 Y First Item of Business is consideration of business motion number 15939 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. On behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting up a timetable for the stage three consideration of the land reform bill. Any member who wishes to speak against motion should press a request button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15939. Firmly moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question, the question is, that motion number 15939 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15941 in the name of John Swinney on the Scotland Bill UK legislation. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press a request button now and I call on John Swinney to speak to and move the motion. Deputy First Minister, 13 minutes. I can well remember returning from school on 2 March 1979 to be greeted by my mother with some disappointing news. The yes campaign had not secured enough votes in the referendum to establish a Scottish Assembly. As a 15-year-old, I had been captivated by the sense of possibility that would come from the people of Scotland being able to shape our own future. A few weeks later, I joined the Scottish National Party to be my part in securing Scottish self-government. Today, for me, is a very significant day. Today, the Scottish Government is inviting Parliament to give its legislative consent to the Scotland Bill, the next step in extending the responsibilities of this Parliament and in Scotland's journey towards greater self-government. The aspiration for self-government is centred on ensuring that decisions about what happens in Scotland are made as close as possible to the people that they affect directly, decisions that reflect the views, the issues, the priorities, the hopes and the aspirations of the people of Scotland. The vibrant debate on Scotland's future, conducted during the independence referendum campaign, is what has brought us here today. Although my aspiration for independence was not sufficiently supported by the electorate, it was crystal clear that the people of our country wanted to exercise more control over their lives here in Scotland, and the political parties and the parliaments and Governments of Scotland and the United Kingdom had to make that happen. As we approach the end of this parliamentary session, it is appropriate to reflect on the journey that this Parliament has taken, in particular the momentous events of the last five years. Since 1999, this Parliament and the Government have continually evolved their powers, but the pace of devolution quickened after the former First Minister published a constitutional consultation document choosing Scotland's future in August 2007, and we began the national conversation discussing the powers that people in Scotland wanted this Parliament to have. In response, other parties and the United Kingdom Government established the Kalman commission publishing a Scotland Bill in 2010. This Scottish Parliament eventually gave its legislative consent to the last Scotland act in May 2012, so this is the second Scotland Bill that we have considered in this session. It has a remarkable regularity in coming along. We have used the powers in the 2012 act, addressing the scourge of driving, taking action on air guns, reforming stamp duty with land and buildings transaction tax. However, it was clear at the time that the 2012 act lagged behind the aspirations that the people have for this Parliament. As we have all considered whether we wished to be an independent country, an offer was made to the people of Scotland that they should vote against independence and that they would be offered a secure, modern form of Scottish home rule. The UK parties made a vow promising extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament. The outcome of the referendum led to the establishment of the Smith commission to agree a basis for the implementation of the commitments made by the UK parties. Along with my friend and colleague Linda Fabiani, I represented the Scottish National Party on the Smith commission and agreed the contents of its report. I paid tribute to my co-commissioners here in this Parliament, Annabelle Goldie, Ian Gray, Tavish Scott and Patrick Harvie and elsewhere to Michael Moore, Greg Maclement, Maggie Chapman and Adam Tomkins. I paid particular tribute to Lord Smith, whose patient yet firm guiding direction enabled us to reach an agreement. For me, it clearly did not go far enough. As was painfully obvious during the process, for others it went far too far. However, the Smith process has delivered an agreement for additional powers that, used in the right way, can benefit the people of Scotland. Extended powers over tax, new powers over welfare, responsibilities for the Crown Estate, the British Transport Police tribunals licensing of onshore oil and gas activity. However, the Smith commission only produced a report. A bill and a fiscal framework were necessary before we could implement anything. The role of the devolution and further powers committee, under the distinguished leadership of Bruce Crawford, has been crucial in getting us to where we are today. The scrutiny of both Governments significantly and materially has improved the bill that we have before us today. Along with the diligent work of the finance committee, under the convenership of Kenneth Gibson, both committees created the tests that would be central to agreeing a fiscal framework. To me, this work highlights the excellence that we have come to expect from the strong committee system of this Parliament. Although the bill is not perfect, it reflects the efforts of many people in this chamber and beyond, much joint working between the UK and the Scottish Governments, and ministers are prepared to recommend that Parliament consents to it completing its parliamentary passage at Westminster. The Government has already set out a number of proposals to use the powers to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, a social security bill, establishing a social security agency and moving as early as possible to abolish the bedroom tax, greater support for carers, greater flexibility over universal credit payments and, as important, a social security system based on dignity and respect for the individuals that that agency has got to serve. Effective employability services that support people who are scoping with severe cuts in funding that are highlighted in the report of the Devolution Further Powers Committee. Consultation on replacing and reducing air passenger duty to boost the economy, and we have already extended the right to vote in May's elections to 16 and 17-year-olds, a right that they will exercise in a few short weeks to the close interest of all of us within this parliamentary chamber. We will set out further proposals in due course, and if we are returned as the Government in May, we will fully utilise the powers available to us. Of equal importance to the bill has been the fiscal framework that accompanies it. My overriding aim has been to secure a fiscal framework for Scotland that was fair, workable and faithful to the principles that Smith set out in his report. My approach throughout the negotiations was that I would not sign up to a deal that would impose systematic cuts to Scotland's budget. That outcome has been achieved for the Scottish interest. The fiscal framework states that Barnett will continue to determine the size of the block grant, and that this is the benchmark against which we must assess the operation of the principle of no detriment, which was central to the conclusions of the Smith commission. The Governments have agreed that the block grant adjustment for tax and benefits should be affected by using the comparable model and the Barnett formula respectively, while achieving the outcome delivered by the index per capita method for tax and benefits. Each year it will be necessary to concurrently calculate the block grant adjustment based on both the comparable and Barnett models and the IPC model. The first step will be to calculate the adjustments on the basis of the comparable and Barnett models. The second concurrent step will be to calculate the adjustments on the basis of the IPC model. Finally, if there is a difference between the Barnett comparable and IPC calculations, then there will be a reconciling adjustment to the calculations that have been made to ensure that the mechanism delivers the IPC outcome before the start of each financial year. The agreement, complex I accept, ensures that the Scottish Minister's IPC model drives the outcome of the block grant adjustment process and also crucially ensures that the Scottish budget does not carry any detriment whatsoever. After that, there can be no default by the UK Government to a funding model that would deliver detriment in the future. Future arrangements have to be agreed jointly. This is one of the key issues, one of the great benefits of the conclusion of the Smith commission report, was that the arrangements for the fiscal framework were required by Smith to be agreed jointly by the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government, making us equals in determining those issues. It is that factor that has enabled us to protect Scotland from the implications of detriment that could have arisen. The arrangement therefore fully delivers the Smith principle of no detriment, and to aid transparency the results of the two models will be presented in the annual reports to each Parliament. Besides the block grant adjustment, the fiscal framework sets out the agreement reached in other important areas such as capital and resource borrowing, funding for administration and implementation costs, and the effective policy spillovers associated with tax and welfare. It provides a governance framework for the future, making it clear that decisions in relation to the framework will be taken jointly by both Governments in the Joint Exchequer Committee. Yesterday, the two Governments published a technical annex to the fiscal framework, which sets out in further detail the agreement that was reached and published when the agreement was reached with the United Kingdom Government. I would have preferred to publish that with greater time available to members to scrutinise that before the debate, but it simply amplifies and provides more detail on the agreement that the First Minister announced to Parliament a couple of weeks ago and is therefore members to scrutinise as background to the process that has been agreed to. We have therefore an agreement on a fiscal framework that increases the Scottish Parliament's financial responsibility, is consistent with the Smith principles of no detriment and is fair to the people of Scotland and therefore in a position to recommend that Parliament provides legislative consent to the Scotland bill today. This session has seen a remarkable journey for Scotland and her Parliament. From the legislative consent motion on the 2012 act, through legislation for our referendum and the referendum itself, the enormous engagement of members of the public on the constitutional question, followed by promises to the people of Scotland of federalism and home rule, then the 10 weeks of the Smith commission, a draft Scotland bill, a UK general election, then the consideration of the bill at Westminster, hours of scrutiny by the devolution committee and the finance committee and seven months of negotiations over the fiscal framework. The result is a set of powers that do not enable us to do all that this Government would want to be able to do, but a range of powers that we will use to the full in the interests of building a stronger Scottish economy, of tackling inequality and ensuring that all of our people have the opportunity to flourish in Scotland. I believe that the more we exercise self-government here in Scotland, the more the benefits become clear to members of the public, the stronger the argument becomes for extending our powers even further. That is Scotland's journey, and I encourage the Parliament today to take a further decisive step on that journey by supporting the Government motion. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. I now call Ian Gray, Mr Gray, nine minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to support the motion in Mr Swinney's name and to express my delight that we have arrived here at this debate and this question. After all, like Mr Swinney, I spent 10 weeks of my life locked in the Smith commission thrashing out an agreement on what further powers this Parliament should have. The one major thing that Smith left undone, of course, was the fiscal framework left to be negotiated between the Scottish and UK Governments. I confess that there were times when I did think that those negotiations were going to break down irrevocably and that the whole agreement would fall. That would have been a travesty, because although those negotiations were in effect between only two parties, the SNP and the Tories, they were, of course, both signatories to the Smith commission. If the Tory Government had failed to reach agreement, they would have betrayed the promise made to the Scottish people at the time of the referendum. Equally, had the Scottish Government failed to reach a deal, it would have meant that a grotesque outcome of a nationalist Government presented with the opportunity to make this Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Administrations anywhere in the world through the biggest transfer of powers to Scotland since 1999 and letting that opportunity slip through their fingers. I happily, for me, was not in the room, so I do not know why the agreement went to the wire, but I do know that I agreed with John Swinney's interpretation of no detriment in the Smith agreement that it did not apply simply on the day of devolution, but over time, too. I supported Mr Swinney, too, in arguing that the adjusted blocs should not be reduced as a result of differential changes to population, because he was correct in arguing that the Barnett formula, which is population based, already adjusts for that, so a further reduction would be superfluous. I have the highest regard for Mr Swinney as a negotiator in spite of his many other flaws. I want to take this chance to congratulate him once again on reaching a very good deal for Scotland and securing the benefits of the Smith agreement and the Consequent Scotland Act. He deserves all our thanks for that. The devolution story, which brings us here this morning, has both a longer term and a more immediate narrative, and Mr Swinney made some reference to this, too. From the moment this Parliament began, it was clear that it was imbalanced, that our Parliament had been created with a very high degree of legislative competence, indeed full powers of parliamentary legislation over many critical areas of the life of our nation, but it was also clear that we had little fiscal or financial power. The original variable rate was a flawed power and was not surprisingly never used. The common powers began to address this, but it is Smith and the New Scotland Act, which really writes the next chapter in the story of devolution. This is, of course, the final chapter in a more urgent and febrile narrative born of the referendum campaign in 2014, because Smith itself and the legislative process that has ensued delivered that vow, made in the final days of that campaign, that remaining in the United Kingdom would not mean the status quo but rather a new devolution settlement and substantial new powers for this Parliament. It is worth reminding ourselves what that promise was, since it has been misquoted, misconstrued and simply used to mislead ever since. The promise was, firstly, that this Parliament be made permanent, secondly, substantial devolution of powers over tax and welfare, and thirdly, the protection of the Barnett formula. The first was readily agreed in the commission, although it is admittedly legislatively awkward to do. The second is indisputably delivered with the devolution of some £20 billion worth of taxation and over £2 billion worth of welfare benefits, along with the new power to create our own benefits too. The third, the protection of Barnett, is delivered by the fiscal agreement and thereby we continue to benefit from the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom when it comes to the bedrock of the social solidarity that binds us together in old age, in unemployment or in starting a family. Passing, Presiding Officer, we shouldn't forget that there are a number of other important responsibilities that devolved to us, two powers over our own democratic structure and elections, and topically complete control of our unconventional gas exploitation, fracking, which allows those of us in these benches to have made clear to the Scottish public that we will ban this process. However, it is powers over tax and welfare that will transform and have already begun to transform this very Parliament, because this debate is also the latest threat in a third and deeper, longer narrative, born out of the arid years of the 80s and early 90s, when we faced a Government intent on attacking not nurturing our crucial public services, determined to break, not work with the institutions of social solidarity such as trade unions, a Government that saw division as something strong and bracing, not something weak and destructive? Does Mr Gray not think that we have a Government like that at this moment in time that are trying to break things like the trade unions and public services? Does he not think that it would be better if we had even more powers to deal with those things, rather than relying on the Tories at Westminster to deal with them? I do indeed think that we have a Government like that at the moment, and I will come to what I think about that immediately. Out of the 80s and 90s came the idea that we could have a devolved democratic institution that would allow us to stand strong and make our own decisions about the kind of Scotland that we want, and that saw this place conceived, campaigned for and then created. I think that we do have a UK Government now hell-bent on wrong-headed austerity, cutting futures rather than investing. This Parliament was made for a time like this, and the new powers that will flow from the LCM and the legislation that follows ensure that we can choose a different way. Look at yesterday's statistics on inequality and poor health and teenagers. They need us to choose a different way, or to think of our children and care today, still with more chance of finding their way to prison than to university, or our fellow citizens living with disability, seeing their support cut and cut again. It is the choice to do better for them, which is coming our way. A legislative consent motion on a wet Wednesday morning could not get more mundane than that. Yet any of us who is not excited by the opportunity that this moment presents to us has to ask themselves if they are in the right place. Anyone who sees these powers over tax and welfare and only asks themselves why I do not have more, rather than what am I going to do with this incredible opportunity should be asking themselves if they are in the right place. The truth is this—we do not leave this Parliament after this parliamentary session as we found it. However bumpy the ride, we have transformed it. However, if that was the achievement of the Parliament's session now ending, and Mr Swinney elaborated how much of our time and attention it has dominated in the past five years, if that is the achievement of the session now ending, surely now the obligation is on us to use it to transform our nation and the lives of its people. The Parliament is indisputably big enough now to do that. The question is, are we big enough to make it happen? There is no excuse for timidity now, no excuse to accept cuts that we say are unacceptable, no excuse to fail in making the investments that we say are critical, no reason to say that there is another way and then fail to take it. The hard negotiations to empower this Parliament are done and now we must make the hard choices to use its powers to stop the cuts, to protect our people and to make their future what we know it can be. Thank you, Mr Gray. I now call on Annabelle Goldie, Ms Goldie, six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I understand that this is not my final speech that will take place next week, but, in a sense, the bill encapsulates a journey for me, a marked change in my own views since 1999, and it reflects a significant development in the life of this institution. In a way, it brings me to a natural conclusion of a process in which I have been closely involved at the very point when I also reached the conclusion of my time here, perhaps an appropriate symmetry. It is also imagined that, last time that I shall face the cabinet secretary, the Deputy First Minister, in this chamber. Before proceeding to the meat of this debate, I would ask the chamber to indulge me in some very brief reflections. What we are discussing this morning is the culmination of a process that began when there was a recognition that the Scotland Act 1998 was not the end of the story, but the opening chapter to a longer one. I realised after some years that the limitations of that act were putting a break on the natural desire of this Parliament to take on more responsibility and, at the same time, putting a corset on real political responsibility. In 2007, I was one of the progenitors of the Kalman commission, which took us, as the Deputy First Minister said, to the Scotland Act of 2012. In September 2014, the Smith commission was announced by the Prime Minister, and I was delighted to be asked to serve on that, and that process culminated in the Scotland bill, the legislative consent motion for which we debate today. I have also, with pride, played my part in another place, supporting this bill and ensuring that the parliamentary and political significance of the bill is understood. The genesis of this bill was the Smith commission, and I want to acknowledge the Herculean task undertaken by a man of immense talent, Lord Smith. His wise and patient stewardship of the process ensured a positive outcome. I also pay tribute to the other members of the commission, but I particularly wish to comment, perhaps in the role of the Cabinet Secretary, my friend John Swinney. I also remember the commission, a task for him, which I recognised was never going to be easy. He and I have been members of this Parliament since 1999. We have our different political objectives. We have a robust divergence of views on a range of issues, but he skillfully prosecutes his case with focus, intelligence, integrity and courtesy. It has been my privilege to see that at first hand, whether in his convenership of the Enterprise Committee, or in budget negotiations between our two parties in the period of minority government, or in the Smith commission, or in the challenging discussions to reach agreement in the fiscal framework, or in this chamber. He has earned respect as a public figure and it has been a pleasure to work with him as a political opponent. I shall particularly miss his hugely entertaining outbursts of full indignation. Between the Smith agreement and today, much has happened. On the bill, the UK Government listened to opposition parties and others, including the Scottish Government, bringing forward a raft of amendments at report stage and, throughout the proceedings in the House of Lords, which devolved abortion law, clarified powers over welfare and put beyond any doubt that there were no vetoes contained in the bill. The bill implements the Smith commission, in line with my party's previous pledges. No one can dispute the muscle and clout now coming to the Scottish Parliament. Lord Smith said on 24 February that, when the Smith agreement was passed to the Prime Minister and the First Minister, both gave their word that they would deliver it into law. They have met that promise in full. This is a big day for the Scottish Parliament, not because I am about to leave it, nor because I have just said some nice things about Mr Swinney, but because this is the day that the Scottish Parliament prepares to graduate. Today, this Parliament gives a green light to the Scotland bill. That bill will create a powerhouse Parliament. Independent research by SPICE has shown that the Scottish Parliament will become one of the most powerful devolved legislators in the world with a higher degree of autonomy than many federal states, such as the United States, Germany and Australia. However, this is also the day, as Ian Gray said, when the public debate about our country's future moves to questions of constitutional process in grievance politics and on to the real business of using power to improve people's lives. With control over around £12 billion of income tax revenues and around £5 billion of a sign that, plus responsibility over welfare benefits worth approximately, according to recent figures, £2.7 billion, real politics is arriving. The cabinet secretary's job just got harder. Let me console him. It could be worse. He has been spared being the chancellor of an independent Scotland, facing in year 1 a £15 billion deficit, turbulent oil markets and using someone else's currency. It is healthier that, for the first time in 17 years, we have discussed setting a Scottish rate of income tax in this Parliament, and we have begun to tentatively debate the design of employment services and welfare. That party is a big challenge for the Scottish Government in designing a social security system that is fair, but also incentivises its work and constructing a tax regime that does not play Scotland at its disadvantage with the rest of the United Kingdom. I and my party wanted to see a Scottish Parliament emerge from this process, which is more politically and financially responsible and accountable. I also wanted to see reflected the overwhelming desire of the majority of people in Scotland for a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. On all that, the Scotland Bill delivers. As to how all that plays out is for our successors as members of this Parliament, and I pray that they may be blessed with wisdom. My party supports the motion in Mr Swinney's name. Thank you, Ms Goldie. I now call on Bruce Crawford to speak on behalf of the Devolution for the Powers Committee. I am delighted to speak as the convener of the Devolution for the Powers Committee. I want to thank all the members of the Devolution Committee, past and present, for the manner on which they approached their tasks. I will pay special mention to Duncan MacNeill. I will remember fondly when a witness was being evasive when Duncan would roll his sleeves up in that shipyard fashion and make sure that he answered the questions that he wanted answered. We thank you for that, Duncan. I also want to thank all our parliamentary committees that have contributed to our report. I also thank our two advisers to the committee, Christine O'Neill and Professor Nicola McEwan. Lastly, I thank the particular tribute to Stephen Henry, Stephen Herbert and Andrew Howlett. They did a remarkable job as clerks to the committee. The process around the development and negotiation proposals for further devolution has, at times, been pressurised. The process was also frequently taken place behind closed doors and a private space where two Governments could negotiate. As a parliamentary committee, we felt strongly that we are a responsibility to try and open up the process in order to place transparency, accountability and parliamentary scrutiny at the heart of our work. That light, I am grateful to all the individuals, experts, organisations and particularly civic society who engage so fully with our work, particularly in regard to the proposed welfare powers. As a committee, we set ourselves two straightforward litmus tests to be passed before we considered that the committee would be able to recommend legislative consent to the Parliament. Firstly, the Scotland Bill provisions should meet both the spirit and substance of the Smith's commission recommendations. Secondly, that any fiscal framework agreed between the two Governments must be seen to be fair and sustainable. That is, that the Scottish budget should experience no detriment. We considered both tests to be equally valid and of the same value. Presiding Officer, I want to keep my remarks on the Scotland Bill in itself brief. I do ever want to welcome the changes that the UK Government made to the bill and the role played by the Secretary of State, David Mundell, many of which will reflect the recommendations that the committee had in its interim report. Just a couple of examples. Firstly, provisions that the Scottish Parliament cannot be abolished without a referendum of the Scottish people. After all, the people of Scotland are sovereign. Secondly, a clear articulation of the new powers that is closer to the spirit and substance of Smith in relation to the new and top-up benefits, carers allowance and the ability to introduce gender quotas. However, the committee continues to have some concerns regarding the content of the Scotland Bill. For instance, on employment support, it remains the case that only the programmes relating to individuals who have been unemployed for more than a year will be devolved. Nevertheless, I can say that, on balance, we consider the Scotland Bill meets our first test for legislative consent to be agreed. The fiscal framework became the key issue in our scrutiny of the proposals for further devolution. Ultimately, it was also the critical element in the whole process, as far as both Governments were concerned. I, too, congratulate the Deputy First Minister for his negotiating skills. In doing so, I was reminded of President Kennedy's words when he said, let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. However, it would be wrong not to recognise that the delay in agreeing a fiscal framework had a negative impact on the scrutiny that we were able to undertake on that crucial agreement. I mentioned earlier that there should be no detriment to the Scottish budget, which was a key issue for the committee. We therefore welcome the agreement that has been reached on block grant adjustment and indexation for the transitional period to 2021-22. We have some remaining concerns, and I think that those concerns are shared by the Finance Committee. It is clear that the two Governments in the evidence to us appeared to have different interpretations of what will happen if no agreement can be reached following the review of the transitional period. To be fair, the Deputy First Minister was clear about what he thinks will happen, and the chief secretary far less so. However, I would say to the chief secretary in the words of another American president, Abraham Lincoln, that he cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. Nevertheless, we welcome the fact that there will be an independent review of the operation of the fiscal framework, which will report by the end of 2021. It is also right to recognise that, despite the agreement that has been reached, there remains significant a move detail to be agreed. All of those arrangements must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the next session of Parliament. Despite the lack of detail in some areas and the undeniable challenges that lie ahead, the committee was on balance prepared to endorse the fiscal framework. Accordingly, we consider that both the tests that we set ourselves at the outset of our work have on balance been met, and we recommended that the Scottish Parliament gives its consent to the Scotland bill. It has been my privilege to be a convener of the devolution for the powers committee. It is now time to pass the baton of responsibility on to the next Parliament. It will have a big job ahead of it, scrutinising any new legislation that will flow from this bill. To do that job justice, it will be vital that the structures and operations of the committees in the next Parliament are made fit for purpose to deliver the changes that the people of Scotland will rightly expect. We now move to the open debate, Linda Fabiani, followed by Duncan McNeill. I am really pleased to have reached this point, which is outlined by the Deputy First Minister, has come from Kalman Scotland Act 2012 and the promises made to Scotland just before the independence referendum, federalism and home rule. In grey talks of rhetoric around this question being misleading, my contention would be that, in the days running up to our independence referendum, it was those who live in Scotland who were in fact misled. Indeed, with the understandable dissent of Alex Johnson MSP, the Devolution and Additional Powers Committee concluded that in paragraph 710, there are still some areas where we feel that the Scotland bill continues to fall short of the spirit and substance of Smith, notably in relation to the devolution of employment programmes. That is, as Mr Crawford outlined. I hear the comments that Linda Fabiani makes, but how does that equate to the remark made by Lord Smith himself that he believed that the vow and the promises of commission had been fulfilled? Lord Smith can answer from himself. What I can talk about is what we came to an agreement on in the committee with the exception of yourself. The fact is that what was agreed in Smith and outlined in the agreement has been changed and slashed in terms of funding coming in relation to the work programmes. That cannot be denied. Let's look further at this. Committee members, SNP, Labour, Lib Dem and Green concluded that the committee is disappointed with the decisions that have been taken in the area of employment programmes, both in terms of the degree of devolution and now on the stark reductions in the actual budgets that will be devolved. As I said, a complete change from what was in the Smith agreement. The committee also said that those decisions will seriously undermine a future Scottish Parliament's ability to make a meaningful change to some people's lives through tackling unemployment. Let's not pretend that this Parliament is today considering a package of additional powers that will allow this or any future Scottish Government to truly transform lives. We have to be realistic about this. During the Smith commission's sittings, there were overriding themes—the potential use of additional powers, the principle of no detriment—that both Governments should enter into further negotiations with parity of esteem as equal partners. As far as the no detriment is concerned, despite the initial attempts of the Treasury to use the negotiations in the fiscal framework to cut Scotland's budget to the tune of £7 billion, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister negotiated a deal to deliver powers promised to Scotland—some of those powers—without allowing a single penny to be removed from the Scottish budget. I think that that is something that we should thank them both for very much indeed. As far as the parity of esteem and coming together as equal partners is concerned, we discussed this at committee. It was difficult to get a very definitive answer from the Treasury Minister, but I think that this Parliament should certainly, to a one, be behind anyone who in the future goes to negotiate for Scotland and should insist that that parity of esteem and equal partnership is maintained. The other overriding theme that I mentioned was what we do with any additional powers that come our way. I am pleased that the SNP Government has already set out plans to use the new powers to be delivered. Already, there have been statements about increasing carers allowance to the same level as jobseekers allowance, abolishing the bedroom tax and having the power to do that. That is something that is very important. We have spent an awful long time mitigating the effects of what has been coming from Westminster to Scotland. Although that is not the full package of powers that we would want to truly transform lives, as I said earlier, there are things that we can do with our own powers instead of always chasing behind trying to make up for the shortfalls of a Westminster Government that, let's face it, was not voted into power by Scotland. There are other things that we can do—practicalities, allowing benefit claimants to be paid fortnightly rather than monthly. Something that is very important to families who have disabled children is scrapping that 84-day rule that removes income. As John Swinney said earlier, bringing forward a social security bill that creates a system that has dignity at its heart is very important. Despite that huge cut in the work programme, we will do what we can using those powers to support people back into employment. There are many other things that I have already stated that we will do—many other things that we can do. One of my hopes is that, in that parity of esteem and equal partnership with the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government, there will be times when we look at things and say that it would be much more sensible to make adjustment here in relation to powers. The committee mentioned that about gifted because there is an anomaly there. I am sure that there will be many other things that we can discuss that will allow both sides to have that respect, both sides to be equal partners and actually working for the best of everyone who lives in Scotland. Thank you. I now call Duncan McNeill. This is Mr McNeill's final speech on the Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I take just a moment to thank all those members of staff who served me my breakfast and put up with my ransom at the IT system supported me in the committees of the Parliament right down to Paul Grice, whose advice and support that I valued very much over that pace. I should mention Alison Mackenzie, my PA, my constituency office, front of all knowledge and all those who have worked from the over that period of time, Colin, Jill Craig and Richard. One of my first speeches as a newly elected MSP, one of your predecessors, indulged me by allowing the opportunity to announce the birth of Chloe, the second of my four grandchildren. In a few weeks' time, like this Parliament, Chloe will turn 17. One of the first of the devolution generation, who have grown up every day with a Scottish Parliament as part of their lives. As a tiny baby as she was then, she has become a beautiful young adult. In many ways, the formative years of this Parliament have mirrored that familiar journey from infancy to maturity. We certainly had our teething promos, our sleepless nights, when we tackled very early on the discrimination and inequality that was within Scottish society and what ground we have made up. Of course, the cost of this beautiful building. Sometimes we felt almost under siege at that time. Through time, we have found a place in Scottish life and we have found our confidence, but without the ability seriously to tackle that and balance it, which was referred to Ian Gray, to raise our own money. Many of the debates were dismissed by lacking political maturity and at its worst resembling that sloppy teenager complaining about not getting enough pocket money. Those tensions became so heated that we were even threatened to leave altogether. Instead, we have agreed on a new settlement, which we should at least take satisfaction at the end of this day when we will all come together and agree, as the Deputy First Minister said, that this is a significant day for us all. We are now a 17-year-old Parliament about to come of age ready to take on more responsibilities and then earn more of our keep. Excited and enthused, as others have mentioned, about the opportunities that that will provide. Of course, there will be challenges there as well. It will change politics and it will change how we do our politics, but we have been given our key to the income tax door. However, as someone who has served in Holywood, Holyrood—that was my senior moment—sometimes a Hollywood technique, I have served in this Parliament as a party whip, as a corporate body member, a committee convener and a proud chair of the Labour Party group, as someone who who has agreed strongly for those powers to come to Scotland. Even when it was not as popular within Mown Parkway, I believe that I am qualified and entitled to question whether we have demonstrated sufficient responsibility to exercise them. In my experience, it tells me that this Parliament has not kept pace with that change and it must do so soon if its work is to be effective for the people that it serves. I was reminded this week that Robin Cook came to this Parliament when he was the house leader. This Parliament was new and there were things here to be learned in his journey to reform Westminster. It saddens me to say that we now have to do a bit of learning from them and how they run their business. It will be, of course, for the next Scottish Government to decide how their policies and how the new powers can be used to implement those policies and how we should tackle the big issues that we have been discussing here, how we build a successful economy and how we transfer and transform the health service to make it even better than it is. That biggest challenge of all is inequalities that affect and exclude so many of our population. However, it will be this Parliament's responsibility to ensure that there is accountability, scrutiny and even opposition when that is necessary. We must ensure that we are capable of meeting that challenge or we will face the consequences. The role of Presiding Officer will be key in that. I pay tribute to Tisha Marwick for the job that she has done as an advocate of change in the forum for her Parliament. I know that she has said herself that she has not been able to win all of the arguments. How can we ensure that our predecessor can take on this mantle and ensure that our procedure structures and ways of working are fitting for a modern, powerful Parliament? I believe that we need to ditch the convention. I believe that, in the way that we elect a new Presiding Officer, he is integral to changing Holyrood. Why not have open election where all members are free to put themselves forward? Not just those who are favoured by the leadership or the party whips, and be allowed to stand on their own manifesto of reform, gaining a mandate that cannot be restrained by those who oppose change? Those ideas could be put forward in hustings, engaging with people beyond this Parliament on their expectations for this Parliament and cross-party support should be necessary if not compulsory. Equally, the status and independence of our committees needs to be elevated and protected so that, finally, our ambitions for our committees are realised. We all wanted our Parliament to be different from Westminster better and, in many ways, we have succeeded. However, we must be open enough to recognise that, in some ways, it has not worked where the systems are better and the power and functions of our committee are one area where we need to get right. We must also ensure that our Parliamentarians and opposition parties have resources and means to do just that. A strong opposition is vital to our democracy and we need to ensure that they are equipped to do that effectively. Alas, that will be a debate that will be taken forward by members of the next Scottish Parliament, of which I will not be one. That is my last contribution that has been said after 17 years. On my first day as MSP for Greenland and Clyde, the first elected representative to be born and bred in the area, I stood just a few feet away from Donald Dewar when he made his famous speech to open the Parliament. He said, in the quiet moments today, we might hear some echoes from the past, the shout of the welder and the din of the great Clyde shipyards. I was a cockaburner, not a welder, but I hope that I have provided more than just an echo of Scotland's industrial past. I have always tried to be an authentic voice for working people in my community and the families that live there and many communities like it. When I entered the gates of that shipyard and the lower Clyde at the tender age of 15—even younger than Chloe—I thought that I had a job for life. I could never have imagined that, 50 years later, I would represent my colleagues, my family and neighbours in the Scottish Parliament and what anona that has been. We have seen what bad Governments can do when livelihoods of thousands of men and women were taken from them, a community that was plunged into massive employment and all the associated problems they are still living with. I have seen what good Governments can do with the regeneration of that community, attracting jobs, building new homes and schools and allowing people to live healthier lives. Good Government comes when they are forced to test their ideas, build consensus and correct mistakes. Chloe and her generation will look to the Scottish Parliament for good Government, which protects people when they are vulnerable and provides them with the opportunity when they are ready to take it. I know that there are good people in this Parliament and there can be good Government, and I will watch them from afar and wish them well for their future and the future of the Scottish people. Thank you, Mr McNeill. On behalf of the Parliament, I thank you for your contribution as a member, SPCB member, committee convener and as a great parliamentarian. You have served as Parliament well and it has been a privilege to have been on the journey with you. We wish you well and all you do in the future. I, too, found a Duncan McNeill speech last night when I was looking forward to this debate, because I had some inkling that Duncan would be giving some thoughts on his very distinguished time in this place. It was actually when he was congratulating a good friend of his on becoming the Deputy Minister for Sport and Culture in November 2000. I suppose that Duncan will remember that it is some relation to Labour's consideration of where sport and culture policies should be, and he uttered the somewhat pointed phrase, I wish him, this is the new minister, every success, and I look forward to hearing less about Puccini and more about Perini. Duncan will remember that Perini was a rather indifferent left-back at Ibrox in those days, and Puccini is rather well known for other reasons. Duncan always brought those thoughts to this place, and if I may say so, he also saved me on one occasion when he was chairman of the Labour parliamentary party. I forget now what the issue was, and frankly I'd probably choose to forget what the issue was, but there is some carry-on in transport as there inevitably was, and I had to go along to the Labour group to explain whatever Jackie Baillie's laughing, so it clearly must have been something in her area, but it explained some difficulty that had happened, and Duncan said, don't worry, they won't all eat you before breakfast, but probably just later, and I was grateful to him for getting me through that particular meeting. I also wanted to reflect, if I may, on the two, as the Deputy First Minister did on what's got us here in the first place. I recall a croft discussion in the 1999 election when someone who was in the middle of his lambing, and therefore wasn't particularly keen to talk to any politician, were said to me over a gate out in the west of Shetland. Until you lot have some responsibility for both sides of a croft of counters, he meant obviously the nation's balance sheets, then your place will not grow up. I think today much of that than the way in which the Deputy First Minister expressed it, and Ian Gray and Annabelle Goldie is so. It is that we would take decisions on both sides of that balance sheet that we would be able to ensure our decisions, whether to invest in schools or to cut education, whether to create a fair social security system for those less fortunate in our country as us, or indeed to really debate the divisions over tax and spend affecting every citizen and every business as they should be. That is, I think, profoundly important for the future of this institution in its relevance to people, but also in terms of its real importance. Others have mentioned the Smith commission, the basis for what is being discussed here today, this legislative consent motion. I just want to share and concur with the thoughts that were expressed around Lord Smith, also my own colleague Mike Moore, and all those who served on that body and the support for it, because there was some very able support across the civil servants of both London and, if I may say so, Edinburgh as well. I also want to pay tribute to John Swinney not just for his role in that, but I also want to agree with Annabelle Goldie's assessment and Ian Gray's assessment of what has happened on the fiscal commission and genuinely thank John Swinney for that work, which is profoundly important for now, but also, in my view, for the longer term as well. The Deputy First Minister made an observation that Smith and Commission's recommendations did not go far enough for some and were too far for others, and in that, of course, that is true. They did not go far enough for me either in some areas, because I profoundly believe in the devolution not just of power within to Scotland, but within Scotland as well. If there is one area that epitomises that for me, it is the Crown Estate. It has been a long business for many of us who particularly represent the islands and who have the marine environment to consider on a day-to-day basis that the Crown Estate responsibilities do not just sit in Edinburgh, but the responsibilities and the management power, not just money and not just the net finance but are devolved to the islands. I hope that in the next Parliament, whoever is the Government of the Day and whoever is the Deputy First Minister or the First Minister is able to fully deliver what the Smith Commission agreed in that area, which was those powers and those finances that would be devolved to the island areas and, indeed, to other island areas outwith the ones that I'm fortunate enough to represent. I also agree with Bruce Crawford's observations on the Further Powers Committee. I don't know what I will do with a Thursday morning from now on after the heaven knows how many running Thursdays we have had, although I thought tomorrow was going to be a nice quiet day. I could have maybe read a few papers and caught up with a bit of background reading, but oh no, I've got to speak on crofting law tomorrow morning, so from the sublime to crofting law anyway. Let me thank Bruce Crawford in particular for his very patient and sensible convenership of that committee. The fact that we just about produced a report that had all-party agreement was down to his skills and to his patience and the very few points that Alex Johnson descends for entirely understandable political reasons are in the overall scheme of things, I would suggest, fairly minor. It is no mean achievement on the constitution, given the make-up of this place, to come up with a broadly acceptable package for all. Can I make two final points, if I may, Presiding Officer, or even one, since you're waving at me? Let me just make one. The one area that I do want the Deputy First Minister to consider carefully is that the review that has been institutionalised in this fiscal commission report is very significant, and what it may do in terms of creating problems in the future, I do believe, needs to be reflected on very closely so that we genuinely achieve all that we might out of this consent motion when it is passed later today. Thank you. I now call Alex Salmond. This is Mr Salmond's final speech in the Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by congratulating both Annabel Goldie and Duncan McNeill on their service to this Parliament? Their contribution has been substantial indeed. I would say to Duncan McNeill for that. I'd be aware of taking too many lessons from the Palace of Westminster. I was in the common gestory and I glanced up at the House of Lords and Unceter and it had the words, "'Adjournment for the leisure period.'" Now, I'll have to ask Annabel what to do with her time when the adjournment is on, and maybe it would be popular to introduce it into this Parliament who knows once we find out exactly what takes place in that timescale. I would also join with Duncan McNeill when thanking my constituency staff, the parliamentary staff and the governmental staff, without whom no contribution in this place would have been possible in any of our careers. I'm aware, Presiding Officer, of making a valedictory address that there is a major rival attraction down south today. However, on balance, I feel that the champion chase at Cheltenham Racecourse will not be overshadowed by my remarks. I'm grateful for the opportunity provided by this debate to reflect on the position that this Parliament and this country is now in. The legislative consent motion before us clearly does not pave the way for near-federalism, or devil to the max, or home rule, all things raised in the last days of the referendum. However, it does represent a further transfer of power from London to Scotland. That much should be welcomed. It is also to be very much welcomed that, thanks to the iron resolve of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, it was ensured that this was done according to the principles of no financial loss. It is not immediately apparent that this would have been the outcome under other leadership of this Parliament. We should remember that it is 10 years since a Labour First Minister suggested that there should be no further transfer of power from London to Scotland, and five years since a Conservative leader said that a line should be drawn in the sand. This Parliament and this country are on a journey. Under those circumstances, it is sometimes easier to see the full extent of the distance travelled when one is not at the very heart of the battle. In my first speech to this chamber, I refuted the idea that we were a divided Parliament representing a divided country. I suggested that we were not divided but diverse. All of us have experienced an extraordinary referendum campaign, one that was hard fought certainly, but one that produced a level of democratic participation and engagement of which most societies can only dream of. Yes, we are a country of different views, but we are not divided. There is, in fact, a broad consensus on the need for this Parliament to assume greater responsibility for the governance of Scotland, and we are definitely stronger, so much stronger, as a result of that. We should reflect on some of those that we have lost, Bashir Ahmad, John Farkham and Roll, Tom McCabe, David McCletchie, Margot MacDonald, five different individuals, five different parties, five different viewpoints, but still diverse rather than divided. 17 years ago, when this Parliament was reconvened, Donald Joe delivered the best speech of his life. In an elegant historical sweep, he described Scotland as a journey begun long ago, which has no end. In truth, we would do well to debate more the history and culture of this country. It is a subject worthy of discussion and, after all, it is the real reason that this place exists. However, when Donald spoke, his administration was an executive, not a Government. The Parliament anguished every time that trespassed into reserved areas, and there were real doubts as to whether the fledgling Parliament would stand the test of time. Those questions are now over. There is no doubt as to the permanence of this institution, and the only question is at what pace will the Parliament, the Scottish people and their Government assume further responsibility. Will that make us totally independent? We are not in an absolute sense. All nations are interdependent one upon the other. That fact of life has not changed regardless of the status of Scotland. However, the greater of our independence, the greater our ability to impact on the political environment around us, the greater our power will be to determine the circumstances of our fellow citizens. It will be this Parliament that decides to intervene to protect the dispossessed as we have done over the bedroom tax. It shall be this Parliament that determines the life chances of the future as we have done in nursery education. It shall be this Parliament that places no financial barrier on human potential as we have done by the abolition of tuition fees. I hope and believe that one day soon it will be this place that removes weapons of mass destruction from Scotland, this place that desires to fully commit to a renewable future, and this place that acts not just to secure but to develop Scotland's proper position in the mainstream of Europe. I wish all members well in their choices. For those retiring, you have done the nation some service. For those moving on to new careers, then think well of this Parliament. For those standing for election, I wish you all luck, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Let me leave you with these final thoughts. There is no greater honour in public life than to be a member of this Parliament. There is no greater task than to mould the public purpose of Scotland. There is no greater cause than to serve that of the people of this country. So, with that, it is goodbye from me for now. On behalf of the Parliament, I thank you for your contribution as an MSP and as the First Minister of Scotland. You served the Parliament and Scotland with distinction, and I thank you for that. The Parliament will certainly be a much duller place without you. I wish you well in all that you do in the future. Stuart Maxwell, to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. I believe that today represents another significant step on the journey of this Parliament, and I feel privileged to have played a part in that process as a member of the Devolution Further Powers Committee. In fact, before that, I was a member of the Independence Referendum Bill Committee and before that, the Scotland Bill Committee, so I think that I have served on a considerable part of that journey. Scotland's devolution package is changing, although perhaps not to the extent that many of us had hoped. During the independence referendum campaign, we heard Gordon Brown's promise that a no vote would result in the devolution of further powers that would ensure that we get as close to federalism as it is possible to get. We also heard the current Prime Minister say that the Scotland Bill would make Scotland one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world. In my view, neither of those promises have been met. In fact, that is also the view of the majority of the Devolution Committee. The Scotland Bill could have and should have done more to strengthen the powers of this Parliament. I very much welcome the transfer of any further powers to the Scottish Parliament, but let's put that bill into the proper context. Under the settlement, Westminster will continue to control around 70 per cent of tax-raising powers, and a hugely significant proportion of powers over welfare and social security. Although the Scottish Parliament will have power over additional areas, it will still be without the full powers that it needs to completely protect public services and tackle inequality and transform this country in the way that it deserves. Nonetheless, further powers are coming to this Parliament. I welcome the First Minister's commitment that the SNP and Government will use those powers to keep Scotland moving forward. In fact, we have already started doing just that. On Monday, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on its plans to reform APD, which is, of course, one of the powers being transferred to Holyrood under the Scotland Bill. A report last week by the British Air Transport Association said that the UK APD rate for long-haul flights is the highest in the world. Although that may or may not be okay for London's airports, it certainly holds back the potential of Scotland's airports, including Glasgow Airport. APD, at its current rate, restricts Scotland's ability to attract and retain direct international routes. I strongly believe that the Scottish Government's plans to make Scotland more competitive in this area will be a real benefit to not only tourism industry, but it will also boost economic growth and create new job opportunities. There are several other new powers being developed that are worthy of comment, not least those over welfare. Earlier this month, Justice Secretary Alex Neil outlined initial plans for the establishment of Scotland's new social security agency, pledging to put dignity and respect at the heart of Scotland's devolved welfare system. I contrast that to the approach to welfare taken by the Tories at Westminster, and the case is clear why those powers are better held in Scotland's hands rather than those of Westminster's. We will hear later today George Osborne's budget plans, but reports that the chancellor wants to cut personal independence payments for more than 640,000 disabled people are deeply concerning. PIP is awarded to give disabled people access to simple aids and appliances that allow them to live independently. Charities have warned that those cuts will have a devastating impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Those who can afford at least face losing up to £150 a week. If it comes to pass, that is a particularly nasty and regressive step taken by the chancellor. Let's just say that I wasn't surprised to read reports in the press that Ruth Davidson doesn't want George Osborne anywhere near Scotland during her party's holiday campaign. Indeed, figures published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicate that the number of children living in absolute poverty in the UK will increase by £2.6 million by 2020-21. As a result of the chancellor's cuts to social security. We have seen the bedroom tax that Scotland can and will do things differently, and the sooner that further welfare powers are under the control of this Parliament, the better. Presiding Officer, I want to turn now to the fiscal framework. As we have heard at the start of negotiations, the Treasury tried to force a further reduction to Scotland's budget of £7 billion over the next 10 years. Many people have praised the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister for standing up to the Treasury and securing a fair deal for Scotland, and they have been right to do so. As a result of their hard work, there will not be any detriment to Scotland's budget, despite the Treasury's attempts at a cash grab. In the future, the key success of those negotiations is that any attempt to impose a settlement on Scotland cannot happen without the agreement of the Scottish Government. This Government and this Parliament deserve that equality of esteem. Negotiations over the fiscal framework deal took the best part of a year. As our convener said in the devolution committee, it is unfortunate that these often difficult and certainly protracted discussions interfered somewhat in the devolution committee's scrutiny of the proposals. That is a point reflected in the committee's final report and one that is worth considering in the context of intergovernmental relations in the future. The devolution further powers committee has met almost 50 times since it was first set up in November 2014. In that time, we have engaged with numerous experts, witnesses, Government officials and ordinary members of the public. I thank all those who helped to inform the committee's work on the bill. The dedication and diligence of the clerking team, the spice researchers and the press support staff also deserve our appreciation and our thanks. The work of this Parliament has undoubtedly been integral to making improvements to the Scotland bill. I am particularly pleased that the permanence of the Scottish Parliament has been recognised and that it will not be possible for it to be abolished without the will of the Scottish people, as expressed in a democratic referendum. I hope that as we approach the end of this Parliament, we do so with a sense of determination that will ensure that the next Parliament will use these new powers to make Scotland better and that all those who are fortunate enough to serve in that Parliament will aspire to deliver a fairer and more prosperous country. I am very tight for time this morning to be followed by Mark MacDonald. Up to six minutes, please. No, my final speech, for which I am very grateful, given the number of distinguished final speeches that we have heard today. I would like to pay tribute to my colleague Duncan McNeill, who has been an outstanding chair of the health committee, as I found out during the last six months, but has also made a massive contribution to the Parliament in many other ways. I pay tribute to Alex Salmond, who is my colleague in two parliaments. Along with his colleagues, he has changed Scottish politics in ways that nobody on this side could have anticipated in 1999. I am not sure whether it was Annabelle Goldie's last speech or not, but I would also pay tribute to her, certainly for her many political skills, including a friendly respect for opponents. I have been so obsessed with the block grant adjustment that I am slightly in danger of neglecting the other important parts of the Scotland bill, but it was central to the whole process. If anyone does not understand all the final details of it, I can commend the technical annex, which describes it with admiral clarity. Mainly, I congratulate the Scottish Government for sticking to its guns on this, particularly in relation to the index per capita method for the block grant adjustment. I noticed at the Scottish National Party conference in Scotland that the First Minister talked about the Treasury and said that we dubbed it. I did think that it was not entirely positive for inter-government relations, but I think that it is a pretty accurate assessment of the situation. I think that it would probably be courteous to also thank the UK Government for being prepared to be flexible, no doubt under duress, but I understand that they started by advocating levels deductions, which would be a total disaster for this Parliament. They then were prepared to move to, I always have to check, I get this right, tax capacity adjusted level deduction, which was an improvement, and that is the fundamental method that is going to be used before the adjustment, but then, of course, they gave way for at least five years. I know that Stewart Maxwell and others are concerned about what is going to happen in five years' time, but it is in the agreement that nothing is prejudged, both sides must agree, and my view is that so much is going to change in politics in the next five years. We are going to have all the figures for the two methods over the next five years, so I really think that we should not get too exercise about that at this moment in time. I think that the main potential area of controversy over the next five years is the spillover effects. You know that there is talk about direct effects and behavioural effects with a material impact, and they have to be taken account of. That is a bit of a grey area, as many of the people who gave evidence to our committee have said. John Swinney last week said that the Scottish Fiscal Commission would have a role in that, as well as the OBR, and hopefully that will be resolved. We do not need to go over last week's debate on the Scottish Fiscal Commission, but I am glad about its new role. I think that one other area of outstanding concern is to do with the publication of documents. John Swinney said that he would like to publish a range of documents. The Treasury appears to be against that, but it would be helpful in the summing up of John Swinney could explain exactly what documents he has in mind now, because clearly we have the technical annex, which is the most important document, but other ones obviously are relevant. Moving on from that area, again Bruce Crawford tribute him in particular because of the work of his committee, which I have joined relatively, because I think that as many of the changes did flow from their recommendations, the Scottish Parliament, the permanence of the Scottish Parliament is more securely in legislation now. There has been progress and equality, particularly with reference to quotas on boards, which we now have powers to do, and the various social security changes that some other people have mentioned. For example, there was a new clause in the bill about new benefits in areas of devolved competence in the fiscal framework agreement. It says that there will be no clawback if there is a new benefit in a devolved area. There is a remover of restriction on competence for carers allowance. What was described as the veto on universal credit flexibility is that there is now only a matter of timing, which is an improvement, and there is a remover of the restrictions on discretionary housing payments. I think that there was progress during the course of the bill. Some concerns still about what is in the bill, about the Sewell convention, it does not cover all the strands of that. There are still areas, some small, some larger, where people would have liked to go further. One of the key ones is flagged up by the devolution more powers committee in relation to employment. I certainly supported in a previous debate about wanting, for example, the access to work programme to be devolved, which has not happened. There is also concern that the amount of money that we are getting for the programmes that we have responsibility for has reduced because of UK Government policy changes from £53 million to £7 million. Of course, there are disappointments there. We all know that this is all governed by how much money we get for welfare and by how much the UK Government is spending on welfare. As that has reduced, that is a matter of concern. Having said that, I think that we have many reasons to celebrate the changes that have been made, but many of the proposals that were in the original bill. Today is not the day to talk about the use of those tax powers. Obviously, we have disagreements on that and my latest disagreement, although I have expressed it before, was relation into air passenger duty. For another day—probably not for another day for me on air passenger duty—this is probably the last debate that I shall do with John Swinney, so it is appropriate for me also, since he has been my colleague in two parliaments, to pay respect to what I regard as his manifest political abilities. As I said, in relation to Annabelle Goldie, one of those is certainly a friendly respect for opponents. Mark McDonald, to be followed by Leslie Brennan up to six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Having served as a member of both the Devolution of Further Powers Committee and the Finance Committee, I cannot help but feel that a gaping hole is about to open in my life, as the Scotland bill and the fiscal framework discussions no longer play such a prominent role. However, I want to pay tribute to the convenership of Bruce Crawford. One of the necessities of a Thursday morning committee is that the timescale can be truncated in terms of the ability to take evidence, and that requires the convener to run a tight ship. I think that most people would accept that, in that respect, Mr Crawford ran a very tight ship, but at the same time it was very cognisant of the fact that he wanted to ensure that all members of that committee had an opportunity to have their input to the evidence-taking sessions, so I think that he is to be congratulated wholeheartedly on his efforts in that regard. The clerking team has put in a phenomenal amount of work to make sure that the committee was kept well briefed, well informed and fed and watered as well, which was always welcome. In terms of the debate that we have had so far today, I think that we have seen a number of very thoughtful contributions, particularly the final contributions in this Parliament from Annabelle Goldie, Alex Salmond and Duncan McNeill. I was interested when Duncan McNeill analogised the Scottish Parliament's transition to that of somebody attaining various stages of life and spoke of how there had been a threat to leave, but that now, as a 17-year-old, we had decided to stay and were instead going to earn more of our own keep. I personally left home, finally, at the age of 24, so I am very much looking forward to how the next seven years of the Parliament's journey will develop. Having served on both devolution of further powers and on the finance committee, I thought that it would be remiss of me not to look a little bit at the fiscal framework and also some of the financial elements that relate. What was very clear very early on was that there was a disagreement, I think that we would term it, in terms of what no detriment constituted in relation to how the fiscal framework was to operate. It is a testament to the negotiating skills of the Deputy First Minister that he was able to arrive at a position where the Treasury agreed with the definition that the Scottish Government applied, albeit that there was perhaps a slightly more torturous route to get to the methodology, because the Treasury seemed unwilling to sign up to what the Scottish Government had initially put on the table. In terms of how things will operate in future, I think that there are a number of areas in which this Parliament is going to have to pay very close attention to and give very careful scrutiny to. The first is in relation to tax avoidance and tax evasion, because in terms of the collection of income tax and the Scottish income tax, that will remain the preserve of HMRC, and while the Scottish Government is establishing revenue Scotland for the collection of land and buildings transaction, tax and landfill tax, it has established a very strong and widely regarded as very strong anti-avoidance mechanism within that legislation. We are aware that there is still a great deal of tax that goes unpaid at a UK level, and so there will be a need to scrutinise the measures that are being taken by HMRC in relation to the collection of Scottish income tax, because that will have a material impact on the funds that are available to this Parliament for future use. The second is around some of the limitations that do exist. I am not seeking to play down the role that this Parliament will have in setting tax rates and bans in the future, but we should also remember that there are elements of income tax that will still not be in the preserve of this Parliament. The first is around personal allowance, and the second is about savings and dividend income. Should individuals be in a position to transfer income from their regular income into dividend income, that money would not be readily available to this Parliament, it would flow instead to the Treasury through dividend. I think that there needs to be some consideration given over time if that proves to be material how we go about addressing some of that. I think that the final point that I would make, Presiding Officer, is that I think that with these powers coming and with the experience that we have had in relation to how land and buildings transaction tax has operated since it was established and the forstalling that we saw at the initial stage, we need as a Parliament to consider how we do things in terms of our budget setting processes in the future, because we are now going to be in a position where we will be, as part of that budget process, announcing potentially changes to tax rates, changes to tax bans and that obviously potentially triggers behavioural change amongst those who will be paying. The further out that that change is signposted, the more likely it becomes that behavioural change will take effect and that has an impact in both that financial year and then also the coming financial year in which the changes are to take effect. So I think that we need to look very carefully at the way that the budgets are constructed within this Parliament, how they are consulted upon and we need to rethink some of the old thinking which was fine when we were only responsible for dealing with a block grant and we didn't have to worry about the potential behavioural changes that might come, but in future years if we are to be expecting a finance secretary to stand up and announce the potential tax rates some six months in advance, we have to bear in mind the behavioural effects that that could give rise to and I think we have to consider what we do with those and how we set budgets in future. Now Colin Leslie Brennan to be followed by Alison Johnstone. Thank you. It's a great honour to speak in this debate and to follow so many great parliamentarians who've shaped this place over the last 17 years and also to speaking in the debate as someone who's followed this process not as a parliamentarian but as just an ordinary punter and a local councillor. So I wish to address the areas in the Scotland Bill that have often been overlooked and where I hope the Parliament will use new powers to address inequalities and these areas are funeral payments, fixed odds, betting terminals and abortion. I welcome the devolution of the benefits for funeral expenses and with the duty of providing financial assistance to meet or reduce funeral expenses that will move from Westminster to the Scottish Government. Funeral costs can impose a considerable financial burden on those left behind and the burden not only reflects that funeral costs are subject to market forces but also that bereavement in itself may cause financial hardship. I hope that the Scottish Government can improve the current process of applying for a social fund funeral payment, which is known to be uncertain and complicated due to confusion around eligibility in the way in which family relationships are assessed and how decisions regarding responsibility for funeral costs are made. Clements are often left feeling frustrated and with the increased sense of shame for being unable to afford the funeral for their family member. Research suggests that only 55 per cent of claimants who receive a funeral payment award experience a substantial shortfall between the contribution and the amount of the cost of the funeral. Scottish Government data suggests that the typical award is approximately £1,300, whereas the average cost of a funeral is about £3,500. I hope that the next Scottish Government will rectify that and eradicate funeral poverty in Scotland. I wish to turn to part 4 of the other legislative competence, point 51, gaming machines on licensed betting premises. I occasionally enjoy a punt. I used to work as a croupier for a few years and I saw how gambling can negatively affect people's lives. As an academic, I did research in this area. Since becoming a councillor in Dundee in 2012, I have raised concerns about the proliferation of gambling opportunities, particularly fixed osbett and terminals. In March 2014, all councillors in Dundee agreed a problem gambling policy, which details a number of innovative steps to minimise harm from gambling. At that time, research noted that in Dundee there were 30 gambling venues and 19 of them, 63 per cent, within 500 metres of areas designated as the most deprived. That is particularly concerning as research results from the British gambling prevalence study shows a significant correlation between problem gambling with household income with those in the lowest income categories nearly three times as likely as the average to be defined as a problem gambler. Those not in paid work and those in manual occupations were also significantly more likely to be a problem gambler. I hope that, in the next session, the newly devolved powers will be used to address the needs for greater control over fixed osbett and terminals. I thank Lizzie Benn for taking intervention, but I agree with Lizzie Benn and accept that the powers that are in the bill to come to this Parliament are very much limited. No matter what happens with them, we will still be limited in what we can do with them. I agree that they are narrow in their scope, but I think that they could actually do a great deal of good. I would suggest that the Parliament consider actually devolving this power to local authorities, because I think that local authorities are the best place to actually take those decisions. Lastly, I want to turn to part 4 of the other legislative competence and point 52, abortion. I was deeply disappointed by the decision of the Greens to push for the devolution of abortion during the Smith commission, and I was angry with David Mundell's decision to devolve abortion as he could, and I quote, not see a convincing constitutional reason why abortion laws should not be devolved. In the run-up to the referendum in Dundee East, where I was working, the team and I spoke to 15,000 people and not one man or woman mentioned to us, and when people have spoken to across Scotland, no one was mentioned about why abortion should be devolved. To me, abortion is a human rights issue, and I strongly believe that abortion rules ought to be the same across the UK, i.e. they ought to be extended to women in Northern Ireland, thus it was not in favour of this being devolved. I do not raise this lightly, and I say this as a Catholic woman and mother. However, evidence uncovered by abortion rights Scotland, Hannah Pearson and other researchers at the University of Glasgow since 2014 has illuminated the various geographical variations across the UK and Scotland. Abortion for non-medical reasons is generally not provided in Scotland after 18 to 20 weeks, despite the legal limit in Great Biddon being 24 weeks, meaning that women seeking a late termination in Scotland are forced to travel to England. While the procedure is funded by NHS Scotland, the cost of travel and accommodation is funded by the women, which is unacceptable. I hope that, given the findings that this is rectified and that the women who are seeking a late abortion in Scotland can do so in Scotland. I hope that, with the new powers, there are further improvements in Scotland. Many thanks. We now move to Alison Johnstone to be followed by Stuart McMillan. I am sorry, but I can only give you five minutes, Ms Johnstone. At times during the year and a half, I have had the pleasure to sit on the Further Powers Committee. I have wondered whether this day would ever come. If we were finally to debate the LCM, whether the committee would have a unanimous view and what that view might be. As colleagues have rightly stated, we have got to this position to be able to recommend with unanimity to the Parliament that it gives consent, as in no small part due to the work of our clerks, witnesses, our advisers, to Spice, to the Solister's Office and to our convener, Bruce Crawford. I was really pleased to have the opportunity to witness Duncan McNeill, roll his sleeves up and see him in action. I, too, would like to thank him for his contribution to this Parliament and wish him all the very best for the future. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Alex Salmond for his contribution. To colleagues, I would like to thank you all too. I think that we all demonstrated a willingness to work constructively on issues that have great potential to polarise. I believe that we can be proud that the legislation has been strengthened in several notable areas as highlighted as a result of the scrutiny of this committee and all committees involved. Undoubtedly, questions will continue to be asked and debate will go on. Does the Bill honour the agreement of the five parties in Scotland? Are the Smith commission recommendations delivered in full? However, what I would like to focus on in the few minutes that I have left is where we are now. I am clear that the Scotland Bill and the agreed fiscal framework have the potential to enable Scotland to take progressive strides in a direction with more opportunities and positive outcomes for the people of Scotland. I acknowledge that there are many of us in this chamber who will continue to feel constrained and frustrated that we must endure cuts that we would not vote for and will continue to build the case for independence from the ground up. There will be those in this chamber who feel that those powers are sufficient. However, in the meantime, we have a duty to positively discuss, debate and use the new powers to improve the lives of people in Scotland. It is up to us to see that they are used to their very best effect. Scotland's Government and Scotland's Parliament have an opportunity to sketch out a vision and begin to deliver it. The purpose of the debate is not to steer policy for 20 years. It is about the powers that we know we have within the fiscal framework that has been agreed for the next five years. Let us focus on those powers and on Scottish solutions to the challenges that we face. Let us become a bolder Parliament. That will not be achieved simply by focusing on what the UK Government is doing. We have powers that will enable us to do much more than decide whether or not to add one P to the UK's income tax rate. At a local level, management often revenues from many of the economic assets of the Crown of State in Scotland will enable us to invest in and unlock the power in our communities. We are agreed, as Tavish Scott has said, that devolution must not stop here in Holyrood. When decisions are made closer to home, local communities can decide how they want to use their rural land. It will give communities the ability to invest in local priorities. Power over oil and gas licensing will enable us to further ensure that Scotland rejects even more unequivocally and even more powerfully applications to further endanger our local and global environment and health and ban fracking for once and for all. The most recent GERS figures highlight the need for a just transition to a low-carbon economy. We have the potential to not only match, but exceed the renewables output of many of our European neighbours. It is clear, unfortunately, that the Westminster Government has an ideological dislike for clean green energy, energy that lends itself to democratic community ownership, and it is thwarting the development of renewables here, but we must do all that we can with the new powers to invest in the low-carbon economy that will bring real energy security and job security. Due to the incredibly tight timescales involved in our scrutiny and in the debate today, we are unable to properly discuss the potential of the devolution of energy efficiency and schemes to mitigate fuel poverty, but we will have the ability to change the design of the system, to provide us with an opportunity to look at how the system can be improved and adapted to suit Scotland's particular circumstances, our housing and our weather. We can do more with those powers and we can better care for all who care in Scotland. Let's make sure that those powers increase the carers allowance to a level that probably recognises this important work. In closing, I would like to make sure that we do all we can to include Scotland at its widest as the discussion goes forward. I know that sometimes discussions have to take place behind closed doors, but let's be as transparent as possible, and I would just like to say in response that it is absolutely right and proper that abortion be dissolved to this Parliament. Thank you. I now call on Stuart McMillan, after which we will move the closing speeches up to five minutes. Please, Mr McMillan. It certainly has been a privilege to serve on the Devolution for the Powers Committee and the predecessor committees in this Parliament. It certainly has been an interesting and fabulous journey to be on. Before I touch upon the actual report on the LCM, I would like to offer just a couple of brief comments regarding three speakers before in this debate. First of all, I would like to commend the MSP for Aberdeenshire East, and this is his final speech today. It was under the leadership of Mr Salmond to encourage me to join the SNP and, certainly for the whole desire and campaign for independence. Also, his leadership in the minority administration between 2007 and 2011 certainly helped this Parliament to grow in stature but also the people of Scotland's conference grow. I wish you well in your future, Mr Salmond. I also want to offer some comments to Duncan McNeill and Annabelle Goldie. Obviously, we have had regular dealings since 2007, and certainly we have not had too many fights, which is something that I warmly welcome, but it is also something that I believe that apart from obviously missing McNeill, we will not be slaves at the moment, but it is certainly something that the public—I believe that the public actually want to see their politicians try to work together when they possibly can. Clearly, we have political differences, but I think that, in the main, we certainly have attempted to do that since 2007, and I wish you both very well in your future. Regarding the debate in front of us today, I have certainly been very happy to put my name to the report that our committee has undertaken. Certainly one of the things about it was about what we looked at. Will the bill deliver both the letter and the spirit of the Smith commission recommendations? There are some key issues where the bill hasn't happened. Some areas where the Scotland bill still falls short are the spirit and substance of what Smith proposed, but there are some issues where I will touch upon the remaining contribution. One of which is the fixed odds betting terminals. Let's have been and spoke about this a few moments ago. It's something that I have raised previously in the Parliament. Unfortunately, when we looked at the draft clauses, there was a concern that the fixed odds betting terminals and the main element of power and regulation would still remain with Westminster. Unfortunately, the Scotland bill still falls short of what Smith has recommended, with the proliferation of the fixed odds betting terminals. The current clauses that have been in the bill are also very, very limited. They confine the Scottish Parliament to dealing with gaming machines where it's possible to stake more than £10 in a single game. That applies only to betting premises that are licensed after the date on which the clause will come into force. I certainly would like to thank the local government and regeneration committee for their input into the issue. The committee carried out extensive work on the issue of fixed odds betting terminals and supported the principle that the Scotland bill provisions should apply to existing betting premises. The committee would give the Scottish Parliament real and effective legislative powers to address the concerns that there are too many fixed odds betting terminal machines in Scotland. Paragraph 523 of the devolution committee report highlights the evidence that is applied by the Scottish Government. Paragraph 681 highlights our recommendation that the bill falls far short of fixed odds betting terminals. The second issue is that the Crown of State, which Tavish Scott spoke about earlier on, and my colleague Rob Gibson went through the evidence sessions and highlighted the issue of the Crown of State on a regular basis. The issues of the Crown of State, many issues were raised regarding the situation, regarding the future devolution and that of Fort Canaird. Paragraph 6772 welcomes the agreement reached regarding the management of the community assets and the review generated from those assets, but it also highlighted the further devolution of the powers to the island communities. Paragraph 673 highlights where the committee believed that the UK Government did not agree with us on how the draft of the clauses, unfortunately, was not agreed to. I am conscious that I have only got five minutes, and I am just about to conclude. I certainly have been delighted to be a member of the committee, and I want to be a tribute to the convener, Bruce Crawford, for how he has handled all of our deliberations and also the collegiate fashion with which he has worked with the previous deputy conveners, including Duncan McNeill. However, the members of the committee would be nothing without the assistance, the fabulous assistance, from the clerking team and everyone who has given evidence to the committee. For that, I want to be a tribute to them also, because they do huge work that sometimes is not always recognised. We now move to closing speeches. Very tight for time, up to six minutes, Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is a debate that comes at the end of a very important process, but, as Ian Gray said, on a damp Wednesday morning, it perhaps had the potential to be a damp squib. There are two reasons why that has not happened. The first, of course, is that it has been an opportunity for a number of our distinguished members to make what will be their final contributions to this Parliament. I pay particular tribute to Annabel Goldie to Duncan McNeill, who has an extraordinary length of time to speak in this debate, for most other people. Given his experience, that is sensible. Finally, of course, Alex Salmond. However, listening to Alex Salmond's final remarks, I was suffering a bit from deja vu, because, like some of the other members in this Parliament, I think that we have heard him do that before. The thing that worried me most was that he finished his speech by saying goodbye for now. There is a possibility that he may be planning in his role as the Muhammad Ali of Scottish Politics to make that second comeback, so let's watch this space. Nevertheless, again, as Ian Gray said earlier, I am genuinely excited by the opportunities that this process has represented. It has been my pleasure to be a part of the Devolution Further Powers Committee during the last 18 months to see how that has matured and come to fruition. It has been a fascinating process, and it was kicked off of course by the referendum campaign and the outcome of that referendum. We had the vow, we had the Smith commission and then eventually we had the Scotland bill. While many criticised or pointed at the UK Government suggesting that it would not stick to the timescales that it committed to, that was never the case, and the UK Government has worked to deliver on that. I would like to pay particular tribute to David Mundell for the work that he has done in guiding the bill through Westminster. It is my view that the reason why David Mundell understood so well the processes that were in tune and delivered the bill in the way he did was that he benefited from having had six years as a member of this Parliament. That combination of experience in the two Parliaments was what delivered a near at the other end of that channel which this Parliament could communicate with, and I hope that the Government shared that quality experience in working with David. The important part of this whole process of course was the fiscal framework. I think that the negotiations towards achieving an agreement on the fiscal framework were the most important part of this process for more reasons than one. A lot has been said about parity of esteem, and sometimes that parity of esteem between two Governments can deteriorate into being something akin to parity of contempt, but it was parity. That is where this process has demonstrated a maturing of the devolved settlement and a maturing of the relationship between Scotland's two Governments. I think that the achievement of the fiscal framework agreement has delivered a good deal for Scotland. It has put in place a deal that will reflect the figures that would have been generated by the Barnett formula, and will, as a result, mean that over the next five years Scotland will be much better off than it would have been under any form of fiscal autonomy or heaven help us independence. Scotland has got a good deal and the UK Government has delivered on its promise. That is what brings us today to the point of agreeing the legislative consent motion, and of course the Conservatives at decision time today will support that legislative consent motion, because we believe that this is a good deal for Scotland. However, reflecting on the comments that have been made, particularly by some of the Government's back benches, I think that there is still a failure to understand what this deal delivers. Scotland now has a mature parliament and a Government that will, over the period of its next session, have the power to make decisions that will influence how things are done in Scotland. We have heard a few speeches that have been the typical back benchars spend-spend-spend approach to Scottish Government, but this change is about accountability. Tough decisions will have to be made about taxation, and the Scottish Government at the end of its next five-year period will have to go to the Scottish people and account for the decisions that it made on how money was raised, not just on how money was spent. That is where this delivers maturity and accountability, and that is why we on the Conservative side believe that this deal is a very important move forward in the maturing of Scotland's parliamentary democracy and self-governance. The truth is that the more Scotland's two Governments work together, the more the union dividend delivers for the Scottish people, and the more this Parliament addresses its responsibilities rather than using its power to generate grievances, the more people will realise that the decision in 2014 was the right one, that the UK Government has delivered on its promises, and that Scotland will be the better for it. We support the motion in the name of John Swinney. Presiding Officer, let me start by paying tribute to Duncan McNeill. I have known Duncan for more years than I care to remember, and in fact we worked together for a period long before the Parliament was established. I can safely say without fear of any contradiction that he has always been challenging, not just in this place. He sometimes says the things that no one else would say, but he is certainly worth listening to. I am happy to share some of my more interesting treasure trove of stories in a less public forum. Firstly loyal to his constituents, very direct in his approach, you were never in any doubt about what Duncan was thinking. I think that many people across this chamber will miss his contribution and the twinkle in his eye that told you that he was up to something. Annabelle Goldie likewise has been a superb Parliamentarian and has worked across this Parliament in order to make progress, and I wish her well in the House of Commons. Let me also wish the former First Minister well—sorry, in the House of Lords. I demoted you—actually, it is probably a promotion, but there you go. However, let me also wish the former First Minister well in his new career in the House of Commons, or should I say his second career in the House of Commons. In echoing his comments, there are certainly some people who we will miss more than others, but we will certainly miss the fact that this Parliament will be a less noisy place without him and indeed without all three of them. Let me turn to the wide-ranging debate that we have had this morning and start by thanking the members and clerks of the Devolution for the Powers Committee and the Finance Committee as well. I also want to thank those who served tirelessly on the Smith commission, in particular Lord Smith of Kelvin, who steered the entire process with considerable skill and patience. What he achieved was a consensus, however momentary that was, that has resulted in the biggest transfer of powers since the Parliament was established in 1999. For that, we should all be grateful. This will now be a powerhouse Parliament. Ian Gray was right to remind us at the Valpromis Three Things, the entrenchment of the Scottish Parliament, the devolution of substantial powers over taxation and welfare, and the protection of Barnett, all of which have been delivered today. With the transfer of disability living allowance, personal independence payment, attendance allowance, carers allowance, motability, severe disability, the shore start grant, cold weather pay, it goes on and on. This is a serious and substantial set of welfare powers. The ability to create our own benefits gives us the flexibility to respond to needs. Of course, the housing component of universal credit gives us the opportunity to scrap the bedroom tax once and for all in Scotland, and I would urge the Scottish Government to do so immediately. We also have substantial new powers over taxation too. The power to set the rates and thresholds of income tax, devolution of air passenger duty, aggregates levy, assignment of V80 and an increased range and level of borrowing as well. Of course, with those new powers, come new responsibilities, not just spending what somebody else gives us, but responsibility for raising income as well. Growing up politics, that is about the choices that we make, about the kind of country we are and the kind of country we aspire to be. In that context of new responsibilities, we need enhanced scrutiny. I am pleased that the Scottish Government and John Swinney have changed his mind and agreed to having a Scottish Fiscal Commission, which is responsible for producing the official budgetary and economic forecasts. That came about as a consequence of the UK Government's insistence and therefore I very much welcome the fiscal framework that brought that about, because the fiscal framework is as important as the Scotland bill itself, making sure that there is a robust agreement that governs our financial arrangements is critical. We on these benches supported the Scottish Government in pursuing the principle of no detriment and urged Mr Swinney to stay at the table to get the best deal possible for Scotland. I think that the Parliament can be broadly content with the result. Let me join for the second time in the space of weeks in the chorus of praise for John Swinney and his negotiating skills and pass over the temptation offered by Ian Gray to enumerate his flaws. Can I lay down a marker? I think that the agreement over the budget allocation formula is for five years. It is right that it should be subject to independent review. However, the fact that there is a difference between the view of the Deputy First Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as to what would happen should no agreement be reached after that period suggests that there is the potential for difficulty in the future. I absolutely hope that that is not the case, but I would suggest that the successor finance committee pay attention to the area, because I think that that is important moving forward. This is now about how we use those new powers. Scottish Labour has already set out our initial plans, a penny on income tax, to ensure that we invest in education and public services, a £50 new tax level for those earning over £150,000, more than doubling the maternity grant to cover over £1,000, and there will be more to follow. However, there should be no limit to the ambition of this Parliament. We should use the powers to tackle child poverty, use the powers to create jobs, use the powers to grow the economy, use the powers to make our social security system fairer. We can no longer blame Westminster for absolutely everything. There is much that we can criticise the Tories for, but the real challenge to us as a grown-up institution is what we would do differently. Do not squander this chance by doing nothing, because there really is no excuse anymore. Huge areas of policy and action are now ours. Let the next Parliament be about how we will use those new powers to create a better Scotland. Many thanks. One of the fascinating and important points of this debate has been the recognition across the political spectrum about the strength of the analysis that has been undertaken by the Devolution for the Powers Committee in this Parliament. That has been expressed right across the Parliament to the chamber. It tells us two things about this process. It tells us firstly that we have a very strong committee system in this Parliament, and we should be proud of it, and we should respect it. Secondly, it demonstrates the necessity of good, strong, effective and dispassionate leadership in our committees. Bruce Crawford has clearly demonstrated that, as has been recorded by members of all political persuasions in Parliament today. The one point of the debate that surprised me was a comment by Malcolm Trism, where he said that there was admirable clarity on the block grant adjustment in the technical annex of the fiscal framework. I am going to come to Mr Trism's Twitter feed, because I noticed this morning on his Twitter feed that Mr Trism said that he fell asleep over the equations in the fiscal framework technical accents, but it was crystal clear at 4 o'clock this morning. That encouraged me that, first of all, the equations are really quite challenging at pages 8 and 9 in the technical annex, but I am also glad to hear that somebody else has to get up at 4 o'clock in the morning to cope with life. On a serious note, I thank Malcolm Trism for the insight that he demonstrated on the fiscal framework issues and on the crucial issue of the block grant adjustment several months ago, when he has been absolutely a steadfast advocate of what the Government has argued for. It is given the Government tremendous capability and strength in our negotiating position to have the informed commentary of Mr Trism in this debate, which has enabled us to build unity across a wide cross-section of opinion within Scotland. As this will more likely be the last moment that I will have to exchange with Mr Trism, I thank him for his distinguished contribution to both the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament and his courtesy and friendship throughout that time. It will not come as a surprise to members to hear that I am going to miss Annabelle Goldie for many reasons, but not least of which she is the only individual I think I can conceive of who could ever say to Parliament that the devolved powers originally were a corset on a political journey. I cannot believe—the front bench has been challenging me in the course of this debate—to get some other underwear reference on to the parliamentary record, and I intend to refuse the temptation to do so as I could not possibly compete with Annabelle Goldie. Annabelle Goldie has been a friend and colleague of mine for many years, and she and I served on the Enterprise Committee in the First Parliament, along with Mr McNeill. I had tried to maintain some degree of order in the process as the convener of the committee, but throughout her years as leader of the Conservative Party, as a committee member and as a wise voice in the process. Annabelle Goldie will know the thoughtful, helpful and constructive role that she has taken in the fiscal framework negotiations for which I am profoundly grateful for getting us to what I consider to be a good outcome. I wish her well in her future activities in the House of Lords. I reassure her that I have absolutely no intention of ever joining her under any circumstances possible and conceivable, but I do wish her well in her future activities. Mr McNeill made, as always, a deep and thoughtful and very personal contribution to this debate. I remember the day that he announced the birth of his granddaughter to Parliament and making that comparison between the growth of a small baby into a young woman of his granddaughter and the growth of this Parliament and the development of this Parliament. That theme was echoed by Alex Salmond in his speech where he talked about the fledgling Parliament into which we were all elected in 1999, which at many occasions felt very fragile, particularly in a media environment that had warmly welcomed and encouraged the creation of the Parliament and then spent a lot of time trying to dismantle and to damage that Parliament. Some of us made our contribution to that agenda by some of the things that we did at that time. However, it is interesting to observe, as Mr McNeill observed about his observation about the development of the Parliament over the years and as Alex Salmond did likewise, about the strong and emphatic position that the Scottish Parliament now occupies in our national life. Mr McNeill said that his granddaughter and her peers would look to this Parliament for leadership. That is, I think, a fair comment. That is what has happened to our country. This Parliament has become more central to the lives of all of our citizens within Scotland. The other common theme of Mr Salmond and Mr McNeill's speeches was the link to the industrial heritage and activity of Scotland. When the Ferguson Shipyard went into administration in the summer of 2014, I knew very clearly from the direction of my First Minister at that time what I had to do and I knew from Mr McNeill's presence at the Ferguson Shipyard the day I went there that shipyard had to be restored and resurrected and what a buoyant future it has now as a consequence of the emphatic leadership given by the former First Minister and the care and attention of the member of Parliament for Greenock and Inverclyde at that time. I pay tribute to them for that. Alex Salmond was both my predecessor and my successor in a very unique set of circumstances. I want to put on record my appreciation and admiration for the astonishing contribution that Alex Salmond has made to the national life of Scotland, which is not over yet. He is going to carry that on in the House of Commons in representing the people of Gordon. However, as First Minister of this Parliament of having the boldness to say to his colleagues in 2006, we are going to go into this election and win it and it did for some of us to sit up a bit more sharply to address that challenge, but throughout his activities he has given decisive and emphatic leadership to ensure that Scotland became a more confident country as a consequence of his efforts and for that every single one of us should be profoundly grateful to Alex Salmond for the enormous transformation that he has delivered in Scottish society. What is less known about the record of Alex Salmond is that for those of us who have been close to him, when we have faced political and personal challenges, there is nobody more trenchant and supportive and a better ally to have in those difficulties and I thank him for all of that work that he has done on our behalf. Lastly, many members have been very kind about my contribution in this debate and I thank them for that. I am going to contradict Ian Gray, I have no other flaws, none whatsoever, but I do want to close on a point of agreement with Jackie Baillie. I do agree with Jackie Baillie and I urge my colleagues to listen very carefully to what I am going to say. I agree wholeheartedly, unreservedly with Jackie Baillie, that there should be no limit on the ambitions of this parliament. That is beautiful music to my ears and we are on a journey as a country. We came into this Parliament in 1999 and we had a more limited set of powers and at various different stages along the road we have acquired more powers and we acquire a broader and more substantial range of powers today. Not as many as I would like us to have but they are welcome, substantial and they will be used with energy and intelligence and wisdom if this Government has the good fortune to be relighted on 5 May. We will devote ourselves to that task and I ask Parliament today to endorse the legislative consent motion in my name. Many thanks and thank you all for taking part in this important debate and that concludes the debate on the Scotland Bill UK legislation and it's now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the land reform Scotland Bill and in dealing with the amendments members should have the bill as amended at stage 2 the marshal list, the supplement to the marshal list and the groupings. Division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division on the bill this morning. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds and 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 the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshal list to which we now move and I call group 1 and I call amendment 12 in the name of the minister group with amendments 14, 15, 20, 21, 22 and 29. Minister, if you are ready would you like to move amendment 12 and speak to all other amendments in the group please as soon as you are ready. Thank you. While this is indeed a historic day in terms of our proceedings on Scotland's land reform journey, I must also start by giving my apologies that, as members I hope will understand and realise that I am struggling today with a bad throat infection. I have very kindly the support and the help of my colleague Paul Wheelhouse who will also be helping to give us support through the amendments. Amendments 12, 20, 22 and 29 are minor amendments which tidy up the drafting of section 1 of the bill on the land rights and responsibility statement. A number of amendments were made to section 1 during stage 2 and further amendments are proposed today which have increased its size considerably making it unwieldy for the reader. Amendment 22 improves us by splitting section 1 into three sections which cover the duty to create the land rights and responsibility statement, the publication and review process of the statement and the duty to promote the statement respectively. Amendments 12, 20 and 29 are minor consequential amendments which are necessary as a result of amendment 22. Amendment 21 clarifies the duty on Scottish ministers regarding what I said out in the land rights and responsibilities statement. The duty as currently drafted requires ministers to further the objectives in the statement. This was a very helpful addition to the bill that was proposed by Mr Russell at stage 2. I said then that I was happy to accept his amendment but would have to consider whether further changes in wording would be needed at stage 3. The definition of the statement was also amended at stage 2 from a statement of ministers objectives for land reform to a statement of principles for land rights and responsibilities in Scotland. The purpose of the amendment is to tie in with that revised definition so that ministers are now required when exercising their functions and as far as reasonably practical to promote the principles set out in the statement. With amendments 14 and 15, I very much welcome those amendments from Sarah Boyack. The strength and wellbeing of our communities is right at the heart of all the work that the Scottish Government does. I am happy to accept Ms Boyack's amendments that ensure that they are given due regard in the land rights and responsibilities statement. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I note that the minister is not 100 per cent in terms of her health today and informer that I have written out all my speeches in draft for today, so if my voice goes, Claudia Beamish will stand in. I hope that we will not get to that point. What is clearly going to be a marathon session today. I very much welcome the land rights and responsibilities statement. It will help in terms of implementing this legislation. Amendment 14 and 15 replace the words fostering community resilience with supporting and facilitating community empowerment in the list of factors that Scottish ministers must have regard to with the desirability of when preparing the land rights and responsibilities statement. When I proposed adding fostering community resilience at stage 2, I did that in part because it would be in line with the spirit of our other recent land reform legislation, the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015. I was very keen that we established clear links between the Community Empowerment Act and the Land Reform Bill to ensure that the focus on community empowerment was maintained and strengthened. The new wording of supporting and facilitating community empowerment is more appropriate as it directly links to the kind of principles the statement will contain. It also links back to the 2015 act, which seeks to support our communities to empower themselves through the ownership and use of land. It is important that, when preparing the statement, ministers are required to have regard to the desirability of supporting and facilitating the empowerment of our communities. That will ensure that our communities remain at the heart of our land reform agenda. Community should be supported in taking responsibility for improving their interests and outcomes. I believe that the land rights and responsibilities statement could play an important part in supporting their empowerment. I very much hope that my amendments will be supported today. I am very glad that the minister is accepting them. I hope that that might mean that some of my other amendments are coming very shortly. No, I thought I would try. I will at least be glad that those two amendments are likely to get through. I am just very briefly, if I may, Presiding Officer. I just want to commend the minister's determination to be here, despite obviously not being very well. I will let my own colleagues sweat it out as to which one takes over if I am afflicted by the same problem. It is nice to be able to start the day on a note of consensus, because we are very happy with all of these amendments in this group because we believe that they improve the land rights responsibility statement. I am very happy not to wind up, but I am very happy to welcome the support that we have across the chamber. Excellent. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We are. We are now moved to group 2. I call amendment 13 in the name of the minister group that other amendments have shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 13 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. At stage 2, I brought forward amendments that required ministers in preparing both the land rights and responsibility statement and the part 4 guidance to have regard to the desirability of promoting respect for and observance of relevant human rights. At stage 2, Mr Russell and his Boyack made helpful additions to the bill by bringing forward amendments that set out that human rights included economic, social and cultural rights in certain instruments, such as the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, the voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests, and other instruments, as Scottish ministers, after consulting the Scottish Human Rights Commission, considered to be relevant. The amendments in this group build on the issues that were raised by both Mr Russell and Ms Boyack at stage 2. Amendments 16, 17 and 19 define human rights in section 1. The definition expressly includes human rights that are contained in the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Amendments 13 and 18 require the Scottish ministers in preparing the statement to have regard to the desirability of promoting respect for such internationally accepted principles and standards for responsible practices in relation to land, as they consider relevant. Those principles and standards include those principles and standards that are in the voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. Human rights is defined by amendment 19 to mean the convention rights, and other human rights contained in any international convention, treaty or instrument ratified by the UK, including the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. In determining what rights are relevant for the purposes of section 1, ministers may consult the Scottish Human Rights Commission and such other persons or bodies as they consider appropriate. That reflects a point that was made by Mr Russell at stage 2 as to the assistance that the Scottish Human Rights Commission will be able to provide in considering what are relevant human rights in this context. The definition of human rights is wide enough to include other human rights that we have identified could be relevant such as rights in the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the UN convention on the rights of the child. The voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests are a framework document that sets out principles and internationally accepted standards for responsible practices, rather than a human rights instrument in the same sense as the international covenant or the European convention on human rights is dealt with slightly differently. Amendments 13 and 18 ensure that ministers have regard to the desirability of promoting respect for such internationally accepted principles and standards for responsible practices in relation to land, which they consider to be relevant to the preparation of the statement, including the principles and standards in the voluntary guidelines. That wording also leaves ministers open to have regard to other relevant international standards and practices in relation to land, which might come into effect in the future. Amendments 53, 54, 55, 56 and 59 apply the same approach to consideration of human rights and the voluntary guidelines in part 4 and the preparation of the part 4 guidance. Those amendments ensure that we are taking a robust approach to the interpretation and definition of human rights within the bill. Those amendments to the show demonstrate our absolute commitment to human rights in the context of the land reform debate, which is crucial to achieving our goal of ensuring that land is owned and used in the public interest for the benefit of the people of Scotland. Amendment 93 is consequential on amendments 19 and 59, which define human rights for the purposes of parts 1 and 4. The amendment removes the interpretation provision, which sets out rights that are included in the term human rights. Those amendments reflect our preferred approach of defining human rights in each part, both for accessibility and because there is not a uniform definition of human rights that can be applied throughout the bill. I move amendments 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 59 and amendment 93, all in the name of Dr McLeod. Many thanks. I now call on Sarah Boyack. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. For us, the strengthening of the human rights underpinning of this legislation is incredibly important because it provides the context for the detail of the legislation that comes thereafter and it then provides the framework by which people will interpret the implementation of this act. It is also important in recording the fact that community rights need to sit alongside our rights as individuals. I very much welcome the amendments that we have in front of us today from the minister. That is a key issue that was raised in the stage 1 report, which had cross-party buy-in, and I think that we all felt needed to be strengthened. Mike Russell at stage 2 moved an amendment to add specific reference to the international covenant on economic and social rights, and we very much welcomed and supported that amendment. I had moved an amendment suggesting the addition of a requirement for the Scottish Government to have regard to the voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance and the tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national security, national food security. By adding those references, we do not just strengthen our own legislation on land reform, we align ourselves in solidarity with other communities and other countries, and particularly those indigenous communities across the globe that some of us have met over the years in our cross-party group in international development. I welcome the fact that the minister has taken our intentions and improved the wording on our intentions and put them in the correct part of the bill, something when you move an amendment you do your best at the time. The fact that this has been taken on by the minister is very much welcome. The references to internationally accepted principles and standards are important to have in the face of this bill. The amendments from the minister also include reference to seeking the views of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I believe that this is important to ensure that their expertise on human rights is drawn on. Their letter to the committee was trenchant and I welcome the fact that the minister has addressed the concerns that they raised with us just a couple of months ago. This revised legislation will speak to the ambition of delivering global sustainable development and acknowledging the importance of food security and the capacity to support and sustain communities. It makes the connection between our ambitions for global sustainable development goals with our ambitions for land reform and the empowerment of communities across Scotland. Scottish Labour will therefore be supporting those amendments today. Finally, I would like to put on record our thanks for the advice and work of global witnesses, because they particularly gave us good ideas and good advice about how we strengthened the human rights framework on the bill. I am glad to see that we now have those amendments in front of us that I hope we can all support. I am very pleased that the minister has brought forward those amendments that build upon the amendments at stage 2 and the stage 1 report that Sarah Borac says were supported widely across the committee. Land reform in Scotland at this particular stage is a hard thing to do. It is a hard thing to do because of the ECHR. Not that I am in any sense against ECHR, but land reform post-ECHR tends to get focused, as we saw at the start of the debate, on the individual rights of property. There are other rights, and those rights are expressed in a range of documentation, including the documents referred to in those amendments. That has been a key issue because, as Sarah Borac says, it connects us with the issues of land use and access to land that are widespread throughout the world. The work of Megan McKinnis in Global Witness in helping us to understand that, the work of Peter Peacock in Community Land Scotland, helping to bring those issues to focus and the work of Kirsten Shields and the University of Dundee should be acknowledged. We should also recognise the world-leading excellence of our own human rights framework. The work of Professor Alan Miller, the retaining chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, needs to be recognised as it is recognised internationally. The addition to those amendments of ensuring that the Scottish Human Rights Commission is consulted on those issues as we go forward with land reform is extremely important. I have said several times during the bill that, ironically, it would not be possible for this chamber presently to pass the Crofting Reform Act of 1886 because it impinges upon ECHR, particularly A1P1, the article 1 protocol 1, about the rights of property. That does not mean that we should not try to undertake radical land reform in Scotland. Of course we should try. Our constituents want it, my constituents want it and people across the country want it, but it is harder to do. I am grateful to the Scottish Government for laying in here and particularly to the minister who undertook the same steps in the community empowerment bill and agreed to similar changes. What we have laid in here is a foundation for future action in Scotland because the foundation, as the law goes forward, will not just consider the important elements in ECHR, but will also consider other documentation and other experience worldwide and will allow land reform to deepen and intensify in Scotland for the benefit of the people of Scotland, because that is not an abstract. That is about how people relate to the land, is how people use the land, is about how we, as the many, access the land of Scotland, which is a common birthright. That is a big step forward. It may seem technical, but it is a vital step forward, and I am grateful to the Scottish Government for helping that step forward to move on. I have harbored the occasional concerns about the concept of relevant human rights ever since it first appeared in evidence in the committee, because there seems to be a sort of unmentioned inference within that concept that the Government could somehow sort of cherry pick whatever convention or covenant most suited its purpose, and that various other guidelines and conventions are somehow on an equal footing with ECHR. Indeed, Dave Thompson apparently believes that we should simply dispense with ECHR when it comes to agricultural holdings legislation, which was an interesting concept in itself. I do sometimes wonder if some of these, of course I will, Mr Thompson. Dave Thompson, I thank the member for taking the intervention. I have no recollection of saying such a thing at all, Mr Ferguson. If I may quote from the official report, Mr Thompson said that the fact that ECHR is written into the 1998 act needs to be looked at, that provision needs to be removed so that we have the same freedom in proposing legislation as any other legislature. I do wonder if some of these conventions could not actually come back to sort of haunt the Government a little bit. Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the Minister mentioned, commits signatories to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. I do find myself wondering where that might lead the Government, for example, on its stance on GM crops if it were to be tested. That is for another debate. What I really would be grateful for if the Minister could address in winding up, if she was able to confirm that ECHR still provides the basis for the human rights and Scottish legislation that is passed by this Parliament? If I may, Presiding Officer, I will just respond on behalf of Dr McLeod just to confirm that the ECHR does form the basis of the point that Mr Ferguson raises. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Call of amendment 14, in the name of Sederbuyde, I will write a debate with amendment 12. Can you hear much? The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. Call of amendment 15, in the name of Sederbuyde, to move or not? Moved. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. I now call amendment 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendment 16 to 22 on block. Many thanks. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendment 16 to 22? As no member does, the question is that amendment 16 to 22 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. We now move to group 3. I call amendment 100, in the name of Johann Lamont, grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Johann Lamont, to move amendment 100 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I move amendment 100 in my name? I declare an interest as a member of the co-operative party, committed to a model that represents a global ideal locally, democratically and practically delivered. Co-operatives and, as identified here, community benefit societies have a great deal to offer as we consider the issue of land reform. I urge the minister to understand and reflect that that is a logical consequence of their position around community empowerment. There is no doubt that community benefit societies have a significant social but critically economic impact and can ensure that in communities where the land is held in common there is an underpinning democratic commitment that ensures the engagement of those who best understand the needs of their communities and critically the opportunities that can be created to sustain those communities. Any consideration of where land reform and community ownership has happened, you can see the flourishing of community engagement and co-operative models to ensure that there is a benefit to the community. That is, in fact, a very modest amendment, but a significant one, I believe, because all it is doing is asking the land commissioners, as part of the programme of work, to raise the issue of benefits of community land ownership and how it can be promoted and how the whole question of community benefit societies can also be promoted. I genuinely believe that that is a way and a means of harnessing all the talent and energy that we see in our communities where there has been engagement around land reform and is a fundamentally important opportunity to ensure that land reform also enriches and sustains those communities. I will not comment too much on other amendments at this stage, but I would obviously commend amendments from Claudia Beamish. I also thank the minister on amendment 27 for acknowledging a point that I made at stage 2, which was to exclude people who work for a local authority from being part of the land commission. I would exclude a whole number of people who are particularly in rural and island communities. Local authorities provide very important employment sometimes only on a part-time basis. I would like to thank her for that. I think that that reflects the approach of the minister in large parts of the bill and I commend her for that. I hope that people can find it worthwhile to support the amendment in my name, amendment 100. Thanks. I now call on Jim Hume to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Amendment 23 and 24 are in respect of the maximum period of tenure of a Scottish land commissioner. At stage 2, I lodged a similar amendment, which was withdrawn on the basis of further clarification coming from the minister around appointment terms. Unfortunately, the position remains unclear on the face of the bill. The bill is drafted per clause 8.3, which allows for each member of the land commission to be appointed for such period, not exceeding five years. Clause 8.5 allows for reappointment with 8.5A, limiting the reappointment again to a period of not exceeding five years. There is nothing at the moment to stop a commissioner serving for 10 years or even more than a two-year five terms. In terms of the principle of an eight-year cap, that would ensure new blood in order to meet the challenges of the commission's strategic plan and programme of work, which itself is subject to review and update and prevent any entrenchment or long-term domination of views or approaches by particular individuals. It is also a sufficient period of time so as not to create any difficulties with the smooth operation of the commission. The amendments that are in the interest of good government tie in with the code of good practice referred to by the minister at stage 2, which does not state how many times a member can be reappointed, but caps the total period for which a member can serve at eight years. The minister said that the bill would allow for the Scottish ministers to adhere to that as it allows them to determine the length of appointment up to a maximum of five years, but is the period beyond that in terms of reappointments, which is still in question and remains unclear. My understanding is that not all public bodies come within the commission and, as remit, they are only recognised as regulated bodies by the commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland, where it is specified. Although some bodies may observe the code in practice, the commissioner can have no locust, but actual appointments are dealt with through the public appointments and public bodies, etc., Scotland Act 2003. Perhaps the minister could clarify whether there needs to be a reference to the 2003 act in the bill to ensure that the appointments are in fact so regulated by the commissioner, because that is not currently referenced in the bill. Re-amendment 101 is important to ensure that our future land commissioners have the desirable experience and knowledge of what may be in front of them. Someone with practical knowledge of land management can easily be able to judge whether land has been actively managed or not derelict or vacant, etc., as farming is still the main use of our land, whether it is owned or occupied or tenanted. My amendment 101 would ensure that agricultural interests are provided with due consideration. Amendment 102, in relation to members of any committee that is established by the Land Commission, will accept that under section 154, the commission may appoint a person who is not a member to be a member of a committee, and that makes practical sense. There has, with other recently established bodies, such as Historic Environment Scotland, for instance, been provisioned stating that such a person is not entitled to vote at meetings of the committee. Unless subsequently the commission itself decides that those non-members attending a committee could have a vote as the bill is drafted, ultimately, matters would normally go back to the commissioners for a final decision and they can make their own rules. In the interests of consistency with other recently formed bodies by the Scottish Government and for reasons of transparency, I propose that that provision is inserted, which does not affect in any way the committee's right to speak or present a case or otherwise fulfil the role. I now call Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 25 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak to amendment 25 and 26 in the group and to make some other comments as well. While I listened with care to arguments put forward in the Racky Committee discussions that there should not be too many areas of skills and experience listed, those in my amendment are, I believe, of fundamental importance in relation to the Land Commission in the development of a fairer Scotland and thus should be listed. I would at this stage like to thank the minister for support in developing my stage to amendment 25. Living in hope, this might be the first amendment in this Parliament that I actually get passed, so we never know. I never know our luck. To be more serious about this issue, section 91A sets out that in appointing members of the commission, the Scottish ministers must have regard to the commission having expertise or experience in certain matters. Amendment 25 adds human rights, equal opportunities and the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which result from socioeconomic disadvantage to the list in this section. Amendment 26 is a consequential amendment to provide that the definition of equal opportunities in section 94 applies to the inclusion of equal opportunities in section 91A and section 91B. I am afraid that I am not able to support Jim Hume's amendment 101, as the word practical makes it too restrictive and specific, although we understand the spirit of what Mr Hume is putting forward. I now declare an interest as a member of the Scottish co-op party and wish to speak strongly in support of Johann Lamont's amendment 100, because I am very clear that co-operative models that involve the members, as she said so eloquently, are one of the ways forward for our rural and, indeed, urban communities in Scotland in the development of their own aspirations. Thank you. Many thanks. I now call on Angus MacDonald, who will speak to us initially in Gaelic and repeat his opening remarks thereafter in English. Matinfa Offaigar-Rhaigal ac esy Matinfa Co-Breken. I now call you in your clever English, as I have omitted a less caring German. Presiding Officer, rather than crucify our Indigenous language any further, I will continue in English. For the record, what I was trying to say in Gaelic was that I appreciate the opportunity to bring this Gaelic related amendment to the chamber, which will deal with a problem that has arisen from my stage 2 amendment, when ensuring that there's at least oneanks speaker serving on the new Scottish Land Commission. At stage 2, I lodged the new such-and-one into section 9, which states that, in appointing the land commissioners, the Scottish ministers must take every reasonable step to ensure that one of the commissioners is a speaker of the Gaelic language. The Scottish Government welcomed this amendment at stage 2, however as it revealed in its text, doesodaeth, ddaeth, fel gyda'r sort caer y sydd yn ddif Weinidog sydd wedi ddod i'n gweithio eu cydwyddoedd i yn gwybod nhw'r ddiddorol. Mae hyn yn cael eu ddiddick yn dod i'n gweithio i siwr i'i i gaelio'r analyse cyfathredd. A sydd i'n gweithio caer y troi'r cyllidau cyfle ar ôl â gaelio, ac yn gyrraedd y tor Saedd, rydyn nhw'n ddiddorol ond y troi'r cyllid yn gweithio i gaelio'r sefydlu, ydy'r diolch rwyngh ar gaelio'r shipwyr ddiddorol three amendment inserts the words at least into section nine one a so that it now reads in appointing the land commissioners Scottish ministers must take every reasonable step to ensure that at least one of the commissioners is a speaker of the Gaelic language so this amendment brings the new Scottish land commission in line with precedents already set at the land court and at the crofting commission and I'll be happy to move the amendment. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 27 and other amendments in the group please. Thank you. We would like to thank Joanne Lamont for setting out the rationale behind amendment 100. As Dr McLeod said to Ms Lamont when she brought forward a similar amendment at stage 2, the Scottish Government supports all types of land tenure and supports ownership of land by community benefit societies as well as other land ownership vehicles. We've clearly demonstrated that this isn't in taking forward the Community Empowerment Scotland Act which expanded the structures that community bodies can use under the community right to buy to include community benefit societies as well as Scottish charitable incorporated organisations. But we believe that community bodies should have the flexibility to decide for themselves how to constitute themselves depending on their needs and aspirations. We would therefore be reluctant to support any amendment that could be interpreted as favouring one particular land ownership mechanism over another. We believe it's not appropriate to amend section 7 of the bill in this way. As far as possible, we want the land commissioners to have operational independence and freedom to determine their own programme of work. We do not consider it appropriate to constrain them in this manner or to prejudge their work. We note that the amendment as drafted would mean that the land commissioners would have to include such recommendations in every single programme of work that they produce. We do consider that Joanne Lamont's amendment would effectively alter the land commissioners programme of work in a way that is unnecessarily given the excellent work that is being taken forward by the 1 million acre strategic implementation group. We have recently funded a development officer post with Community Land Scotland to enable them to build capacity and to support them in promoting community ownership and sharing best practice. We thank Jim Hume for explaining the rationale behind amendments 23 and 24. Those amendments have similar aims to amendments that were lodged and then withdrawn at stage 2. Dr McLeod wrote to Mr Hume to set out why such an amendment is not needed. For the record, we will set that out again to the chamber. Our intention at the public appointments process will be regulated by the commissioner of ethical standards and public life in Scotland. The commissioner publishes a code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland. As a matter of policy, the code of practice will mean that no member of the commission would serve for more than eight years. To ensure that there is the necessary flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances, however, the provisions of the code can be varied with the agreement of the commissioner. At stage 2, session on 20 January, the minister confirmed that it was our policy intention that Parliament should also approve any reappointment of a member of the commission and was happy to support Alex Ferguson's amendment that clarifies this on the face of the bill. Therefore, we would stress that sections 8 to 2 and 5A of the bill mean that the Parliament will be required to scrutinise and approve both appointments and reappointments of members of the commission. So, if Parliament were to have a concern about a particular reappointment, that the balance between continuity and fresh blood on the commission was not being correctly struck, then it would be able to make that concern heard during the appointment process. We also emphasised that in respect of Jim Hume's comments that the bill at section 8, subsection 3, provides for a maximum period of five years. We have stated our intention that the commission of our ethical standards in public life in Scotland's code of practice will apply, and it can as a matter of policy. The result of an order-making power in section 3, subsection 3 of the public appointments and public duties in sector Scotland Act 2003, which could be used to add the Scottish Land Commission to schedule 2 to that act. The reason that that was not expressly done in the bill was because of the deliberate policy choice to give a prominent role to the Parliament in the public appointments process. We also thank Jim Hume for explaining his amendment 101. The list of experience and expertise referred to in section 9, subsection 1A, has grown throughout the bill process and we would like to emphasise again to the chamber that it does not prevent ministers from considering whether candidates for land commission have other relevant experience or expertise. We understand the sentiment behind the amendment and we can assure Mr Hume that it is our intention in the public appointments process to select the best candidates we can to serve on the land commission. However, a balance has to be struck between getting the right people that tick at every single box and getting them appointed with a reasonable timescale to do the work that is required to progress land reform in the future. It was after listening carefully to views of stakeholders that Dr McLeod brought forward an amendment at stage 2 to add land management to section 9, subsection 1A. We do not think the addition of practical to that term and so we do not support this amendment. We would like to thank Claudia Beamish for lodging amendments 25 and 26, which we are very happy to support. I take Ms Beamish's point and I am glad that she has had an amendment accepted. We consider that the supplementary list in section 9, subsection 1A, in a manner that murs the package of amendments lodged by the Scottish Government at stages 2 and 3 to strengthen the bill in respect of human rights equalities and furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which result from socioeconomic disadvantage, as Claudia Beamish referred to in her remarks. Given the Scottish Government's commitment to the importance of the Gaelic language and Gaelic culture to Scotland, Dr McLeod welcomed Angus MacDonald's amendment at stage 2 and we are very happy to accept what we think is a helpful revision now. In respect of amendment 27, we would like to thank Johann Lamont for querying at stage 2 the inclusion of local authority workers in the list in section 10, subsection 1, which sets out persons that may not be appointed as a member of the land commission if they have been in certain offices within the last 12 months. Following stage 2, Dr McLeod reflected further on the list and wrote to Ms Lamont to advise her that ministers intended to remove the exclusion in respect of local authority workers since, as she highlighted, in remote and rural communities in Scotland it can be the case that many people are reliant on local authority employment. We would also like to add for the record that the work of the Land Commission will be relevant to urban as well as rural communities the length and breadth of Scotland and we would not wish to exclude local authority employees in our urban communities for applying to be a member of the commission either. Amendment 28 is a consequential amendment to ensure that repairing tenancies created under section 5C of the Agriculture Holding Scotland Act 2003, as inserted by section 79B of the bill at stage 2, are caught in the definition of relevant tenancy in section 10, subsection 3. That will ensure that any tenant or landlord of a repairing tenancy is excluded from being appointed as a tenant farming commissioner, as is already the case for other types of agricultural tenancy. We thank Jim Hume for setting out the intention behind his amendment 102. However, we cannot support this amendment. Section 16, subsection 2 of the bill, permits the commission to regulate its own procedure and those of its committees, including the quorum of any meeting and section 15, subsection 6 requires a committee to comply with any directions given to it by the commission. Those are important provisions as they give the commission the freedom and flexibility to set up their own internal working procedures, including on issues such as voting rights. They also ensure that the commission has ultimate control of its committees. Given the operational independence that the Scottish ministers wish the commission to have, we feel that it will not be appropriate to make this amendment in isolation. We welcome amendments 3 and 4 lodged by Mr Day to section 20 of the bill. The Scottish Government considers that it is imperative that land commissioners can give full consideration to the land use strategy in exercising their functions. However, we are pleased to hear that it is not Mr Day's intention to alter Scottish ministers duties under the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009, and so we are supportive of those amendments for providing that clarity. I move amendment 27 and 28 in the name of Dr McLeod. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendment to section 25 of the bill that I brought at stage 2 was, I thought, quite straightforward and I was delighted to secure the support of both the committee and the Government. However, since stage 2, there has been some traffic from stakeholders around the amendment suggesting that, as drafted, it could be open to misinterpretation. Therefore, at the request of stakeholders and the Government, I have brought forward those amendments to my stage 2 amendment to provide clarity. It was never the intention of that stage 2 amendment to give the land commissioners any statutory role in the implementation and monitoring of the land use strategy. Amendment 3 deweets the words implementation and monitoring of leaving the commissioners to take into account the land use strategy and exercising their functions under section 20 of the bill, which is, as it was intended. I would request the support of the chamber in delivering the clarity sought by some stakeholders. Amendment 4 is a minor and technical amendment to ensure that any land use strategy revised under section 57.6 of the 2009 Climate Change Act, as well as the one prepared under section 57.1, is covered in section 25d of the bill. I move the amendments in my name. I have one open debate speaker request, Alex Ferguson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm afraid that we would oppose amendment 100 because I believe that the proposals within it are already being taken forward. I think that the minister mentioned the 1 million acres working group that I do believe encompasses a lot of Joanne Lamont's intentions. I also understand that the land commission will cover the provision of advice and guidance. The minister made it very clear at stage 2 that the Government encourages a wide variety of land ownership models, and I take her at their word for that. Amendment 100, therefore, seems to me to be overly prescriptive. We will support all the other amendments in the group. I'm sorry to hear that the Government will not support amendment 102 because I think that that is, in the interests of good governance, quite an important amendment. Generally, on the subject of the land commission, I do believe that the success or otherwise of the land commission will be very largely dependent on the ability and the experience of the commissioners who serve on it. I hope sincerely that the range of skills that we have sought as a committee through amendments at stage 2 and as a Parliament at stage 3 will only enhance its operations for the benefit of the people of Scotland. Many thanks. I now invite Joanne Lamont to wind up and indicate if you intend to press her with draw, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I say on the amendments from Claudia Beamish and from Angus MacDonald, that they are important amendments to support as someone of the Gaelic heritage ourselves recognises the importance and the struggle, in the language of our forebears? It reflects a deeper issue, which is the danger that people appointing people to boards look and sound like themselves. Those amendments create the opportunity to think more seriously about how we ensure that there is a range of talents and commitments going into the public body, so we would want to support those. On the question of amendment 1, I will be pressing the amendment, because I do believe that community land ownership is one of the most effective models of land ownership. It does ensure that the record is there in terms of our own history to see the way in which common ownership of land has ensured that communities that may have been struggling have been revived and regenerated. What the amendment asks is to address the potential of community ownership and the potential of community benefit societies to benefit local communities. I do not regard it as over prescriptive, but I reflect in the reality that too often the co-operative model is not included, whether it is in the strategy of the Scottish Government or whether in the past, when we have talked about economic models, we have not looked to the co-operative model, we have not understood its power and the power that it has. The reality is that, particularly in our island and rural communities, there is a natural instinctive means by which people have co-operated, whether it was crofting committees or whatever people have come together, whether it is community shops or community enterprises. That simply locates in the bill the significance of that model in ensuring that why we are engaging with the question of land reform is to address the question of neglect, is to address the question that too often too much of our land has been left unworked, unused and communities are regenerated. I think that it is in that context that I would hope that people feel able to support the amendment that I will be intending to press. Many thanks. Before we turn to that, can I ask the chamber that, if any member wishes to oppose any amendments today, they do that loudly and clearly please so that there is no confusion in the chamber. The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, since this is the first division of the morning. The Parliament is now suspended for five minutes. I will now proceed with the division on amendment 100. This is a 32nd division. Members should please cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 100 is yes, 33, no, 83, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 23 in the name of Jim Hume, which has already been debated with amendment 100 and I ask Jim Hume to move or not to move. I now call amendment 24 in the name of Jim Hume, already debated with amendment 100 and I ask Jim Hume to move or not to move. 1. Amendment 101, in the name of Jim Hume, already debated with amendment 100 and asked Jim Hume to move or not move. 2. Amendment 101, under 1, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 3. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 101 is yes, 21, no, 94. There were no abstentions. 4. Amendment 101, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 100 and asked Claudia Beamish to move or not to move. 5. Amendment 25, in the name of Angus MacDonald, already debated with amendment 100 and asked Angus MacDonald to move or not to move. 6. Amendment 2, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 7. Amendment 26, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 100 and asked Claudia Beamish to move or not to move. 8. Amendment 26, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 9. Amendment 27, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 100 and I invite the minister to move formally. 10. Amendment 27, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 11. Amendment 28, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 100 and asked the minister to move formally. 11. Amendment 28, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 12. Amendment 102, in the name of Jim Hume, already debated with amendment 100 and I ask Jim Hume to move or not to move. 13. Amendment 102, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 14. Amendment 102, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 12 and I invite the minister to move formally. 15. Amendment 29, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 16. Amendment 3, in the name of Graham Day, already debated with amendment 100 and I ask Graham Day to move or not to move. 17. Amendment 3, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 18. Amendment 4, in the name of Graham Day, which has already been debated with amendment 100 and I invite Graham Day to move or not to move. 19. Amendment 4, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 19. Amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already grouped with amendments 5, 6, 31, 32 and 33 and I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 30 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. 20. Amendment 3, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 21. Amendment 3, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 22. Amendment 3, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 23. Amendment 4, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 24. Amendment 5, be agreed to? Are we all agreed to? 24. By writing my name, please. The commissioner must consult relevant stakeholders when preparing the report and submit the report to the Scottish ministers within 12 months. If I can now come to Mike Russell's amendments 5 and 6, which would ensure that stakeholders were invited to give their input to the review of the commissioner's functions under section 22 of the bill and that ministers must take their views into account, as I made clear at stage 2, the Scottish Government does believe that a wide range of stakeholders should have the opportunity to feed into that review, so we're very happy to support these particular amendments. In terms of amendments 31 and 33, their technical amendments 31 specifies that, before the tenant farming commissioner publishes a code of practice under section 25, they must consult any persons appearing to the commissioner to have an interest in the draft code. That is just a clarification that it's in the eyes of the commissioner that such persons have an interest in the draft code. In the same way, in terms of amendment 33, that clarifies that, before submitting the report to the Scottish ministers under section 33A, setting out recommendations for a modern list of improvements to agricultural holdings, the commissioner must consult any persons appearing to the commissioner to have an interest in the draft recommendations. I move amendment 32. Many thanks. I invite Mike Russell to speak to amendment 5 and other amendments in the group, please. One of the key features in the bill is the possibility that change in practice can take place by encouragement or whether, as I believe, there's a necessity for statutory force. That is true in this section and it is also true in section 4 of the bill that deals with engagement of estates with communities. In this particular section, I know that the cabinet secretary is very keen to see the work of the tenant farming commissioner being one of encouragement and bringing forward good practice so that those who are not observing good practice can be encouraged to do so. I think that many of us fear that there are some people who will not be encouraged. Good landlords will continue to be good landlords. Those who want to be good landlords may find the publication of the information and the codes to be useful. Those who begin to realise that they are not good landlords might improve their practice, but those who don't want to be good landlords, those who frankly don't care about being good landlords, will not feel any force to change their practices and their habits. That is a carrot in this bill. As others believe, it should also be a stick. Nonetheless, I accept that the cabinet secretary believes that that is the way to go forward. When that is reviewed in three years' time, the views of everybody in the sector need to be heard. That is particularly true of hearing the views of tenant farmers themselves. The Scottish Tenant Farmers Association and others will have to be part of that review. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for accepting the amendments that involve the widest group of relevant stakeholders in that review. If, at the time of the review, it is obvious that the role of the tenant farming commissioner in encouraging better practice has been, on the whole, substantially successful, then there is no harm in having a wider consultation. If it has not been successful, it is essential that there is a wider consultation. I will be moving those amendments. Many thanks. I have three bids to speak. Could I ask members to keep the remarks short, please? Claudia Beamish, to be followed by Graham Day. Scottish Labour is supportive of Scottish Government amendments on land agents in view of the concerns that the Rural Affairs Committee heard about the behaviour of a small minority of land agents. We also support the amendments by Michael Russell on consultation with a wide range of stakeholders in relation to the review, and I am clear that the role of the tenant farmer commissioner will bring confidence to tenants and land owners and, through the development of the functions, will be able to better the relations of that small minority of cases where there are poor relations and hopefully keep issues out of the land court. Thus, I welcome further clarification in this section on the functions and the role of the tenant farmer commissioner will enable the new developments in such things as rent reviews and much more to be carefully monitored and developed. We support all the amendments in this group. Some months ago, a land agent asked me why members of the Racking Committee were pursuing the introduction of a code of conduct that would cover himself and his colleagues. He told me that he did not recognise the claims made about the conduct of some in the sector. I shared with him the experience of a tenant farmer constituent of mine who just had a representative of a leading land agency visit his home to tell him that we would have to be a 50 per cent rental increase non-negotiable. He responded by naming two firms of land agents that he thought the person concerned might have worked for. I told him that they worked in a fact for another company and, more important, drew his attention to the fact, his response kind of proved the point that, while those providing agent services might deny that there was an issue deep down, they know full well there is. Let us be clear that the majority of agents will conduct themselves in a respectful and appropriate manner conducive to fostering and maintaining good landlord-tenant relationships. However, if there is one thing that unites the agricultural sector, it is a belief that we need a code of conduct. I welcome the Government's amendments, and I hope that the proposals that come forward will reflect the lived experience of tenants and landlords and get us to a place where fear of the reputational damage that would be caused by those employing people providing land agent services who misbehave that it would in itself ensure the code of conduct that it is adhered to. I hope that Parliament will also support amendments 5 and 6 in the name of my colleague Michael Russell. The negative influence of land agents is far wider than the few exceptions that were mentioned by Claudia Beamish. I think that a statutory code of practice for land agents would be a very good thing indeed. It would be probably the kind of thing that answers the concerns of many people around the country for evidence that we took ourselves in the island of Islay, where a tenant farmer told us that he had to raise three incomes. One for his family, two for the land agent, and three for the landlord. In those circumstances, the question about the way in which land agents work is something that interferes with the potential profitability of many tenant farmers' activities and, as a whole, that their influence is one that needs statutory control and, as soon as possible, I am very happy to support those three amendments. Just briefly to reflect on some of the contributions, I explained to the committee at stage 2 why I do not believe that at this stage it is appropriate for the tenant farmer commissioner, which is, after all, a new office being established by the SPL, to have a broad enforcement role given the conflict with other enforcement agencies. That could lead to that, but it is certainly very much appreciated that many members, and indeed many stakeholders, felt that there may well be cases where additional powers will be required by the tenant farmer commissioner in terms of its functions, and that is why this review is necessary. In terms of the land agents, again, as many members have highlighted, we may be talking about a small minority of land agents that contribute towards poor relations in the sector, but those issues have to be dealt with and that is why it is important that the tenant farmer commissioner is able to bring forward recommendations in due course. Many thanks. The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 5, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 30, and I ask Michael Russell to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. Question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 6, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 30, and I ask Michael Russell to move or not move. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 31, 32 and 33, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 31 to 33 on block, please. Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 31 to 33? Since no member objects, the question is, that amendments 31 to 33 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 5, and I call amendment 34, in the name of the minister, which is grouped with the other amendments, as shown in the groupings. I invite the minister to move amendment 34 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Presiding Officer, those amendments implement the commitment that I gave at stage 2, to amend the bill to include the power for Scottish ministers to make regulations that will provide for the disclosure of information about persons who have a controlling interest in landowners and tenants, and for that information to be published on a public register kept by the keeper of the registers of Scotland. Increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland, Presiding Officer, is a key objective for this bill. During the passage of the bill, it was clear that Parliament and stakeholders felt that we could do more to deliver in this area. So what I am bringing forward today is an amendment to introduce a regulation-making power that will enable the Government to develop proposals to address the many practical and legal issues that arise in this policy area. Amendment 34 puts in place a power that will enable the Scottish ministers to make regulations requiring the disclosure of information about persons who have a controlling interest in landowners and tenants, and for the publication of that information in a public register to be kept by the keeper. To ensure that the policy objective of increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland can be achieved, the definition of persons who have a controlling interest in a landowner or tenant will be one of the key provisions set out in the regulations. It is clear that we will need to consult widely about this definition and the potential to use definitions used in existing legislation. Most notably, definitions used in legislation for the register of people with significant control of UK companies. Another key area that we will have to develop and consult on is in relation to which landowners will be required to provide information. The Scottish Government intends that the information will have to be provided where the landowner is legal entity such as a company or a Scottish limited partnership or an individual is the owner of the land but holds a title to the land under a special capacity such as a trustee. One of the advantages of the Government amendment over section 35A that was inserted into the bill at stage 2 is that the regulations can require the disclosure of information about persons who have a controlling interest in landowners or tenants in respect of all legal titles in Scotland. Section 35A only require disclosure of information in relation to land registered in the land register, which accounts for only 28 per cent of the land mass of Scotland. The Government is determined that the Parliament has a full opportunity to scrutinise the regulations effectively. Therefore, amendments 35, 36 and 37 provide that the regulations will be subject to an enhanced form of parliamentary procedure on the first use of the power. Amendment 34 provides that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure but on the first use of the power, amendment 35 provides that the Scottish ministers cannot lay the draft first regulations unless they have complied with the consultation requirements laid out in amendment 36 and the proposed draft regulations and an explanatory document have been laid before the Parliament. Amendment 36 provides that the proposed draft regulations must be laid in the Scottish Parliament for 60 days and be accompanied by a draft explanatory document. Scottish ministers must consult the keeper and such other people they consider appropriate and they must be provided with a copy of the proposed draft regulations and the draft explanatory document. That means that Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and make recommendations on the proposed draft regulations. In addition, the public will also be able to make representations to the Scottish ministers on the proposed draft regulations. Only after that consultation has been carried out can the draft first regulations be laid before Parliament. When the first draft regulations are laid, they will be subject to the normal affirmative procedure, giving Parliament a further opportunity to scrutinise and take evidence from ministers. Amendment 38 removes section 35A from the bill. The Government believes that bringing forward these regulations is the best way to ensure the transparency of land ownership that we all want to see. We must also put on record that section 35A, as it stands, is outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament and must be removed to ensure that the bill can proceed to royal assent. Amendment 94 provides that all uses of the regulation-making power in amendment 34 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 95 provides that section 101 of the bill is amended to refer to amendment 34 and so exempt for the Crown from being criminally liable in respect of breaches of the requirements of the regulations made under amendment 34. That is simply a consequential change. The Scottish Government believes that those amendments provide the best way forward to deliver the transparency of land ownership in Scotland and we recommend them to this Parliament. We would urge the Parliament to support those amendments and I move amendment 34 in the name of Dr McLeod. We would like to thank Sarah Boyack for lodging her amendments and we acknowledge the work that has gone into drafting them. First, we would like to reiterate that the Scottish Government is committed to increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland and the Government will bring forward regulations that will provide for the disclosure of information about persons having a controlling interest in land. The Scottish Government will publish a consultation this summer on developing proposals for the regulations. The responses will be helpful to inform the drafting of the proposed regulations, which will need to be laid before Parliament as required by the enhanced affirmative procedure to be set out in the face of the bill by amendments 35, 36 and 37. Alongside the Parliamentary and Public consideration of the regulations and the practical issues highlighted in a letter from Dr McLeod to the Rural Affairs Committee on 3 March, the Government will be working on the practical arrangements to give effect to the regulations. Our intention is that the regulations will be approved by Parliament by the end of 2017. I will now turn to addressing Sarah Boyack's amendments. Amendment 34A seeks to provide that ministers must make regulations under Government Amendment 34. The bill currently provides that ministers may make such regulations, and this is the normal formulation for affirmative regulations. The Scottish Government is clearly on the record of saying that we will make regulations, but in these exceptional circumstances there has been such a clear level of support for our proposals, we are willing to support this amendment. Amendment 35A requires the Scottish ministers to lay a draft of the first regulations to be made under amendment 34 subsection 1 within 18 months of the bill receiving royal assent. Having a duty such as amendment 35A could mean that to comply with the duty, ministers would have to bring forward regulations that did not provide for the full policy. A further set of draft regulations would then be brought forward at a later date containing the remaining policy detail. It would only be after these second regulations were made that the full scheme could come into force. Alternatively, if a draft of the first regulations is not laid before the Parliament within the 18-month time limit, the amendment could have the effect of not allowing a draft to be brought forward at all at that time. That could prevent the Government from making regulations. The Government will bring forward draft regulations for approval by this Parliament, and therefore, those amendments are not required. We would ask Sarah Boyack not to move this amendment given the commitments that we have made on timing. Amendment 34B, 34C, 34D and 34G seek to replace the term controlling interests with significant control. We do not think that this change is necessary. What is meant by a person having a controlling interest in landowners or tenants will be set out in the regulations under amendment 34. The definition will be designed to enable the policy objective of increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland to be achieved. The definition will not be constrained by the use of the term controlling interests in other legislation. We would ask that Sarah Boyack does not move these amendments. Amendment 34E provides that the matters that the regulations can provide for may include duties associated with the provision of information. The regulation making power in subsection 1A refers to regulations requiring the provision of information and subsection 2D already refers to information that must be provided under the regulations. Therefore, this amendment is not required. We would ask that Sarah Boyack does not move the amendment. Amendments 34F and 34H attempt to limit the circumstances where a person can request that information about them is not published. Subsection 2H provides that regulations may set out circumstances when information does not have to be published. Subsection 2H provides that the circumstances when a person may request that information not be published may in particular include where publication may result in serious risk of violence or abuse or threat of violence or abuse or intimidation to a person. Subsection 2H does not require that regulation provides that in the circumstance when a person could request that information not be published. Careful consideration will have to be given to determine if the regulations should provide for such circumstances and we would ask that Sarah Boyack does not move this amendment. Amendment 34I seeks to provide that regulations under subsection 1 may provide that the information about controlling interests be available on the internet and searchable by the public. The regulation making power in subsection 1 expressly provides power to make regulation about the publication of information in a public register. The regulation making power is wide enough to allow regulations to be made about access to the public register. The Scottish Government are committed to providing digital public services. We do not consider that these amendments are necessary to provide for online access and we would ask that Sarah Boyack does not move this amendment. Amendment 34J provides that regulations made under subsection 1 cannot be used to amend the regulation making power in subsection 1. It would be very difficult to use the regulation making power in amendment 34 to amend itself as the regulations would have to be within the scope of that power. We do not want there to be any uncertainty as to the validity of the regulations and so we do not intend to make regulations amending the regulation making power. This amendment is not appropriate and is unnecessary and we would again ask that Sarah Boyack does not move her amendment. Amendment 37A appears to be designed to clarify that the Scottish ministers can include summaries of responses to the consultation in the explanatory document that has to be laid before Parliament under amendment 35. There is no limit on the Scottish ministers using the information provided in representations in developing the regulations and reporting in general terms on the representations made, even were this restricted under the terms of subsections 2 and 3 of amendment 37. As a result, we do not consider that amendment 37A is required and we would again ask Sarah Boyack to not move her amendment. Turning now to amendments by Mr Harvey. Amendments 103 and 104 by Patrick Harvey are the same amendments that he brought forward at stage 2. They aim to provide only legal entities incorporated in the EU could be registered as the proprietive land and the land register of Scotland. Those amendments were debated and voted on at stage 2 and rejected by the Rural Affairs Committee. Amendments 105 and 106 seek to prevent the registration of title to land in the land register by entities incorporated when the British Overseas Territories as defined in the British Nationality Act 1981 or the Crown Dependencies, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Amendment 106 sets out that the entities incorporated or established within the British Overseas Territories or the Crown Dependencies that already have a title registered in the land register must take such steps as are necessary to ensure that they are no longer the registered proprietor five years after the date that amendment 106 comes into force. Amendments 105 and 106 have the same effect as amendments 103 and 104, but the entities that are affected are very different. At stage 2, the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform said that the amendments that were lodged by Patrick Harvey in relation to EU entities would not achieve the transparency of land ownership that is wanted and also stated that those amendments were outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. For the same reasons given at stage 2, we consider that amendments 103 and 104 would be outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as they are incompatible with the rules on the free movement of capital and article 63 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Turning to amendments 105 and 106, they have a similar effect to amendments 103 and 104, but in relation to different types of legal entities. The difference between being those amendments restrict legal entities incorporated or otherwise established in British overseas territories and Crown dependencies from registering title to land in the land register. Those amendments appear to be targeting the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as some of those territories and dependencies are referred to as secrecy jurisdictions. As I hope we have clearly set out today, the Scottish Government is committed to increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland. It is clear that there is support across the Parliament for doing this, but in legislating in this area, we have to ensure that measures be put in place to deliver the transparency that we all want to see and do in a way that is within the legislative competence of this Parliament. We understand that the purpose of those amendments is to increase the transparency of land ownership in Scotland, but we are not convinced that those would provide the transparency that is desired. What would prevent a proprietor from reincorporating in a country that is equally as untransparent as some of the jurisdictions that are British overseas territories or Crown dependencies? It has not been demonstrated that all the countries that are affected by the provision are secrecy jurisdictions. It has also been demonstrated that all landowners and tenants registers in those countries are not transparent about their ownership structures. In addition to the minister's concerns about the effectiveness of those amendments, we do consider that amendments 105 and 106 are out with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. As I have said, the amendments would not necessarily result in the transparency of land ownership being increased, as they would not necessarily result in land being owned by a legal entity registered in a country that requires greater transparency. In addition, the amendments would not prevent legal entities registered in the British overseas territories or Crown dependencies from being subsidiaries of legal entities registered in other countries. We are committed to bringing forward the regulations that provide for a public register of controlling interests in the next parliamentary session. There are many legal and practical issues that have to be addressed in bringing forward proposals that will be effective and proportionate. One of those is how we ensure that legal entities who own land and who are incorporated in secrecy jurisdictions comply with the requirement to provide information. We would encourage everyone in this Parliament to work with the Government when we are developing the regulations to ensure that we can achieve the transparency of land ownership that we all want to see. We would ask that Patrick Harvie does not press his amendments 103, 104, 105 and 106. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks, and I now invite Sir Boyack to move amendment 34A and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Well, this group goes to the heart of the ambitions we have for this legislation. And in our committee report for the stage 1 consideration of the bill, there was cross-party support for a stronger framework of transparency. That's why we supported the removal of the original wording of the bill and supported both Graham Day's amendment and proposed our own amendments to strengthen the nature and availability of registration information on who owns and controls land. The minister's amendment today removed those amendments and inserted a much stronger set of proposals, and we support them as far as they go. I am determined that there are no loopholes or ways around the intentions that we have for transparency. I want to make the point on the record that this has been very challenging to scrutinise the minister's amendments. They were laid last Wednesday, late last Wednesday, and we had less than 24 hours to scrutinise those amendments and then decide what amendments we might want to submit. So the purpose of my amendments are to strengthen the minister's new proposals and to remove any doubts about what the Government says is their good intentions here. Now there have been observers around this debate who won't understand why the Scottish Government is removing such a substantive matter put into the bill at stage 2 to create a register of persons with significant control over land, the secret persons who currently can hide their identity in favour of a promise of something better in the future, and some have already suggested that this is to kick the matter into the long grass. I want to make it clear that I'm not attributing that motive to the minister, and in supporting my amendments she could put her intentions beyond doubt. My amendments would require that the Scottish Government must bring forward the regulation, not just leave matters that they may bring forward that legislation, and also to specify a timetable within which they will be brought forward. To oppose my amendments would be to raise the very doubts the minister has been seeking to dispel about the Government's intentions. Presiding Officer, in amendment 34A, which I move, it is not as if I am proposing something without precedent. This Government's record is littered with examples of when they have used exactly the wording that I have proposed today, and the most recent examples being the Carers Scotland Act 2016 and the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015 act approved by this Parliament just a few months ago, and there are many other examples. Members will note that one of the bills mentioned is also one taken through Parliament by the minister with a colleague, the Community Empowerment Act. Of course, all ministers share collective responsibility for what the Scottish Government brings forward, whether they hold particular responsibility or not. If it is good enough to use this term must in those and other bills and now acts, and to bind ministers to particular timescales, why should it not be good enough here? I hope that the minister will not give us a dancing in the head of a pin to say that, in this circumstance, my amendments are not appropriate on every other case they might be. That just does not wash. I really hope that the minister will reflect and regard those amendments as genuinely helpful towards delivering an outcome that we share with the Government. A couple of my amendments were in effect probing amendments, because we were not able to ask those questions at stage 2, but amendments 34B, C and D, I believe, are crucial. Instead of merely setting a requirement to include provisions about those with a controlling interest, the bill would require those with significant control in relation to land to be registered. In speaking to my amendment, that issue was not addressed effectively. A key definition in Scots law of controlling interest, for example, is a single person with more than 50 per cent shareholding of a company, but it is not just through ownership that people can determine the use of our land. The term persons with significant control is used in UK law and can refer to a broader range of ways in which control is exerted, shares, voting rights, informal right to exert control, trustees and so on, and already applies to Scotland through the Small Business and Enterprise Act and would be a much better, much stronger definition to include in this bill. Section 34E, I listened to with interest about the minister, and I will consider what further comments the minister might want to make in summing up. Amendment 34F seeks to make sure that any exceptions to declaring the identity of someone in the register shall only be in exceptional and limited circumstances. That is incredibly important to minimise any loopholes. Amendment 34H, as it stands, implies that there might be quite wide exceptions, and I was very keen to tease out from the minister exactly how those exemptions might be put into practice. I accept that this might be something that we could come to in detailed amendments when we reach those regulations, but I wanted to get a response from ministers on the record today. I particularly wanted to clarify that the risk of domestic violence is an example of exceptional cases. Amendment 34A would explicitly recognise that the new register may be in electronic form and capable of being searched online, something that is already possible for the crofting register heard by the keeper, and sets a good example of what we would like to see. The minister said, and I quote, that the existing provisions on the bill would now be wide enough to allow access, but I would just like that to be firmer on the face of the bill. Amendment J, the intention here, was to prevent amendment of those regulations, which would affect their essential purpose, so it really was just to try and get the ministers to be more firm on the record here that this is not something they would seek to do through regulations to water down the initial purpose. In relation to amendment 35 for the minister, I welcomed this amendment, but I have proposed an amendment to set a timescale for the Government and ministers to follow. I have suggested 18 months from the granting of royal assent, which I think is a reasonable amendment and would it allow ample time for consultation to take place? It is important that we do not lose the momentum built up, and as the minister really telling us that they will not be ready within 18 months, we have had the land reform review group's work, we have had extensive consultation on that, and we have had hundreds of representation to this bill. Are ministers seriously telling us that they are not going to be ready within 18 months to get this through Parliament? My amendment 37A seeks to tease out what the ministers intend by amendment 37, because I have to say that it is not totally clear, and in the 24 hours that we had to put this amendment, we thought that it was unusual and looked like a way of enabling those who make representations against the register remaining secret, which seems utterly the wrong way to go about things. It seems to imply that the Scottish Government would make a disclosure to a committee of Parliament, but they would not make themselves that information available publicly. We really want to seek clarity in this and find out exactly what ministers are intending. It is primarily a probing amendment, so I would like a little bit more in summing up by the minister. If it is something that we return to in the future, then fair enough, but the amendment that is drafted was not helpful in terms of its clarity. Finally, I want to make a brief comment about the proposed amendments by Patrick Harvie. At stage 2, we supported the suggestion that there should be a requirement for those seeking ownership of land in Scotland to be registered to EU entities. That does not prevent somebody who does not live in the EU from owning land, but it does set expectations of tax transparency. Ministers were at great pains to tell us at stage 2 that that would not be legally possible or competent. Again, that was repeated by the ministers. I have to say that there have been several examples in relation to ECHR issues, which we have discussed on several points during the passage of the bill, where there have been examples in relation to ECHR issues, where ministers have on reflection changed their views after extensive consultation with stakeholders with representations from MSPs throughout the bill. We are disappointed that ministers have not wanted to seek a way forward to deliver the ambitions in those amendments. We can think of many examples in this Parliament since its inception, where political will and creative thinking delivered where, at first or even second glance, there were barriers, but determination found ways to overcome obstacles. Because we will come back to the issue of tax transparency, we think that it is the right thing to do. It speaks to the wider concerns that are in our public of fairness and transparency, and we believe that they are in the public interest. We think that they should be supported today. If they are not supported by the SNP Government, I am absolutely convinced that we will come back to them in the future. During the debate on the group of amendments, both the ministers and Sarah Boyack have used the word transparency on a repeated basis. The stage 2 discussion seemed as though that was a point of agreement across the political spectrum that what we are trying to achieve is transparency fundamentally. There are many ways of achieving that. One part of the bill is setting a date for the completion of the land register. That is a step in the direction of transparency, something that I proposed early on in this session in the land registration bill, better late than never. We are now putting it into law in the closing weeks of this session, and I welcome the fact that we are doing it. Addressing the questions of beneficial ownership is also something that I have proposed in the beginning stages of this session in the land registration bill. I am glad that we are doing something in this direction in the closing weeks, better late than never. I very much welcome the work that Graham Day has done at stage 2 and during the stage 1 discussion in bringing forward proposals in that direction. I think that his formulation has an advantage over the Government formulation in relation to beneficial ownership, specifically because it is about using the land register rather than another register. However, if the Government's amendment is going to be passed to change that approach, I think that it should be passed with Sarah Boyack's amendments to that approach. If I heard it right, I think that the Government said that they did intend to support 34A, and I welcome that. There are other amendments from Sarah Boyack, which I think also add value to the approach that the Government is taking. However, it is very consistent with those other approaches. Completing the land register and making steps in terms of beneficial ownership is a need to recognise that getting our own house in order is not enough because there are others using mechanisms such as offshore territories to avoid the level of transparency that we are setting into our own law. At stage 2, I offered the option of an EU proprietorship condition with a five-year period for retrospective application. I bring that back to the chamber along with another alternative, one based on British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. I reject the argument that this is a barrier to the free movement of capital. Even those for whom the ideological attachment to free movement of capital is more important than our agreement on the objective of transparency are just to reject the argument that it is a barrier to free movement of capital. It is entirely reasonable for an organisation to set up an entity that is registered within the EU or preferably here in Scotland if they wish to own and sell land. Representatives of the landowners who responded to the consultation said that they do not see an EU proprietorship requirement as a serious barrier to an organisation that has a committed interest in owning land in Scotland for legitimate purposes. We know that those loopholes are being exploited. We all know it. Just this week, my colleague Andy Wightman, working with Common Space and the National, has exposed the activities of the Baclua estate, where it is an incorporated vehicle in the Cayman Islands, avoiding the level of transparency that we should hold landowners in Scotland to. That is simply not acceptable, and I welcome the fact that the Labour Party is supporting it. I think that there are many in the SNP as well who want this done. This is not a new idea. It was strongly supported in the consultation on the legislation. It was strongly supported by the land reform review group, and it is something that we simply should press ahead with. I will be moving those amendments when the time comes, and I hope that very many SNP members recognise the strong feeling of expectation from their own party colleagues around the country who want those kind of loopholes closed down and want landowners held to the highest standards of transparency. Many thanks. I have four members bidding to speak. I do not wish to curtail the debate, but I would ask members to be as brief as possible. Graham Day, to be followed by Alec Ferguson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As we have heard, the Government amendments before us will replace those that I made to the bill at stage 2. I accepted then that my amendments might be flawed, and I recognise the concerns raised around those amendments being out with the confidence of the Parliament. No responsible parliamentarian should be tied to provisions or amendments that, if featuring in the finished bill, could lead to being subject to challenge. Just as importantly, the Government amendments are, as Sarah Boyack said, a stronger set of proposals. Those amendments provide a framework for delivering competent and appropriate transparency, and they should be viewed alongside the letter sent by the minister some weeks ago. No one could seriously claim that they represent an attempt to kick this issue into the long grass. That said, I welcome Sarah Boyack's amendment 34A, replacing the word may with the word must. I think that that strengthens the messaging around delivery of transparency. Am amendments 103 and 104 would not, as far as I can see, deliver the kind of transparency that we would all want, and could quite easily be circumvented. In legal opinion, from a number of sources that I am aware of, on contested legal opinion, it suggests that they fall out with the legislative competence of the Parliament. I conclude by making one point. That is that we have come a very long way on the road towards delivering transparency. I give due credit to the minister for the leadership that she has provided in that regard. I will be brief. Scottish Conservatives have no difficulties whatsoever with bringing a greater degree of openness and transparency to land ownership, and we never have had. However, I am really concerned, as other members have mentioned, at the lack of time that we have had to really digest and look at the full implications of this whole group of amendments. It is something that really does bother me, because there is a feeling created by that lack of time that we are somehow creating legislation on the hoof here. I have to say that at least the Scottish Government's amendments appear to be within the scope of our competence, unlike Patrick Harvie's, I think. However, I do think that the important thing is to make sure that what we put in place is workable and doable, and it makes sense and people understand it, and it delivers tangible benefits in terms of ownership transparency. For that reason, we will be supporting amendments 34 and 34A. For that particular reason, we will not be supporting 35A, because the important thing is to get this right. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, Patrick Harvie said that he thought that some backbench MSPs supported the concept of transparency. All backbench MSPs have spoken to support that transparency completely. The question is not whether you support transparency. The question is how you achieve transparency, and you achieve transparency by backing the amendments from the minister. Graham Day played a wonderful role in bringing this. No, I would like to finish, Mr Harvie. Graham Day played a very important role in focusing this debate at stage 2. The minister came forward with practical solutions, and we need practical solutions, and if you put into this bill any solution that is not legislative competent, you wreck the entire bill. I am 100 per cent, 100 per cent competitive transparency. I want that register up and running as soon as possible, as everybody else who has spoken does want that register up as soon as possible, but in order to make the progress that we have to make, we have to do it in a way that is more clever than just running at it and assuming that wishes will produce good legislation, it is work that produces good legislation. Thank you. I now call Nigel Dawn, and I have a bet by Rob Gibson who will follow Nigel Dawn. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I rise, of course, as the convener of the Delegated Plans and Law Reform Committee, just to pick up on one issue here. We do very much welcome amendments 34, 35, 36 and 37, and we also recognise that they bring forward an enhanced form of procedure for the first introduction of these regulations, which was what the committee was extremely concerned to achieve. We do, however, note that despite what the minister has already said, the regulations remain as wide for any second and subsequent opportunity when they might be used, but the enhanced, affirmative procedure will not be required. Can I say, Presiding Officer, that it makes perfectly good sense if the grand sweep of these is achieved at the first time and subsequent amendments are technical issues at the edges? However, there is a procedural point to which the committee is concerned about that, if it is completely rewritten, and I do not think that this Government is proposing to do so, but if it were to be completely rewritten, a procedure would simply be the affirmative procedure, and that in the eyes of my committee is not the right way to proceed, and it would not be in any other circumstance. The committee would be very grateful if the minister would be able to confirm on the record that there is no intention of using the wide scope of these for any subsequent amendments and that it will be simply tidying up, as will inevitably be required. I think that the committee would be grateful if that could be put on the record place. I am sure that SNP members across the country who have been following this debate will support our Government's competent, unsensible and legally competent means to take this forward. It is very concerning to me that the lengthy debates and discussions during the time of this bill's passage, which have involved the members of my committee with Government officials and various other parties, should be put aside in order that a proposal brought in at the end, which does not meet the legal competence but which asks this Parliament without any sight of legal advice as to amendments 103 to 106's competence, should pass. Why can we not have these debates in the fashion that the Parliament normally does? That is during the length and the time in which we are talking. It is very important—excuse me, I am just not finished yet—that we are able to hold people who have land to account. That is the practical aim and, eventually, I hope, when the land register is map-based to be able to tax them. Those are the aims. Transparency is a word that encapsulates those things, but it is holding land holders to account that is at the heart of that, and the Government's proposals do just that. First, as Mr Harvey correctly picked up, we did indeed indicate that we were going to support amendment 34A in the name of Sarah Boyack earlier, just in case it was missed. I will repeat that section so that Sarah Boyack has the opportunity to hear it. Amendment 34A seeks to provide that ministers must make regulations under government amendment 34A. The bill currently provides that ministers may make such regulations, and this is the normal formulation for affirmative regulations. The Scottish Government is clearly on the record as saying that we will make regulations but in these exceptional circumstances. With such a clear level of support for our proposals, we are willing to support amendment 34A. I also want to say that, in relation to taking wide regulation and making powers that will be able to pick at any of the amendments suggested by Sarah Boyack if they are supported in consultation. We are keen to make sure that we do all practical steps to take careful consideration of those. It is worth pointing out in terms of the timing that Sarah Boyack raised in her remarks of 18 months and why we were being careful about the timing. We obviously have extensive consultation that we required around the regulations themselves, and I also desire to ensure that we respect the parliaments' right to set the timing of such sessions. I will have permission of appraising off of the bill. Just very briefly, the minister will recognise that there is concerns because this issue has been before the Parliament before and it was voted down by the Government. People have waited a long time for this, so reassurances that it will happen now would be really important. Absolutely, and the Government is keen to give assurances that this work will take place. We are just being careful about the timing. Much of it is out with our control. It is in the hands of parliamentary committees. We do not want to prejudge the timing of the committee's work and indeed the outcome of the consultation, but the Government is sincere in taking forward this work. That is why we have agreed to amendment 34A to put must into the face of the bill to demonstrate our commitment to doing so. I hope that members in the Labour benches take comfort from that point. Registers of Scotland—other point just to make in relation to the section of amendments—is Registers of Scotland taking plans forward for Scotland's land information system. It is a comprehensive information system about any piece of land or property in Scotland. Government and the register of Scotland is taking forward significant steps to improve the transparency and availability of data about land ownership. Michael Russell made excellent points in regard to the competence of any bill. I think that he made those points very powerfully. I do not need to repeat them, but the Government certainly agrees with him on the points that he made about ensuring that all legislation that passes through this place is competent and it takes account of ECHR. Nigel Don, on behalf of the Delegated Powers Committee, makes reasonable points in relation to the use of the powers. We have not just to confirm as requested by Mr Don, we have no intention to rewrite the provisions and to ensure that we remain within the spirit of the letter of the provisions in terms of super affirmative procedure. In regard to the wording of amendment 34, subsection 2H, we would cover an exemption for publication where this would result in a person being at risk of domestic abuse to the Assure Ms Boyack on that point. The wording of amendment 37 is based on the existing legislation in the Public Services Reform Scotland Act 2010, agreed and passed by this Parliament, so there is no variation from that wording. In regard to Mr D's amendments, as he quite correctly said, we were concerned about the amendments that were brought forward not being potentially within letters of competence of the Parliament and there were a number of reasons for that. The amendment, as drafted, did not provide appropriate protections for individuals' rights to privacy under article 8. For example, the amendment does not require a proprietor or a keeper to remove a person's name from the title sheet when that person has ceased to be a person of significant control. I am sure that Mr D is aware of further detail that we do not need to go through just now. In regard to Mr Harvey's point and his reference to Mr Wightman's recent blog in the article on the national, the company's structures lie behind the ownership of the Buclew of States Limited. It is not appropriate for the Government to comment on the individual circumstances of the landowners and the tax affairs of individuals. However, the Government believes that Mr Harvey's proposals would not work. There is nothing in his proposals that prevents a company owning land in Scotland from being wholly owned by another company registered in a British overseas territory or anywhere else in the world that may be termed a tax haven or a secrecy jurisdiction. All those amendments would serve to do with putting another company in the company chain in effect adding to the complexity of the ownership chain. We would also like to stress that there are other countries that can be just as secretive, if not more so, than those that are subject to Mr Harvey's amendments. I will briefly present— I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Would the minister agree with me that some—and confirm that the land reform review group recommendation was that EU ownership should be something that was looked at with great care? It is very disappointing that the risk averse Scottish Government has appeared to not push the system as far as it might do. I believe that both are complementary. It is not about capital, it is about transparency of ownership. I think that, in respect to Ms Beamish, we have made very clear throughout the process of the debate today that we very much believe in transparency of land ownership in Scotland. We are doing everything we can to do so, but, as Mr Russell rightly said and I reiterate, we have to ensure that legislation that comes to this Parliament is legally competent and that it is able to be sustained through the courts if it is challenged. I put that to Ms Beamish that the measures that she rightly says were in the land reform review group report. I remember reading them myself that they are not ones that we can support on the basis of our own understanding of legal competence in this case. However, we need a solution to deliver the transparency of land ownership that applies to all landowners, regardless of where they are incorporated. The ability of this Parliament to legislate in certain matters is limited. It is not within the competence of this Parliament to legislate on matters that are reserved. That includes matters of company law or measures aimed to reduce avoidance of non-devolved taxes such as inheritance tax and corporation tax. In making legislation, we have to take into account our obligations under European law. As we have already said, the Scottish Government considers that the amendments brought forward by Mr Harvey are right with the legislative competence of this Parliament. Above all, it is crucial that we bring forward measures to increase the transparency of land ownership, which are proportionate, effective and within the legislative competence of this Parliament. What this Parliament can do and will do is legislate about land ownership in Scotland. As Alex Cobham, director of research with the tax justice network said in the national, the Scottish Government can take its own steps to ensure that no land is owned without public record of the ultimate beneficial ownership, regardless of which jurisdiction or structure is used. That said, the regulation making power that we have proposed today will allow us to do exactly that. It will allow us to make regulations that require the disclosure of information about persons who have a controlling interest in landowners and tenants and for the keeper to publish that information in a public register. Those regulations can apply to all landowners in Scotland, regardless of where they are incorporated. If I could just go a bit further, I will bring in Mr Harvey in a minute. Unlike Mr Harvey's amendments, which only seek to limit ownership to persons registered in certain jurisdictions, restrictions that would be easily circumvented in our view. The Scottish Government is committed to making land ownership in Scotland transparent, and we hope that everyone here today in the Parliament is supportive. We will work with the minister, the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland to help us to achieve the goal of greater transparency of land ownership in Scotland, which we all want to see if the consent I will bring in Mr Harvey. The minister seems very satisfied that the bill as it stands achieves the level of transparency that he is aiming for. Can he assure us that an entity, registered in one of the secrecy jurisdictions such as Pentland Ltd, will be held to the high standard of transparency that we are not capable of achieving today? Those are clearly matters that Mr Harvey will understand. We are saying that we potentially have a lot of scrutiny on the procedure to develop the regulations, and that is why we are keen to have the time and not setting a time limit on it. We are going to work with the parliamentary process to ensure that the Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations that come forward and make sure that they are robust enough to deliver the kind of transparency that he wants. However, I return to the point that whatever we do as a Parliament has to be legally competent, and it has to be with the competence of this Parliament, we cannot bring forward measures in the bill that would allow the bill to be shot down by those who oppose it. I very much welcome the minister's acceptance of the intent behind my amendment 34A and its detail, so I will certainly be moving that amendment. With brief reference to the other amendments in my name and the amendments in this group, might Russell said that it is work that will produce good legislation? I think that we could all agree with that. That is our point in setting a timetable for the next Scottish Government. It is crucial that the process is actually planned and worked towards and is done effectively. Frankly, the Scottish Government set the timetable with this bill. We need a better timetable for the next bill. We need a commitment, and it would be the Parliament setting the timetable, not the Government. That is the point. That would be the point of our amendment today. Nobody has effectively and adequately addressed my concerns in amendments 34B, CND or F, so I will be pushing them. I will not push a couple of the other amendments. My final point, the minister asked why we could not have debated the issue of tax transparency earlier. The point is that it was debated earlier. It was debated in our stage 1 report that ministers did not reply to until after we had had that stage 1 debate, so this has been out there for months, for years. The land reform review group made the point. Our stage 1 report made these points. It is not a new issue. The point that I would finish with is where is the Scottish Government's alternative? Today is disappointing in terms of that response, and it is a missed opportunity. It will be unfinished business. The next Parliament will have to come back to. The member has pressed to question is that amendment 34A be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 34B in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I invite Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34B be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34B is, yes, 38, no 76. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 34C in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34C be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34C is, yes, 38, no 76. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 34D in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34D be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34D is, yes, 38, no 74. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 34E in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34E be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34E is, yes, 38, no 75. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 34F in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34F be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34F is, yes, 38, no 75. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 34G in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34G be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34G is, yes, 38, no 75. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 34H in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has not moved. The question is that amendment 34I in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has not moved. I now call amendment 34G in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has not moved. I now call amendment 34G. Fong moved. The question is, is amendment 34 agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I now call amendment 35G in the name of the minister, who is already debated with Felly, wrth dweud, mae'r iaugau ar gyfer maen nhw ydw i fynd i unrhyw ym mleidio. Felly, fydd yn ei wneud o'ch cyfrifio iddo gwrsus y dditwb yn dda, i fynt nhw fydd yn ei ddw i fynt nhw i fynt nhw? Felly, mae'r iaugiau yn ddod, cadw i fynt nhw i fynt nhw, a ddim i fod pan ddod o fod yn ddod yn ddod yn ddod wrth ddod yn ddod, a ddim i fod yn ddod yn ddod. maesaf. roedd pwrnodd hynny'n ddiwethaf—Polwg Cymru—on mynd i ddatblygiadau cadw. Fy yw yw y塵 hon のf, rwyf yn ymgwrdd yth yn ymgyrch, a ddys fan, rwyf yn bryd rydw i fynd ymgyrch. Fy yw ei ddys fan. Rwyf yn ymgyrch, rydw i fynd ymgyrch, rydw i fynd ymgyrch, rydw i fynd ymgyrch, rydw i fynd ymgyrch. Rydw i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd Pedwyddo nhw'n Chr Minhdi wrth dangos nifer o ffordd i chi wedidolginn Fabewlived mewn gen Rainbow Felly, y cwestiwn y gallwn y cwestiwnessu 103 yn ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb. Mae ychwanegwch yn ddiddordeb, mae'n ddiddordeb yn 32nd y ffas ôl, rydw i, yn gyllid oED. Rydw i'r ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb 103 yn gwaith wrth 3 ddiddordeb yn eich 1, no eich 1. Wrth gwaith y cwestiwnes hynny, nid ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb. Mae cwestiwnes 104 yn ddiddordeb yn yr ystafell Patech Harvie ac yn ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb amendment 34. amendment 105. amendment 105. amendment 105. no abstentions. amendment 106, in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Patrick Harvie to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. That then brings us to group 6 and amendment 39, in the name of the minister, group with amendments 40 to 52, and I ask the minister to move amendment 39. Sorry, at this stage, could I ask any members who wish to contribute to this part of the proceedings to press a request to speak buttons now, please? I ask the minister to move amendment 39 and speak to the amendments in the group. Presiding Officer, those amendments are aimed at increasing the availability of information about land ownership in Scotland. In the report, the land reform review group stated that a lack of consistently accurate information about patterns of land ownership was an issue that hindered them in carrying out their review. To gain an understanding of how land ownership affects patterns of land use in Scotland and the effect of government policies connected to land, it is important to have further information on land ownership. For example, to understand the effectiveness of Scottish Government policy on community ownership, it is essential that accurate information about the amount of land owned by community groups is available. The registers of Scotland are often asked to provide information about how much land is owned by a certain category of owner. This information cannot always be retrieved as it is not captured as part of the land registration process. When the bill was introduced, section 36 provided a power for regulations to be made, enabling the keeper to request information relating to proprietors, including information relating to the category of the owner or tenant, and information relating to individuals having a controlling interest in owners or tenants. In the report on the bill, at stage 1, the Racky Committee recommended that section 36 should be amended so that the keeper could require this information and not just request it. Amendments 39 to 49 amend the regulation making power inserted into section 48A of the land registration etc. Scotland Act 2012, so that regulations can be made enabling the keeper to request and require information about the category of person or body that certain owners or tenants of land fall into. We have already discussed the amendments that the Government has brought forward regarding information about controlling interest in owners and tenants of land. As a result of those amendments, it is no longer necessary for the regulation making power in inserted section 48A1 to be wide enough to allow regulations to be made, requesting information about individuals having controlling interest in proprietors. Amendments 40 and 46 reflect that. It is intended that the regulations under section 48A will enable the keeper to require the provision of information about categories of owner or tenant as part of the land register application form. We consider that providing this information should be relatively straightforward. We anticipate that the land register application form will provide a list of potential categories and the applicant would be required to select any which are relevant to the owner or tenant. The bill already provides that regulations made under inserted section 48A subsection 1 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 52 provides that the crown cannot be criminally liable for any breaches of requirements imposed by regulations made under section 48A subsection 1. In looking at this policy, the Government came to the view that in order to increase the number of owners or tenants about whom the information was provided, it was important that the keeper was given additional powers to add information about the category of the owner or tenant to the land register on her own initiative in certain circumstances. Amendment 50 inserts section 48B into the 2012 act. That contains a power allowing the Scottish ministers to make regulations enabling the keeper to enter information in the land register about the category of certain landowners and tenants on her own initiative in certain circumstances. It is intended that the keeper will only be able to add information about the category of the owner or tenant where this information is already apparent from the land register. For example, if one of the categories of landowner is a Scottish local authority, then it should be evident from the name of the proprietor entered in the title sheet whether the proprietor is or is not a Scottish local authority. It is not intended that adding this information to the land register should have an effect on a person's legal title. Amendment 51 provides that regulations made under inserted section 48B subsection 1 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government intends to consult before making regulations under inserted sections 48A and 48B. I would urge the Parliament to support these amendments and I move amendment 39. Two contributions of a few seconds each please. Claudia Beamish to be followed by Alex Ferguson. I wish to speak in support of the Minister's amendments. This will help to clarify the position on this important part of the bill on availability of information on land ownership. It is very important that the possibility of information on community land ownership is a category going forward for land reform. The additional powers for the keeper on her own initiative are also important on those amendments that the Minister referred to on behalf of the other Minister. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have little to add, but we do not intend to oppose these amendments, but I do want to repeat and place on record my continuing concerns with regards to significant provisions being introduced to legislation by way of regulation with limited scrutiny. It is not the right way to go about making robust legislation and I hope that this does not end up out of the chance. I know that the delegated powers and the Oral Form Committee have concerns as well. I am happy to reiterate the question. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 40 to 56, all in the name of the Minister and all previously debated. I invite the Minister to move amendments 40 to 56 on block, please. Include is any member object to a single question being put on amendments 40 to 56. Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 40 to 56 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Before I suspend Parliament at this stage, I advise members that when we reconvene in the afternoon for the second part of the legislation, there will be a five-minute suspension for the first division of the afternoon. I now suspend Parliament until two o'clock.