rather than being a drain on them. It is also important to recognise that there are parts of the estate that cannot be expected to make money and other parts where a less commercial approach may be best to secure wider benefits. The bill enshrines the accountability of the Scottish Crown Estate to the Parliament, modernises the statutory framework for management and assets and creates new processes for further devolution of the Scottish Crown Estate. For the first time, there will be a statutory requirement to prepare a national strategy for the Scottish Crown Estate and a duty to act in the way best calculated to further the achievement of sustainable development in Scotland. By including new duties on sustainable development, as well as wider socio-economic and environmental factors, the bill requires managers of the Scottish Crown Estate to contribute to multiple outcomes. The Scottish Crown Estate also includes the management of seabed rights and its diverse portfolio encompasses vibrant sectors such as offshore renewables, which deliver both economic and environmental benefits. From my engagement with the Crown Estate Scotland staff at Bellsbury, I am aware of their high standard of professionalism, as well as their commitment to maintain and improve the value of the Scottish Crown Estate. I have seen the great work that is being done in areas such as the environment, renewable energy, tourism, recreation and support for community development projects. Of course, it will not have escaped colleagues that the issue of kelp harvesting has arisen during the progress of the bill and at points has appeared to almost overwhelm the original purposes of the bill. It has surfaced a range of issues concerning the regulation of current and proposed harvesting activity in this sector. The issues are complex, many are varied and require the gathering of further evidence to conclude how we should proceed in future. A remain of the view that the Scottish Crown Estate Bill is not the optimal place to control seabed harvesting, but we are where we are. However, the amendments that we have agreed to the bill today provide a good foundation for better regulation of this activity in advance of further work to better understand the issues. My announcement today of a review of the regulatory regime for all kelp harvesting activity in Scotland recognises that there is current interest and there may be more interest in future in new types of seabed harvesting in Scottish waters. I hope that all those who are concerned to be part of the burgeoning industry will continue to engage with the Government and relevant authorities. Indeed, I can advise that we will be writing to MBL today in respect of that particular aspect. I would like to express my special thanks and gratitude to the Crown Estate Stakeholder Advisory Group, to members of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for their contributions and to my officials for their engagement and work on all aspects in the preparation of the bill. I would also like to thank Crown Estate Scotland staff for their contribution to the process and particularly for the advice and support that they have given to my officials on aspects of the technical drafting of the bill. I also commend all the Crown Estate Scotland staff for their dedication in continuing the good management of the assets and for progressing opportunities for pilots of local management while the bill has progressed through Parliament. I am very conscious of the uncertainty that a political process can bring to people's day-to-day activities in their workplace. With the enactment of this bill, we can move beyond that uncertainty towards a clear future that is full of opportunity for the estate. The bill has been improved and strengthened as a result of the parliamentary process and I very much welcome that. I want to conclude by saying that this is the start of a new era in the management of the Scottish Crown Estate, where the assets are managed for the benefit of the people of Scotland while protecting their value and the benefit of the communities of Scotland. I move that the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Crown Estate Bill be passed. Thank you very much Cabinet Secretary. I now call on John Scott to open for the Conservatives. Mr Scott, six minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer and refer a member to my register of interest for other interests? Can I also welcome the passage of the Scottish Crown Estate Bill following on from the Smith commission recommendation, the Scotland Act 2016, which devolved the management of the Scottish Crown Estate to the Scottish Parliament. Originally part of the UK-wide Crown Estate, the Crown Estate in Scotland has a wide range of assets, including rural estates, rights to naturally occurring gold and silver across Scotland, as well as moorings, ports and harbours. The sea bed out to 12 nautical miles, including, interestingly, carbon dioxide storage out to 200 nautical miles, as well as several other assets. You will note that we have had to consider how many different assets will be managed in future by the Scottish Government. I hope that the bill before us today delivers properly on the different focus that the Government has set for managing those assets. Previously, the sole purpose of the Crown Estate was to deliver funding to the Scottish or UK Treasury. The passage of the bill seeks to further devolve where appropriate responsibility for the management of those assets, away from the Scottish Government, to Crown Estate managers and other bodies such as local authorities and harbour boards and community groups. In addition, the Crown Estate managers as well are seeking to enhance the value of the assets. In addition, the Crown Estate managers as well are seeking to enhance the value of the assets and monitor and enhance the income from them. They will also be required to do that in a way best calculated to further the achievements of sustainable development Scotland, as well as contribute to the promotion of the improvement of economic development and regeneration, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing. That feels to me like a tall order for Crown Estate managers. Certainly enhancing the income from the various assets with all the other duties, new duties placed on managers will in my view prove problematic and likely to deliver a much reduced income stream to the Scottish Government. However, we shall see. Turning now to another area of significant debate in the bill and while abstaining on Mark Ruskell's amendment to protect kelp beds and environmental grounds, I very much regret the way that prohibition in the harvesting of laminaria hyperbaria has been passed into law. Indeed, that event provokes real questions about the stage 2 process of considering amendments in any future bill. It now appears significant announcement and alterations to bills can be considered and acted upon by committees, Government and Parliament without any formal evidence being heard by a bill committee and Stuart Stevenson. The rules of the Parliament allow for an introduction of a bill to move a motion without notice to return it to stage 2 for further consideration, so there is nothing standing on the way of further consideration of those matters, apart from the decision of the Government as to whether to utilise that power. Does he agree with me on that? Yes, I do. Indeed, I raised the process with the appropriate bodies at the time and was told that to achieve such a reversion to the stage 1 process was what would have to be done to gather evidence again, because that is what happened in the justice bill some 10 or so years ago, maybe 12 years ago, when it was chaired by the then convener, Bill Akin, it had to go back to the stage 1 process, it was regarding stocking and it was regard to an amendment that one of my constituents brought forward. I am certain that the cabinet secretary will remember that and possibly even Stuart Stevenson as well. We reverted to the stage 1 process, took the information and then went back to the stage 2 process and took amendments thereafter on the stocking legislation that is so worthwhile came into being at that time. However, when I looked into this, I was told that because the bill had completed the stage 2 process that it was unable to, it had now left the committee, so to speak, it was unable to activate the process that you tell me all and describe, and I have just described back to you. I think that if you are intervention and you are absolutely correct, but I was made aware that it was not appropriate in this case. Oh my goodness, I have lost my place in this speech. More awkwardly, however, indeed this event provokes real questions about the stage 2 process of considering amendments—yes, I have said that already. More awkwardly, still in this case, is that the developmental scientific work, which would have built on the age-old industry of kelp harvesting, had been supported and developed and helped to develop by government agencies such as Marine Scotland, distinguished universities and other government agencies over the last eight years, with every regulatory hoop having been jumped through and every piece of government agency advice being acted upon. However, the significant regulatory process that MBL adhered to throughout will perhaps now not be completed, although perhaps one should take sucker from what the cabinet secretary has said today. In addition, other science-based businesses may now be deterred from investing in Scotland knowing that a regulatory developmental process in terms of product development and supported by government agencies can be overturned almost whimsically by Parliament. Now, if it was difficult enough for our development agencies to persuade would-be investors to invest in Scotland today, it just became a little more difficult. However, I welcome Johann Lamont's supportive speech this afternoon and the reality check that it provided. In particular, I share and indeed have long work to bring jobs and to support our remote and fragile coastal communities, and this process would and I hope might still bring 40 jobs to Malig. I also welcome Stuart Stevenson's contribution and agree with him that there has been a failure of process here and marine biopolymer's limited or collateral damage in this failure of process thus far. However, I take sucker from the cabinet secretary's announcement earlier of a routine branch review and I hope that door may not be completely closed on the work of MBL. I know that the cabinet secretary will, as part of this transformational change that she hopes to bring about, will be looking to pilot schemes to take scientifically-based developmental projects forward and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary will today be writing to MBL, perhaps in this regard, although I know not, but I hope perhaps positively at least. There are many good things about this bill and the continuing management of the four rural estates by Crown Estates Scotland has been welcomed by the NUS and the Scottish Ten Farmers Association as well as themselves. I am pleased to have been part of the work on the bill and I hope that it turns out as we all hope that it will. Thank you very much for your indulgence. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. I call Claudia Beamish to open for Labour, Ms Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Crown Estates assets cover such a diverse range of land, foreshore, seabed, rights and properties, as we have heard from the cabinet secretary. Scottish Labour welcomes the successful devolution of the management of responsibilities and revenues to Scotland, as called for in the Smith commission. The Crown Estate is said to date back as far as 1066, although perhaps Andy Wightman might correct me on that. Many of those assets are steeped in Scottish culture's significance and history. Today's meaningful legislation transferring the management and revenue of those assets to the hands of managers across Scotland is very positive and empowering. My thanks to COSLA for their recent letter in support of the Crown Estate Bill that maximises local authority empowerment. That is a move in the direction of democratic empowerment and greater transparency. I look forward to the opportunities for community empowerment as we see the process of double devolution. I am reassured that local authorities will be able to act, as I understand it, as gatekeepers for consideration of community group management proposals as well. Decentralising management will enable communities and local authorities to realise their ambitions for those assets and enjoy the social and economic benefits that they deliver, as well as the environmental ones. Greater consideration of local needs and accruing revenue to flow back into the communities will go a long way to help to empower and improve the resilience of our rural and coastal communities. I have long fought for sustainable development to underpin everything that this Parliament achieves along with others. I am very pleased that that ambition has been emphasised in the Cabinet Secretary's amendment today, amending section 7, which determines the principles by which managers must act. I am afraid that John Scott and I will just have to agree to differ on that one. At stage 2, we discussed how best to achieve this, and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Working with Mark Ruskell and myself to come to this very good solution. The manner by which many Crown Estate assets are managed could have enormous repercussions on our natural world, so setting out sustainability at the core of the managers' decision so distinctly is very welcome. Of course, the issue of kelp has been the most and perhaps only really contentious part of this bill. In this context, I welcome the passing of amendment 21 in the Cabinet Secretary's name and her commitment to a complete review of the regulatory system of kelp harvesting activity. I recognise that there are a number of categories and intricacies, and I hope that that will act as a pathway to a robust framework for all kelp activities that are rooted in sustainability. May I assure John Scott that there is absolutely nothing whimsical about Scottish Labour's support for Mark Ruskell's amendment? I am delighted that that has passed today, and it is right that that is part of the framework within which the review is set. Kelp forests are marine priority features with enormous importance in our marine ecosystem in any practice, whether it is fishing, farming or harvesting that inhibits regrowth or reproduction is simply out of the question now. This Parliament has agreed time and again that sustainability is an absolute. For one thing, it makes business sense to reassure John Lamont if she was here, she is not anymore, but also for the sake of our environment and our climate change ambition. At a time when our seas are under pressure from climate change and it is the forefront of our minds with this bill going forward for climate change, any new industry must be guaranteed in its sustainability. We are still at a frustratingly early stage of considering the benefits of blue carbon sequestration, but we know enough to understand that it will be important to have a helping hand in tackling climate change and that that should be enforced and not diminished. We know that coastal erosion and sea level rises will be an increasingly greater threat to communities and infrastructure who live by the sea. The kelp is a natural barrier to the effects of storm damage. We also know that kelp forest provides an important feeding ground for some of our most endangered rare seabirds that are disappearing at a devastating rate, and we know that our existing fishing industry and other industries such as marine tourism rely on kelp forests to play host to juvenile fish for the fishing communities and in order to replenish the stocks and keep their own industries sustainable. Marine protections can often fall foul out of sight, out of mind, more so than conservation issues on land. Healthy ecosystems affect us all, but especially coastal communities who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Those risks may be harder to grasp than the positive idea of a multi-million pound new industry, but they are vitally important as a setting for the future. Labour supports the bill and sets out to do it. It is appropriate delivery of the Smith commission recommendation and provides a framework for a more progressive management of the Crown Estate assets for the future of us all in Scotland. I thank you and I call Andy Wightman for the green's four minutes. I thank you very much. Cabinet secretary is right that this is indeed a historic occasion. Scotland's Crown Estate was further back than 1066, though. The ninth century has its origins when Scotland was a unified kingdom and, of course, the western isles were only added in 1266 and the northern isles with their own distinctive traditions and matters in 1472. That has been a long road to this bill. I remember a late night taxi ride to Edinburgh from Glasgow some years ago in the company of Henry McLeish, the minister who was in fact in charge of steering the Scotland Act on the Statute Book in 1998. He told me of the frustrations of trying to secure devolution of the Crown Estate, a task that he had to abandon at that time. It is worth remembering why, in 1999, the Parliament should have gained full control over the property rights, revenues and management of the Crown. Those historic property rights—the four-shore, gold and silver, the seabed—are all defined by Scots law. Other Crown property rights are not part of the Crown Estate, including Bonavocantia, Ultima Aries and Treasure Trove, but are also defined by Scots law's rights to which to this day are administered by the Crown Office in Edinburgh, where the Lord Advocate also upholds the common law rights under the guardianship of the Crown over the four-shore. In 1833, management of those assets that later comprised the Crown Estate were transferred to London from Edinburgh. Importantly and significantly, they did not form part of the civil list that had been established in 1760 through the surrender of the English Crown revenues. Thus, those historic rights remain constitutionally, legally and politically distinctive, since they are the rights of the Scottish Crown defined by Scots law that should have formed part of the 1998 Scotland Act. Some years later, it became very clear that the Crown Estate commissioners, whose lack of transparency and malign influence as a body corporate has blighted much of rural and marine Scotland, had secured the support of the palace and the treasury to block any reform. Although the property rights were devolved in 1999, the revenues were not. I want to put on record my thanks to Scotland's local authorities, whose 2006 Crown Estate review group report did so much to prompt this debate, as well as did the inquiry of the UK Treasury, the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons and the Scottish Affairs Committee. In 2014, the Smith commission eventually recommended that management and revenues be devolved and that management should be further devolved to Scotland's local authorities. Despite UK Government guarantees that Smith would be implemented in full, legislative competence for the revenues of the Crown Estate has not been devolved. The bill is not the bill that Greens would have wished to see. It is predicated on a flawed devolution settlement. It is based on the assumption that the Crown Estate is some kind of coherent suite of assets that by law must be maintained as an estate and land on behalf of the Crown. The Crown Estate is a feudal relic. It is an ad-hoc assembly of rights, including everything from gold and silver, a lock-up garage in the new town of Edinburgh and the island of Rockall. Our goal as a Parliament should be to sweep away this anachronism and not to perpetuate it within a framework of complicated management and delegation powers. It is also a colonial relic. Rockall was the last act of colonialism by the UK, preceded on a royal warrant modelled on that used by Captain Cook to steal Australia. Amendments to the effect that I lodged at stage 2 and 3 were ruled out of scope. Such amendments included the repeal of the Royal Minds Act 1424, the oldest Scottish statute still in force, which reserved natural occurring gold and silver to the Crown and is the origin of their rights and is an act that is perfectly within the competence of this Parliament to repeal. So this debate should remind us that there is unfinished business. We need to legislate, as I hinted earlier in the amendment debate, to modernise the law of the foreshore in the seabed. A report was published by the Scottish Law Commission in 2003. It sits on the shelf gathering dust. Had it been enacted, we would now, by now, have the Sea, Shore and Inland Water Scotland Act, which would have enshrined the statutory right to, among other things, make sand castles, beach comb, sunbathe and have picnics on the shore and foreshore. It would have also given crofters the statutory right to gather kelp from the foreshore where that was in their crofting lease. It would have put the ownership of the seabed on foreshore on a statutory footing. All of that can yet happen, but, nevertheless, for the moment, we will be voting for the modest reforms outlined in the Scottish Crown Estate Bill. Thank you very much. I thank the cabinet secretary and the Government for bringing this measure forward for us. Andy Wightman said for many of us that this is what the late John Smith used to call unfinished business. Andy Wightman said that I am at the radical end of my lot on this kind of issue. I would have abolished it outright, but we did not get that chance. Reform is reform, and some reform is better than no reform. I dug out a member's debate from 2007, in which a number of people spoke, including Alistair Allen, Liam McArthur, Jamie McGregor, Rob Gibson, and the then Minister Stuart Stevenson. In that debate, I suggested that we might need to rock the boat. Mr Stevenson said in his wind-up, I say to Mr Scott that, if necessary, we will rock the boat. On that principle, we have not rocked it far enough, but we have done some rocking, and there the analogy will stop before it gets lost in itself or sunk, I suppose, might be the other way to put it. There are two basic points that I want to make about this. The Smith commission process did allow people, on a cross-party basis, to look at areas that we knew needed to be addressed. In the context of the Crown Estate, again, we could have gone a lot further, and it would have been from some of our perspectives very splendid to have done that. We did make, again on that, in that all-party sense, a real proposal that the Government has now begun to give effect to. Of course, there is more to be done when it comes to net proceeds. I will be interested to see what the definition of net versus gross is, so no doubt there will be on-going discussions with that in how the revenues will be delivered. However, I recognise that, at home in Shetland, there is now, or in the process, a marine pilot scheme involving Shetland's Council and the Crown Estate Scotland body over the future of Sulem Vaw. That is an area that has not been available to a wide range of marine uses because of the oil and gas industry since the Sulem Vaw terminal opened formally back in the late 1970s. That is potentially a very exciting development for salmon farming, for mussel farming, for inshore fisheries and in various other areas as well. That is positive, and we will look to see how that comes with that. I am also grateful for the measures to do today on trust ports. I speak with the direct interest of being a former chairman of Lerwick Harbour Trust, as it was then. The fundamental point about trust ports is simply this. It is the best financial model that I can think of in the public system today, that it has to be run on a commercial basis, but all the monies that it makes are reinvested in its facilities. That is a model that I would commend to the Government of any persuasion across a number of areas, where it is trying to find a financial model that allows a proper commercial focus on what needs to happen to serve the customer, in port's case, the people who use keys and need services, but in that sense retains the profits into the organisation to invest for the future. That seems to me powerful and appropriate. I will make one remark, if I may, on the debate that we had on kelp farming today. It just strikes me that regulation is there, underneath legislation, to allow for an appropriate assessment of any process, whether it is defined, as Johann Lamont did earlier on, as industrial or not industrial. I do not think that we got that right today. It is not really appropriate, as John Scott rightly said, to start hauling things back at stage 3. What should have happened on that? It is a really serious issue. What should have happened on that is that it should have been properly assessed at a much earlier stage and taken forward in that way. I hope that Parliament reflects on that for the future, because that was not our finest moment today in terms of how to pass primary legislation. The final point is simply this. I mentioned Sandra Lawrence earlier on. She said on Friday, when she retired after 44 years with the Port Authority, that in terms of her advice to people who serve in the future, it is not about attracting the different customers to come and locate themselves in our port, because the port is nothing without the customer. Now and again in politics, we should remember useful phrases like that, when we are passing this kind of primary legislation. Thank you very much. I can give the open speakers five minutes. I call Stuart Stevenson, followed by Edwin Mountain. I thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary said that it is the first time that we legislate on the Crown Estate. I am sure that that is true, but it is certainly not the first time that we have debated. As Tavish Scott has just reminded us, on 1 November, he held a member's debate. Indeed, in 2012, David Stewart had a member's debate in this Parliament on 18 April. I am sure that there will be other instances. Again, I happened to be the minister who responded to that particular debate. It is not a subject that we have not debated before, discussed before, both on the floor and in the corridors of Parliament. Andy Wightman took us back to the 900s. I did not realise that it went quite far back. I certainly found the Lords of Auditors of the Exchequer were established as a court in the 1500s to look after what is now the Crown Estate. It is a very long history. The particular things about the bill that we are likely to pass in a short period of time. One of the things that is simply not attracted to any significant amendment—it was amended a little bit at stage 2—was section 11, which is the duty to obtain market value. It basically picks up the existing provision. The manager of the Scottish Crown Estate must not make any of the following transactions for consideration less than market value, but then goes on to qualify that by saying that if the manager is satisfied with the relevant transaction, it is likely to contribute to the promotional improvement in Scotland of economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing or sustainable development. That is a breakthrough provision, frankly, because it recognises that the assets that we are talking about that we are managing and that we are allowing others to manage here should be managed for the common good, not simply to deliver an economic asset that flows into the structures of government at all its various levels. I am particularly pleased with that particular section of the bill as it has been passed, although we have still got section 7 duty to maintain and enhance value. The Crown Estate has a long history. I have been here a fair pile, not as long as quite everybody. John Scott, for example, sitting looking around the Chibw's here before I was so established Scott. In the earlier days of this Parliament, I do not think that we could really say that the Crown Estate engaged with members of this place to very useful purpose. I had a long-standing constituency case about persuading the Crown Estate to do something about a harbour at Crivy. It took something like five or six years before we finally concluded that it was actually their responsibility and then a good deal longer before they actually did anything about it. However, I think that the Crown Estate, if there were anything, would passively malign or passively neglectful. They were slightly better than other people if the Presiding Officer allows me time. I have to say that I object to your use of the word malign. I objected to Mr Wightman's use of the word malign in the description of the Crown Estate managers who were entirely doing their job as the best-so-fit and within the confines of the law entirely. I know many of those people directly and they are men and women of honour and are declaring that interest. However, I particularly object to the use of the word malign in that regard and in their respect. I am sorry to be awkward about it again. I have already raised this point with Mr Wightman and I feel annoyed that it should have to be raised again. Mr Steves? Mr Scott is perfectly entitled to make the point that he has just made. I will, however, say that I was pointing at the organisation rather than the individuals with whom I have always had the best of relationships and felt as Mr Scott did that, as individuals, they were doing the best. However, the framework that constrained them did not let them do anything other than, in many instances, act in a way which one could describe as malign. However, let us not follow out about a single word that is simply not worth the hassle. There were private landowners around Scotland who were much, much worse. We used to go on holiday to Sutherland. The vestiges who were domiciled in Argentina never paid a penny of tax in decades and were much more adverse in the way that they helped with things. I realise that I should be bringing things to a conclusion. Let me just say that this is part of returning power to our communities. The David Stewart debate in April 2012, we all talked to Peter Peacock and of transfers that were made under community land in Scotland. This is part of a process of restoring to the people of Scotland some of the assets that are rightly theirs and control over them. We have not completed the journey, but it is a useful and helpful start. Before I begin, I would like to draw members' attention to my register of interest, in particular to farming. Today's stage 3 debate on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill is another important step in realising the recommendations of the Smith commission. I have listened to some of the comments about the Crown Estate at this stage. I have also listened to some of the tenants on the Crown Estate, especially agricultural tenants, who seem to be perfectly happy with the way things will run in the past and look forward to a continuation in the future. I am pleased that, in every stage of the bill's passage through this Parliament, much of the debate has passed and focused on enabling more local control of assets to local authorities. In other words, devolution. I am a strong supporter of more local control, and I am pleased that there are provisions in the bill that enable the management of some Crown Estate assets to be passed beyond local authorities. What I am cautious about, though, is too much double devolution, which allows the management of what I believe are national assets to such a local level that the national benefits of the assets could be lost. For example, those who lived in landlocked local authorities, as we have heard this afternoon, such as East Renfrewshire and North and South Lanarkshire, could lose out and should not lose out on the benefits of the management of the Crown Estate assets in areas such as the seabed just because they do not have a coastline. After all, the seabed is an asset that benefits all users, not just the islands and coastal authorities. I believe that we must remember that the Crown Estate assets are national assets and, as such, the Scottish Government has a duty to ensure that the assets and benefit do so to the benefit of Scotland as a whole. I believe that the balanced approach that has been taken with the bill, which, with one hand, means more local control and, on the other hand, ensures that Scotland's national assets are managed in the national interest, should be welcomed. However, I do have concerns on the potential selling-off of assets. The last thing that we need to see is a complete break-up of the Crown Estate land in Scotland. I believe that, if assets are disposed of, the Government should consult with the Parliament and will agree with the Parliament how they should be done. I believe that they have singily failed to do in relation to our forests, where they have seen much of the land sold off and not replaced, which was the requirement and the requisite of the consent that Parliament gave when those forests could be sold. The Scottish Conservatives therefore will be watching carefully the Scottish Government and would expect the Government to publish its strategic plan, and there should be robust guidance included in it to ensure that the estate does not become too fragmented. Turning specifically to farming, I would strongly advise the Government to consider how best to manage the assets. They must not be fragmented and they must increase new tenants and young farmers into Scottish agriculture. There are so many young farmers across Scotland who are desperate for tenancies, and the Scottish Government should not let them down by selling off farming assets. They should rather create more opportunities. I believe that the Government needs to learn the lessons from the sale of Ock and Hallrig farmers—a sale that removed rather than created new opportunities for young farmers. Today, I will be voting in favour of stage 3 of the Crown Estate Bill, as it turns the recommendations of the Smith's commission into reality. However, I conclude with a note of caution. With the passing of this bill, the Scottish Government is getting control of some very important assets, and I would urge it to think twice about selling them. I took over the convenership of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee at the end of deliberations on the Crown Estate Bill and was plunged straight in as the stage 2 vote was on the agenda. As we all know, the devolution of the management of funds from the Crown Estate was one positive result of the Smith's commission and provides scope particularly for coastal rural communities to have more say in the benefits from the land in terms of economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing as sustainable development. I commend the committee and the bill team in particular on how the stage 1 evidence process was managed. Through evidence sessions, thorough evidence sessions took place, the wide variety of stakeholders and their evidence helped to make the bill stronger. Feedback from the stakeholder advisory group was extremely positive on how the committee and the bill team operated. I echo what the cabinet secretary's remarks there. I also want to thank Graham Day for the convener at the time for steering that course with the assistance of the committee clerks. At the point of which I took over, I want to say one thing about the process and the issue that dominated the day in which the bill passed stage 2 in the committee. Of course, that is the harvesting of kelp. I tried to intervene many times during the debate on that particular amendment but no member accepted my intervention. I am going to use my time to make the points that I would have made then and cause me considerable discomfort at the time of a new convener, as well as a member. A lot of people do not realise that committee members were being asked to vote on an issue that had not come up as part of the evidence sessions in the committee stage 1 deliberations, which in essence is purely about the management of the current estate. It is never a good look for anyone in our responsible position to make a judgment based on no or at best anecdotal evidence. On that basis, I abstained in that stage 2 amendment vote. As thorough as that stage 1 report was, I did a word search for kelp and I found not one result in the report. Issues around marine horticulture are not simple things. There is nothing in the natural environment as I am finding out by stealth. I still have many questions that I would like to answer around this issue. Getting hundreds of Twitter messages or 38-degrees emails on the issue shows public engagement and passion but it is no substitute for evidence gathering from scientists and stakeholders who note a subject intimately. I had questions on the methods of harvesting. I had questions on the health and safety and, like Joanne Lamont, I had a considerable amount of questions with an importance to the coastal rural economy and I thought that her speech was excellent in bringing that to the debate. I think that all of us should be very careful of ever voting on anything on which we have not had the opportunity to get on the record evidence on. Unintended consequences can only be identified through scrupulous evidence and that is what I think that people of the public expect of us. The Stuart Stevenson is right and if I can offer him a colloquial term that reflects his description of the process that he probably would get away with with the POV, he'll still be gaudy. I'm very uncomfortable today in voting for a subject that I still not had the opportunity to do a detailed inquiry on despite my efforts to do post-stage two investigations of my own. Therefore, I'm very pleased and relieved that the Government is committed to doing its own wide-ranging consultation on the issue. Maybe then we can look at a system that protects species and habitats, but does not cut rural Scotland off from the current and future economic, health and social opportunities of sourcing food, medicines, biopolymers and chemicals in the way that other northern countries are involved in, like Iceland and the Faro Islands. Kelp can be the source of cattle feed that can reduce methane emissions—we're all wanting to look towards something that does that—and biopolymers that can replace plastic packaging, that blights our environment currently, and the pharmaceuticals that could provide cures of relief to multiple ailments and diseases. We need to take a rounded evidence-based approach on this outside of a bill that was not designed to carry this level of detail into a particular area that goes well beyond the area that is included in the Crown of State. I did not come to this Parliament to abstain. I can't stand abstaining—it's not in my nature. I came in to listen, question, deliberate and decide. The commitment of this Government consultation allows me to come off the uncomfortable position of the fence in the knowledge that we will move forward with all the evidence at our fingertips, which is hugely important, so that the right decisions are made with no negative unintended consequences to the marine environment, but also for the people who depend on that environment for their wellbeing, livelihoods and their communities' very existence. That is for me what the devolution of the management of the Crown of State is about. I am not going to ask whether that was an unparliamentary phrase. I am sure to find out at some point. We will move to closing speeches. I call on Mark Ruskell to close to the greens in three minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that we have reached a good point with this bill. We haven't rocked the boat to the point of sinking, perhaps as Tavish Scott and Andy Whiteman would like. It has gone some way to delivering the Smith commission recommendations, not the whole way, but the spirit of the Smith commission is there. I look forward to the further devolution of the rewards and responsibilities of the Crown of State management to democratically elected councils. We have had some debate around sustainable development and around the important duty that is now in the bill, but perhaps too many members, including Mr Scott, see that there is a trade-off, a trade-off between the economy and social objectives and environmental objectives. That is to misunderstand what sustainable development is about. It is about locking in win-wins for future generations. Perhaps we need, in this Parliament, something like the Future Generations Act, which is in place in Wales, which ensures that sustainable development thinking runs through every single piece of legislation that we take forward. It is important that, as we move forward to develop those economic opportunities that grow from the use of our seabed, that sustainability is right at the heart. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the growth of the salmon farming industry, mistakes that were made during the life of this Parliament but which committees failed to scrutinise and we just kept making them over and over again, compounding the environmental impact without actually taking the action that is needed. New sectors such as industrial kelp harvesting need to be understood fully and planned for. That is why the approach that the cabinet secretary is taking of a review of this whole sector is important. It will help to set the vision, which ultimately will deliver the kind of certainty that businesses need to choose the right pathway to commercial success, but that will be against a backstop that is now in the bill, a backstop of sustainability. I recently met with Gillian Martin, a group of ferries kelp farmers, who represent a rapidly expanding industry, which, unlike mechanical harvesting of kelp, is scalable. Farm kelp can produce 10 times the level of usable sugars and proteins per hectare than farm soya. That should give us the sense of the economic opportunity here, but only if we learn the lessons of the past and set the sustainability bar high for industry. Finally, Presiding Officer, I would like to pay tribute to the communities whose voices have been heard loud and clear on this particular issue. I would also like to pay tribute to Spice, of course, who have produced briefings and materials for members to read on this particular issue, commissioned by the committee. From primary schools to professors, from divers to David Attenborough, from the shellfish to the whitefish sector, concerns have been raised. We have remarkable people, scientists who have galvanised their arguments intelligently and articulately. We thank them for that. There will be many more discussions that the Government will now need to have with a wide range of interests on this issue. I look forward to the outcome of those reviews. I speak today as someone who is no longer a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, but I would like to place on record how much I enjoyed working with the members of the committee on the bill and other topics, and how much I appreciate the work of the clerks and the researchers and all the advice that they gave us, and the people who gave up their time to provide evidence to the committee as we took the bill through stage 1 to reach stage 3. The cabinet secretary has rightly said that this is a historic occasion. It is further devolution of powers to Scotland. It is certainly something that I have always believed that, where there is a clear case for further powers to be devolved to this Parliament in the interests of Scotland, it is something that we should all be supportive of seeing happen. The white man feels that the reforms have been modest, which Tavish Scott also agreed with, but I would say that it is a good start. Let us see where we go as we understand more the opportunities that will come about by having the devolved Crown Estate. I can also pick up on a point, Presiding Officer, that Tavish Scott spoke about when he mentioned the retirement of the chief executive of the Lerwick Port Authority, Sandra Lawson. As Tavish Scott knows, I have spent many a year up in Lerwick in Bresen. I know of the good work that Sandra has done over all those years, so I would join her in congratulating her on being the first Port Authority master in the country and wish her success in whatever she goes on to next. When we speak about assets of the Crown Estate, it is important to remember the diversity and location of those assets, ranging from instantly recognisable buildings and landmarks to farmland, coastline and wilderness environments. Clearly, good management is essential to the effective management of all those areas of the Crown Estate, but it is important that its value is not just seen in the context of commercial gain. I am therefore pleased that the bill sets out to achieve that and does so by stating that the powers and duties of managers should maintain and seek to advance not just the commercial value of the asset and the income arising from that, but, crucially, the manager may do so in a way that contributes to the promotion or improvement of economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing and, importantly, sustainable development. I want to speak about a couple of those assets. First, in terms of tenant farmers, I saw that Edward Mountain said that tenant farmers are quite happy and we should not look to change anything. In the evidence that we took from tenant farmers, it was clear that there is, shall we say, a variety of different quality in terms of the actual physical buildings and farms and the houses themselves. There is a need to empower farmers more. They were clear that they did not expect the local authority to start running the farm, but there is a need to look and I hope that we will be able to look at how tenant farmers have a stronger voice and how they are able to make better representations in order to improve the properties that they are in. I do also take on board the point that Edward Mountain made about wanting to ensure and encourage more young farmers to agree entirely with that. On the issue of kelp, I certainly voted for the amendment at stage 2, because for me it was pretty straightforward that we said that kelp harvesting needed to be sustainable. Why would you not want something to be sustainable? That is why I supported it. It is tough to say that I have done much more reading and understood a lot more about kelp harvesting since stage 2. I certainly have no regrets in voting for the amendment at stage 2. I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement today to have a further review of the kelp harvesting and opportunities. I close by saying that we have done a good deal of work and welcomed the bill as it will be passed today. Before I call Finlay Carson, I have a brief pause while we ring the division bell. I did not want you to try to speak over the division bell, Mr Carson. Do you want to hear every word that you have to say? I call Finlay Carson to close with the Conservatives, please. I appreciate that. I am pleased to be speaking in tonight's debate as the Crown State Bill in the years at its final stages of the process, having spoken at stage 1 and also as a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, which has heard extensive evidence on the bill. The Scottish Conservatives have always supported the Crown State Bill in principle and believe that many of the changes made throughout the legislative process will have strengthened the bill for the better. Following on from the Smith commission recommendations and the Scotland Act 2016 and the devolution of management of the Crown State to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Crown State Bill sets the framework for the long-term management of the Crown State in Scotland. The bill identifies who can become a manager of the Crown State asset, how its management can be devolved within Scotland and what the remit of the new managers could be. I agree that local authorities, including island councils, may be well placed to take on the management of assets and recognise that further devolution to local authorities was a significant recommendation of the Smith commission. However, given the right support, smaller community groups may be a more appropriate body and may be able to more successfully take on the management of the assets. I do not believe that there should be any assumption that local authorities should be by default the most suitable organisation, and I am pleased that this will be the case if the bill is passed tonight. I do believe in community empowerment, but the idea of the council in my own region of Dumfries and Galloway by default certainly being responsible for the management of local Crown State assets is not exactly one that would fill me with confidence. I stressed at stage 1 that is my meaning, and I mean it with the greatest respect at Dumfries and Galloway Council, but I have not heard of any great wish for them to take on the asset at Appleworth estate. Indeed, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, while welcoming the devolution of assets, is also firmly of the view that the assets of the four rural assets could be successfully managed by the Scottish Government directly or through a body set up for that specific purpose. That was the recommendation that was brought forward to the clear committee and received cross-party support. It is important to strike the right balance in terms of future management of the Crown State between local and national level. We should recognise that a national body may be the best suited to achieve the desirable outcomes, and therefore in some instances it is right that national management structures remain in place. It is important to know which one the Government recognises that it can be managed at local level and which ones cannot. For example, it is only right and sensible that a national body with a Scotland-wide overview is responsible for the management of offshore renewables, energy-related assets and other cable and pipelines. Recognition should be given to the national significance of the seabed and rightly should be managed nationally, and the bill will ensure that the seabed cannot be sold. However, other assets, once again, and I share the committee view that the bill in some instance should retain provision for devolution to occur where a local authority can demonstrate appropriate expertise and it is considered beneficial from a socio-economic, environmental or sustainable development perspective. With regard to the future sustainability of the Crown State Scotland, I believe that it was important to establish and maintain a list of Crown State assets and associated liabilities. With that requirement to be included in the face of the bill, it would have been important to underpin continuation of the access to cross-subsidisation. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has given us assurance that, while John Scott's amendment was drawn, that will still be the case. Oh boy, if we did not know about kelp before, we certainly know about it now, as do lots or millions of people across Scotland. I sincerely welcome that. However, I have many concerns, not exclusively around environmental pros and cons of commercial harvesting of our natural kelp forests, but more about the appropriateness of the late introduction of the topic of kelp harvesting. Mr Whiteman correctly states points of order or provisions to bring forward amendments and so on, and I have no issue with that, but we should probably ask ourselves whether it was the best way to do it and whether it was appropriate in the Crown State bill. I welcome Mark Ruskell's amendment at stage 2, but only as a probing amendment to bring forward the serious concerns about commercial kelp harvesting and the potential for environmental damage. His amendment did not provide the protection that environmental campaigners might have expected. All kelp is equal, but some kelp is more important than others, because the Crown State kelp might have been protected through this bill, but what about the thousands of square miles of kelp which will not? I would like to think that this Parliament takes decisions regarding environment-based and strong, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Now, that in no way undermines or undervalues information and evidence that both environmental and community groups of the kelp harvest industry, which was very well received through meetings, email and social media, however, there was simply no time to hold a satisfactory consultation and preferably look at the evidence in committee for full scrutiny under the close watch of the public. That is not how I would like to see hugely important issues such as kelp harvesting dealt with. As my colleague Angus Macdorrell said in the clear committee, this bill is an enabling bill that is not for banning anything. However, I welcome enthusiastically the announcement that a review will be undertaken that could lead to additional commercial opportunities but also protect our well kelp forests. The cabinet minister suggested that the licensing regime was robust, but I would argue that the reason why we are talking about kelp is that it is not. I hope that I will play my role in the licensing reviews of members of the environmental climate change land reform committee. I would like to thank my colleagues across the chamber, committee clerks, witnesses and contributors for giving us to this stage in the bill and to look forward to passing it this evening. Thank you very much. Before I call the cabinet secretary, again, another short pause for the division-beltering, please. Thank you very much. I will call the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate, please. Can I ask members to show a bit of respect to the cabinet secretary? You may learn things about kelp, but you did not know. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to members across the chamber for that. Excuse me a minute, cabinet secretary. Some people weren't listening to that, and I meant it. Thank you. I am grateful to members across the chamber for their usually normally helpful and constructive contributions to the debate. I wanted to characterise some of them very briefly and not get drawn into some of the detail. John Scott gave us a good lesson on process. Claudia Beamish gave us a lesson on sustainable development. Andy Wightman gave us a lesson on history, as ever, and Tavish Scott also gave us a lesson on Shetland. I think that each of those contributions symptomised quite a lot of the contributions that we got throughout today. I thank all members for the contributions as the bill has progressed through Parliament. I said at the beginning of the debate that this is a historic day. We have been debating the first ever bill in the Parliament on the management of the Scottish Crown and State. The parliamentary process has made improvements to the bill. The Government has listened. We have accepted a number of recommendations that were made by the stage 1 discussions that have been on-going right up to the very last possible second on possible improvements to the bill. I have sought to maintain a consensual approach while retaining focus on the actual purpose of the bill, which is to create appropriate processes to change who can manage a Scottish Crown and State asset and to reform the Government's and management framework while maintaining the revenue and capital value of the state. The purpose of the bill looked in the past few weeks as if it might be rather lost in the other debate. In my view, the stage 3 amendments to section 72 are an excellent example of that consensual approach by strengthening the duties to take account of wider issues such as sustainable development but to do so in a proportionate way. Up until now, the management of the Crown and State has been governed by the Crown and State Act 1961, which was expressed in terms of English property law and reflected the dominance of urban commercial property to the revenue of the UK-wide Crown and State. The balance of the Scottish Crown and State is, of course, quite different, and there have been since 1961 new industries such as oil, gas extraction, offshore renewables and aquaculture, all of which have an impact and all of which we can see will lead to significant revenue growth in the future. We also have a vision shared across this chamber that, in the management of the Scottish Crown and State, we should strive to add value to the wellbeing of citizens throughout Scotland's communities, embracing social benefits and sustainable development, as well as financial gain. Part of that vision is our pledge to create a framework for further devolving management to the communities of Scotland, creating an opportunity to truly place the accountability of the Scottish Crown and State in the hands of people across the country. I make no apology for putting that emphasis on communities. Of the various organisations that have stepped forward at this point to show interest in management, there are three local councils, Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles, but we have also got Port Gordon Harbour, Finthorn Village, Gullston Estate, St Abs and I, my voluntary marine reserve, the Tayon Arn Trust and Lochgoil Moorings Association. There is an appetite out there among communities, and I think that it is important to actually reflect that. The issue of kelp harvesting has at times seemed to overwhelm the purpose of this bill, and I am not going to get dragged back into it at this point in the debate. We are where we are. We may feel that it has not been the most appropriate process to follow, but nevertheless that is a debate perhaps to be had elsewhere than in the context of stage 3. In closing, the bill has been improved and strengthened as a result of the parliamentary process. I am very grateful to the members of the committee and other members in the chamber today for their contributions. I believe that we now have a bill that will help to ensure the long-term management sustainability of those important assets. For the first time, there are also new powers in legislation to change the manager of a Scottish Crown Estate asset. I am pleased to have created a historical first by bringing forward the first bill on the Scottish Crown Estate to this Parliament. We have seized an opportunity to develop a new, modern statutory framework that will support the realisation of our shared national ambition for some of Scotland's most important assets. I am proud to have moved the motion. Thank you very much, and that concludes our stage 3 debate on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill. The next item of business is consideration of a legislative content motion. Can I ask Humza Yousaf to move motion 14825 on the Crime Overseas Production Orders Bill? Can I also ask the cabinet secretary to move motion 14827 on the Offensive Weapons Bill? The next item of business is consideration of business motion 14837 in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on Graham Day to move that motion. No one wishes to speak in this motion. The question therefore is that motion 14837 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of another two parliamentary bureau motions. Can I ask Graham Day on behalf of the Bureau to move motions 14838 on approval of an SSI and 14839 on the remit of a committee? Thank you very much. We turn now to decision time. The first question this afternoon is that motion 14822 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill be agreed. Members should cast their votes now. Thank you. The result of the vote on motion 14822 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham is, yes, 119. There were no votes against. There were no abstentions. The vote is unanimous. The motion is therefore agreed and the Scottish Crown Estate Bill is passed. The next question is that motion 14825 in the name of Humza Yousaf on the crime overseas production orders bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 14827 in the name of Humza Yousaf on the Offensive Weapons Bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 14838 in the name of Graham Day on approval of an SSI be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 14839 in the name of Graham Day on the remit of a committee be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move on to members' business in the name of Claire Adamson on pancreatic cancer awareness. I will just take a few moments while members and ministers change seats.