 The next item is the continuation of stage 3 proceedings on the planning Scotland Bill, and we picked up where we left off last night. I will remind members that we have 45 minutes this afternoon to deal with the remaining amendments. Members will be aware, and I will start straight in on the marshalled list and call group 38, Forrestuin Woodland Strategy. I ask Andy Wightman to move and speak to amendment 207. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 207. Get there. The third national planning framework highlighted trees, woodlands and forests as economic and environmental assets. In addition to that, national planning framework 3 reiterates the aim for expansion of woodland over the next 10 years to support carbon emission reductions and wider land use objectives. The Scottish planning policy says that local planning authorities should do the following, one, to identify woodlands of high-nature conservation value and include policies for protecting and enhancing their condition, and two, to consider preparing forestry and woodland strategies as supplementary guidance to inform the development of forestry and woodland in their area, including the expansion of woodland of a range of types to provide multiple benefits. I'm pleased to note that, in fact, all planning authorities, with the exception of Aberdeen City, Shetland and Orkney, have such a strategy already, in the case of councils such as Highland, quite sophisticated strategies. In fact, they're in their second or third iteration of it. The three councils that do not have strategies do however have supplementary guidance, Aberdeen, Shetland and Orkney. Amendment 207 requires all planning authorities to prepare a forestry and woodland strategy. Importantly, the requirement is to be fulfilled as the authorities see fit, provided that it covers the key elements in subsection 2. Given that planning authorities already publish those, as either a strategy or supplementary guidance, amendment 207 merely gives them a statutory footing and ensures that they should be continued to be produced. Amendment 207, I move. I thank you very much, Mr Wightman. I'm Graham Simpson. I think that it's a really useful amendment from Andy Wightman. It says that planning authorities to prepare a forestry and woodland strategy should identify woodlands of high nature conservation value in their area, set out the planning authorities' policies and proposals into their area as to the development of forestry and woodlands, the protection and enhancement of woodlands. As a member of the woodland trust and a species champion for the holy tree, I welcome this addition to planning laws. I want to see woods and forests protected. If, as a climate emergency, as the First Minister says, our planning system should not be making it easy to chop down trees, we need more of them, not less, and we should plan for that. I say well done to Mr Wightman for introducing this, and we shall be wholehearted supporters of his amendment. Forestry and woodlands are an integral part of our urban and rural landscapes. I agree that it is important that strategies are prepared for their protection, enhancement and resilience. Amendment 207 introduces a requirement for planning authorities to prepare and consult on forestry and woodland strategies for their areas or in collaboration with other authorities across a wider area. However, that is not new. Strategies are already prepared as a matter of course by the majority of our planning authorities, as Mr Wightman has already pointed out. Either singly or in collaboration, as is encouraged by Scottish planning policy and guidance on the right tree, right place. Amendment 207 takes that position a step further. However, I agree that the time is right to do so in the context of recent changes through our forestry and land management Scotland act, the new Scottish forestry strategy and in response to climate change. I thank Mr Wightman for working with us on this, and I am happy to support his amendment. I call Mr Wightman to wind up. Do you want to add anything? Nothing to add, I just welcome members' support. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 207 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turned to group 39, mineral and peatworking. I call amendment 208 in the name of Claudia Beamish, grouped with amendments 209, 210 and 211. Claudia Beamish to move amendment 208 and speak to the other amendments. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This suite of complementary amendments seeks to update and modernise the planning system around Scotland's peatlands. The importance of this special habitat has only grown in recent years, owing to its capacity as a vital natural carbon sink. Members will recall that I spoke to similar amendments at stage 2, but did not move them at the time listening to the minister's concerns. I thank the minister for discussing those amendments with me, and also I would like to put on the record the support of civil servants, including Andy Cunyad in this respect. However, given further work, I remain convinced that the system of permissions and extraction rights around this habitat are out of date and no longer fit for purpose. I intend to listen very carefully to what the minister is saying before I decide finally whether to move those amendments or not. Many local authorities do not have the comprehensive information of the permissions that exist. Never mind the fact that many permissions should not exist at all in the context of Scotland's climate emergency. The Scottish Government has given high priority to phasing out peat use and I commend them for that and peat extraction in recognition of the significant climate change impacts and adverse effects on water and wildlife, resulting from damaged peatlands. However, around 0.5 million square cubic metres of peat is still extracted annually in Scotland, removing a carbon store that takes thousands and thousands of years to form, resulting in the loss of almost all biodiversity value on those sites and changes to hydrology that can have negative effects on flood management for our communities and populations as well. The Scottish Government is rightly spending millions of pounds per annum on the peatland action fund to restore degraded peatlands across Scotland. It surely makes sense for coherent policy to prevent the degradation of further sites in Scotland of which the costs of restoration could well lie with the public purse. The climate change bill is set to legislate and has now, at stage 2, accepted a target of net zero emissions by 2045. The net is important here. The UK Committee on Climate Change, in its advice for net zero target, states that it is confident that Scotland could feasibly achieve this higher target than the rest of the UK due to its greater sequestration capabilities. With increasing global recognition of the need for carbon reductions from land use activity, those proposals offer a relatively quick and cost-effective opportunity to address the issue in the public interest. The Scottish Government supports the UK Government's targets for retail soil supplies to be peat-free by 2020 and for commercial horticulture to end the use of peat by 2030. The Scottish Government has also set a target to restore 250,000 hectares of peatland by 2030. Those amendments are entirely in line with the policy position, and I still want to be really clear from the minister as to whether those should be moved or not. I move to the amendments and I hope that members will bear with me because they are technical in nature and in a sense whether I move them or not. It is very important today that it is on the record what the issues are in order for us to move forward together as a Parliament with the Scottish Government leading on this, particularly if I do not move them. Amendment 208 would allow planning authorities to impose nature conservation as a recognised aftercare condition. Currently, Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 Scotland sets out three potential uses. Agriculture, forestry and amenity. In a note on this amendment from the Scottish Government for which I thank the minister, it was explained that amenity in the existing legislation is defined as land suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs and other plants, founding in a planning advice note 64, reclamation of surface mineral workings. That is welcome, although critically missing from that list is restoration and my amendment would remedy that with a broader definition. The planning advice note indeed was up for revision and consultation in 2015 and has had no update since January 2017. Can the minister confirm whether he still intends to update this pan 64 as recommended by the opencast coal review? Will he commit to consulting on the adequacy of the advice on aftercare and the priority given to nature conservation, particularly if we do not move forward with the amendment today? I also highlight that, since stage 2, this amendment has been edited by myself on the advice of the minister to remove the involvement of SNH, and I will not go into the details of that, but I think that that is appropriate, because they are only an advisory role. This amendment is very reasonable, given the environmental and climate emergency, and SPICE have confirmed that it would strengthen the status of nature conservation, particularly in the light of developments and understanding about the importance of peatland and other issues that I have already highlighted. For a number of minerals extraction sites, nature conservation is indeed the most appropriate and locally desirable after use. I urge the Scottish Government and across the chamber, but certainly the Scottish Government, if I do not move, to take the issues in this amendment forward. I now turn to 2.09, 2.10 and 2.11, which have been altered since stage 2 to limit the scope to only peatlands, not all mineral extractions following comments from the ministers. However, there are two difficulties. The onus is wholly on planning authorities to monitor whether sites are sitting dormant, and this power does not prevent operators from leaving sites dormant for years and then restarting operations without input from the planning authorities. This amendment would mean that where an operator has left a dormant site and ceased operations for two years or more, their planning permission would automatically be suspended and they would need to proactively apply to the planning authority to resume operations. This would rebalance, in my view, some onus put on to the operators to keep their permissions up-to-date and better enable planning authorities to become aware of dormant sites, but there may be a different solution to that. In 2.10, the sunset clause aims to simplify and clarify the process of the review of old mineral planning permissions by introducing a sunset clause for all old peat extraction consents, setting a time for all to be reactivated before they permanently expire. Current permission periods are lengthy and poorly regulated, and I am not going to go into the detail of that, but in 23 years that these processes have been in place, there is ample opportunity for both site operators and local authorities to make use of the processes. However, in a report in 2003, some significant number of years ago, SNH for SNH, struggled to draw conclusions about the progress with ROMP2 having encountered difficulties obtaining information from local authorities. That is indeed another concern. The Environment Act of 2095 introduced a requirement for the periodic review of mineral permissions. However, only 15 sites are known to have gone through this review process, and there is no penalty or mechanism to enforce the statutory requirements. I would appreciate hearing from the minister about whether a mechanism might be put in place more robustly. It tends to be developers triggering this process voluntarily. There is no centrally available information on any sites where planning permission has ceased to have effect, and existent planning permissions also act as a barrier to obtaining funding for restoration through mechanisms like peatland action. The new planning bill presents a logical opportunity as one way to simplify these procedures and to align planning with other areas of government policy on peatland. A clear end date for old planning permissions by introducing a sunset clause for extraction permissions would deliver this. This amendment would mean all companies with consents in phase 2 and 3 lists or any sites consented before 1982 would need to reactivate them, which seems quite a reasonable stipulation considering how long ago this was, by a fixed national date or lose the consent permanently. Although restoration and aftercare conditions would still apply, this would remove long-term uncertainty for the status of the carbon in the soils and remove the burden on local authorities to instigate the process. Overcoming issues with lack of enforcement and clear data collection. The sunset clause does not pose a risk of encouraging developers to start production at unworked sites with old permissions, as it requires simply companies to reactivate consents. I think that we are on to the last one. Some members may be relieved to hear. Amendment 211 clarifies that any calculation of compensation for restriction on working sites for peatland extraction should assume that there will be no UK market for horticultural repeat, as I have repeated. I am not going to repeat the dates again. This would give confidence to planning authorities to consider restricting working rights in strategically important areas for peatland restoration, as it would give them more clarity on the scope of possible compensation claims. That would not result in a ban on the sale of these products. However, it would prevent the claim of compensation by peat extraction sites on the assumption that there will still be markets with these products beyond the time periods, but the damaging products will have been phased out. Although planning permission and policy have a presumption, particularly policy, against new commercial peat extraction, schedule 8 of the existing planning allows local authorities to order the discontinuance of mineral extraction if it is in the interests of their districts, any such order would trigger a claim for compensation by the hold of extraction rights. Schedule 10, a periodic review of planning permissions of the existing act, provides that compensation provisions are applicable where working rights to mineral extraction are restricted as a result of new conditions, except for restoration and aftercare conditions. That, in practice, has been cited as a deterrent to planning authorities, considering limiting the length or size of peat extraction sites, even where the peat extraction is clearly not in local interests or in the interests of biodiversity targets. I gave an example at stage 2. I am not going to go into the detail. Ockon Cork Moss in my constituency in Midlothian is one of those. The RSPB state that this site accounts for an enormous one-fifth of Scotland's total carbon emissions from peat extraction and is adjacent to a protected SSI. I am not going to go into more detail on it, but it is a very precious site. I thank the minister for meeting with me to discuss these amendments and also for sending over information I repeat again. I understand that the Government has ECHR concerns with this particular amendment, and I will listen carefully to the minister's response on this. However, there is a clear public interest in ensuring that peatlands are safeguarded and for a more transparent and realistic basis for compensation claims to prevent instances like the one that I have just highlighted. The Scottish Government has supported targets for ending horticultural peat due to a significantly increased understanding of the importance of protecting and restoring peatlands for carbon and wider ecosystems, and I hope very much that the minister will consider that. I thank those members who have been able to listen for listening. I thank the minister, not just to Ms Beamish and other members. Those are the sort of detailed arguments that should be explored at stage 2 of a bill, and it's very important. I don't want to diminish it in any way from the argument that Ms Beamish put, and it's very important. She made it clear that she wanted to read it into the record, and I am certainly not going to curtail any member who wishes to do so. However, it is disappointing to have this level of detail at stage 3 of proceedings. I note that, already, the chances of us keeping to our timetable this afternoon are highly diminished. I make that point not to Ms Beamish individually, but to all the members for the stage that we've reached. I call the minister to respond. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very grateful to Ms Beamish for the co-operation that there has been. I really appreciate the fact that she mentioned Andy Cunair, the bill team manager who has been a stalwart during the course of this, and has helped a great deal along the way. The Scottish Government recognises and supports the need to phase out the use of peat as part of our ambitions for tackling climate change and promoting peatland restoration. However, I cannot support Ms Beamish's amendment since there are already mechanisms in place to ensure that those issues can be addressed in a proportionate and fair way. That includes existing order making powers in the 1997 act for planning authorities to deal with issues around dormant mineral sites and a range of policy initiatives to phase out the use of peat and horticulture. I want to avoid placing additional provisions into the bill when they are already addressed elsewhere. I would in particular be very cautious over forcing all existing sites to close without further consideration of the environmental and compensation consequences. Ms Beamish, in her speech, mentioned the peatland restoration fund. How are amendments of the potential to require significant compensation or legal action for companies seeking compensation? The Government considers that funding is more effectively spent on the peatland restoration fund. I know that Ms Beamish does not necessarily disagree with that. Although I cannot support the amendments, I do appreciate Ms Beamish's highlight on those very important issues around about Scotland's peatlands. The Government recognises those issues and, therefore, we have brought forward our own amendment to the bill and a much earlier group to place a requirement on the Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of preserving peatland when preparing the national planning framework. Ms Beamish can be assured that when we look at the national planning framework, which we move on to next, I will be paying due attention to what we do in those areas and I know that she will be at me if I do not, and I welcome that. In terms of some of the advice notes that Ms Beamish mentioned, I am more than willing to look at what they currently say and whether they require that updating, and I am more than happy to have further conversations with her in that regard. I would say that what we have done here reinforces our commitment to ensuring that planning policies on peat extraction are considered in the context of climate change, and I know that Ms Beamish will continue to scrutinise how we move forward on all of those issues, and my door is always open to speak. I will take the intervention, yes. Could the minister just clarify for me as I make the final decision as to whether to move or not move those amendments in relation to those very long-term outstanding sites in which there is a lot of uncertainty around and perhaps a lack of clarity in relation to what the local government-relevant planning authorities are doing, is it possible for the minister to highlight those two local authorities because it is a serious concern about the possibility of restarting of sites if I do not move the amendment? I am happy to talk to local authorities about those issues. I have no problem in that at all. I would be concerned about, and that is where we need to make the ultimate consideration and make the right choice, is round about those compensation consequences, but I am happy to discuss those matters with local authorities. I am always wary of the compensation consequences that there may be. I would rather spend money on peatland restoration than on consequences, but I am more than happy to talk to local authorities about those issues. Thank you very much. There are no other members who wish to contribute. Clare Ewing wish to wind up on this and to decide whether to press or withdraw the amendment in her name. Presiding Officer, I do not intend to move these amendments today. It has been a very difficult decision and there have been a range of NGOs who have had very serious concerns about the protections for peatlands, RSPB being one of them who has helped to shape these amendments, but certainly not them being the only ones. I think that there is a serious issue in relation to aftercare. We have seen what happened with the opencast industry and I think it is very, very important that conservation and those aspects of aftercare are really looked at more carefully so that communities can benefit for their own mental health and for access to the countryside, but most importantly for carbon secretion. I also think that it is important that these issues are more carefully enshrined in the review of the national planning framework, so I would be pleased to work with the minister along with others on that. I do not intend to move the amendments, but as a final point, I think that it is strange that when there will be no market value for peat after certain dates, there should be a concern in terms of the possibility of compensation. I just highlight that in my final sentence. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms Beamish. Does any member object if Ms Beamish withdraws amendment 208? No one objects. Can I just confirm that Ms Beamish does not wish to move amendments 209, 2010 or 2011? 2010, 2010 and 2011. Not moved? No. Thank you very much, Ms Beamish. In that case, we now turn to group 40, infrastructure levy. I call amendment 213, in the name of Claudia Beamish, and this is grouped with the amendments that are shown in the groupings. To move amendment 213 and to speak to the other amendments in this group on infrastructure levy. Right. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Members will be pleased to hear that this is a short set of speaking notes. Hooray. Yes, absolutely. My amendment 213 adds green and blue infrastructure to the list. 214 defines this as, I quote, features of the natural and built environments including water that provides a range of ecosystem and social benefits. At stage 2, members will recall, I had a similar amendment adding nature conservation management issues to this list. The minister explained that those liable to pay the levy do not want the definition widened too far and that nature conservation measures would not help the levy's aim, which was the key aim of which to enable infrastructure capacity issues to allow development. This amendment has been reworked to bring natural solutions out of the environment silo. Green and blue infrastructure gives scope for infrastructure that helps to address environmental concerns such as flood defences, water supply, loss of public green space, climate change and protection of biodiversity and the wider environment. The policy memorandum states that the levy should capture land value uplift for public benefit. In this context, the preventative spend angle of these projects should not be disregarded particularly when many parts of South Scotland and beyond faced flood warnings a few weeks ago. Using the levy in this way would help to contribute to Scotland's commitment to the UN's sustainable development goals and in particular help to meet the UN target to decouple economic development from environmental degradation if I can say that word. If the infrastructure levy is to achieve its objectives and deliver offsetting public benefits then it must directly address the causes of the accumulating public costs of development and economic activity. It is difficult to see how this can be realistically achieved without new investment in green infrastructure and blue infrastructure which can offset those costs. In the face of the climate and environment emergency I hope members across this chamber will support this amendment. Thank you. Thank you very much. Alexander Stewart to speak to amendment 218 and the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My amendment 218 does not have condition for regarding applications for infrastructure levy the development which are also subject to planning obligations under section 75 of the Town and Country Act 1997. There is potential for duplication of contributions on such developments i.e. a contribution being required for the same object or purpose under both the planning obligation and by way of the infrastructure levy. That would be inappropriate for persons such as developers to be required to contribute twice for the same object or purpose. That could impact upon development. That amendment seeks to avoid by specifically enabling any infrastructure levy regulations made by Scottish ministers to provide by the granting of relief for the liability. To pay infrastructure levy where the developer is subject to a section 75 objection and where the planning authority considers that to require payment for such a levy in respect of that would be a contribution and the person who will be belieable to pay the infrastructure levy. Historic homes are supportive of this amendment and I believe that there is merit in such a provision. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I call the minister, Kevin Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This bill has been a marathon effort. We have come to the last group of amendments and I am delighted to say that I support all of the amendments in the group. I will say a little bit more on that and it will be a little. The local government and communities committee highlighted concerns that the power to establish an infrastructure levy may remain in legislation but never be implemented. I brought forward an amendment at stage 2 introducing a sunset clause meaning that the power to establish a levy would lapse if it is not used within 10 years of royal ascent. Although the amendment was accepted, views of some members were too long. I have looked at the time scales and feasibility of bringing forward levy regulations and I am happy to propose amendment 149 to reduce that time period from 10 years to 7 years and I am confident that it will still give us sufficient time for the additional working consultation that is needed to inform the regulations. During stage 2 concerns were also raised over the timing of payment of the infrastructure levy and the fact that payment may be sought prior to the granting of planning permission to address those concerns. I have proposed amendment 150 to remove paragraph 9 of schedule 1 of the bill so that regulations cannot preclude planning permission from being granted on the basis of non-payment of the infrastructure levy. The potential for overlap between the infrastructure levy and section 75 planning obligations has also emerged as a concern in particular the issue of duplication and double charging has been raised and I believe that it is a reasonable point and therefore I am happy to support amendment 218 from Mr Stewart which will provide greater certainty for the industry. The bill includes a wide definition of infrastructure which funds from the levy could be used to support. However, there have been calls for specific reference to be made to green and blue infrastructure to be included within that definition. Again, I am grateful to Claudia Beamish for her co-operation and communication about all of this. Amendment 213 seeks to do what I highlighted previously and I am happy to support it. Proposed amendment 214 introduces a broad definition of what green and blue infrastructure consists of. I do have some concerns about the detail of that definition but I am content that the bill contains sufficient flexibility should circumstances change and those definitions need to be amended in the future. I am also therefore happy to support that amendment too. Thank you very much minister and I call on Claudia Beamish to wind up in this group. I am delighted that the minister has accepted the amendments on green and blue infrastructure which will help with our climate and our environment emergency and also help with the wellbeing of the people of Scotland and I don't wish to say any more than that except just to note that it's been for everybody and just say well done all. Thank you very much miss Beamish. The question therefore is that amendment 213 be agreed to are we agreed? Can I ask Claudia Beamish to move amendment 214? That is moved. The question is that amendment 214 be agreed to are we agreed? Can I call amendment 149 in the name of the minister? The question is that amendment 149 be agreed to are we agreed? Are we agreed? Can I ask Alec Rowley if he wishes to move amendment 215? That was debated with 112. That is moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 215 The question is that amendment 215 be agreed to are we agreed? We're not agreed. That is the first division so I'm going to ring the bell and summon members to the chamber. There will be a 5 minute suspension. That's us. The question is that amendment 215 be agreed to and members may cast their votes now. There will be a 30 second division on amendment 215. The result of the vote on amendment 215 in the name of Alec Rowley is yes 29 no 81 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 217 in the name of Andy Wightman Andy Wightman to move? Not moved. Can I call amendment 216 in the name of Claudia Beamish debated with amendment 132 Claudia Beamish to move or not move amendment 216 That was debated with amendment 132 earlier. 132 oh my god I'm going to say yes. That is moved. The question is that amendment 216 be agreed to Are we all agreed? We're not agreed, we'll move to our vote and members may cast their votes now on amendment 216. The result of the vote on amendment 216 in the name of Claudia Beamish is yes 28 no 82 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 218 and ask Alexander Stewart if he wishes to move or not move. Amendment 218 be agreed to Are we all agreed? No, we're not agreed, we'll move to our vote and members may cast their votes now on amendment 218. The result of the vote on amendment 218 in the name of Alexander Stewart is yes 80 no 31 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 150 in the name of the minister to move? Thank you. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed, we'll move to our vote on amendment 150 and members may vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 150 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes 80 no 30 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment in fact can I invite the minister to move amendments 106 to 110 on block. Moved on block. Thank you. In that case, the question is that the Parliament agrees amendments 106 to 110 are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment and invite Claudia Beamish to move or not move amendment 219? That is moved. The question is that amendment 219 219 be agreed to are we all agreed? We're not agreed we'll move to our vote and members may cast their votes now on amendment 219. The result of the vote on amendment 219 in the name of Claudia Beamish is yes 52 no 59 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I invite the minister to move amendments 151, 111 and 152 on block. Moved on block. Thank you. The question is that amendment 151 be agreed to are we agreed? We are agreed. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that amendment 152 be agreed to are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 159 in the name of Rachel Hamilton already debated Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Thank you very much, Ms Smith. Amendment 159 be agreed to are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote on amendment amendment 159 and members may vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 159 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes 78 no 31 there were two abstentions the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 220 in the name of Claudia Beamish not moved? Can I ask Claudia Beamish if she wishes to move amendment 221? That is not moved. Can I ask the minister to move amendment 153? Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 153 be agreed to are we agreed? We are agreed. Can I ask the minister to move amendment 154? Amendment 154 be agreed to are we agreed? We are agreed. Can I ask Claudia Beamish if she wishes to move amendment 222? That is not moved. Can I ask Alex Rowley if he wishes to move amendment 223? That is not moved. Can I ask the minister to move amendment 155? Moved, Presiding Officer. That is moved. The question is that amendment 185 be agreed to are we agreed? Can I ask the minister to move amendment 185? That is moved. The question is that amendment 185 be agreed to are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 185. The result of the vote on amendment 192 be agreed to are we agreed? That ends our consideration of amendments. Can I thank all the members and the minister for their time and effort over three days? Before we move on to portfolio questions, I have to make a determination on whether or not any provision in this bill relates to a protected subject matter, whether it modifies the electoral system and whether it modifies Scottish parliamentary elections. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority at stage 3. I will move on shortly to portfolio questions. We will give a few moments for the members and the minister to change seats.