 The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill in dealing with amendments. Members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the revised marshaled list and the revised groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for that first division will be 30 seconds, thereafter there will be one minute for each vote. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request sweet buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. We should now refer to the marshaled list. I begin with group 1. I call amendment 29 in the name of Colin Smyth, grouped with amendment 31. I call Smyth to move amendment 29 and speak to both amendments in the group. Like colleagues across the chamber, I support the ambition of this bill to promote sustainable management of forestry and the management of land for sustainable development. Amendment 29 is intended to ensure that individual clauses of the bill are underpinned by a clear statement of those ambitions. There is always a risk that ambiguous wording or narrow analysis of individual passages may result in unintended or distorted interpretations. That amendment helps to protect against the risk of ensuring that elements of the bill cannot be taken out of context or willfully misunderstood. A purpose clause is not unique and such clauses are contained in other Government legislation. During stage 2 of the bill, my colleague Rhoda Grant proposed a purpose clause. That was supported by the Greens at committee stage. Indeed, John Finnie said that it was a, quote, worthwhile addition to the legislation that is in front of us. Conservatives of MSP Jamie Greene said, and again I quote, in principle, we agree with Rhoda Grant's suggestion that there should be an overarching purpose to the bill, although the Conservatives had concerns over the specific wording of Rhoda Grant's amendment, which they felt was not sufficiently encompassing. An SNP MSP John Mason also said, and again I quote, a purpose section for a bill is an extremely good thing, as such a section clarifies things and helps the courts to look at the spirit rather than just the letter of the law. However, he also went on to say that, like Jamie Greene, I have reservations about the wording of this particular purpose section. The cabinet secretary said that he shared and applauded the sentiments of Rhoda Grant and John Finnie in putting forward the purpose clause, but again expressed concern at the wording. I therefore look carefully at the original wording and, as members can see, I have amended it considerably to take account of those concerns. Although I have no objections to Fergus Ewing's amendment 31, it does not add a great deal to the bill if anything at all and certainly not an overarching purpose. Although Labour will support amendment 31, I urge members to strengthen the bill by supporting my amendment 29. I share members' ambitions for forestry in Scotland, and I appreciate the good intentions of those who wish to make clear our shared commitment to forestry and the purposes of forestry in the future. I fully understand why some may wish to see that on the face of the bill, but, although I am sympathetic to the rationale behind amendment 29, I am afraid that I cannot support it. That is because there are significant legal complexities with introducing a purpose clause to a bill. All the sections of a bill must have legal effect and be capable of interpretation by a court. A purpose provision for an act sits behind the individual sections of a bill and can affect how each is interpreted. The purpose arises if the purpose is not relevant to every provision or duplicates or expands them. The purpose proposed in amendment 29 introduces legal uncertainty about how the powers and duties in the bill might be exercised. It therefore brings potential risk to the interpretation and the operability of the bill, something that I am sure Mr Smith does not intend and something that I cannot support. The purpose proposed by amendment 29 is in two parts, both of which must apply at the same time to all, to every section. However, neither of the two parts fully covers the purpose of every section in the act, nor can both be properly applied to every section. Although I regret that, for those legal reasons, I cannot support amendment 29, I have listened carefully to the aspirations of many members for a demonstration of ambition within the bill. I suggest an alternative approach to address those aspirations, and it also responds to REC's stage 1 recommendation for a statement of ambition for modern forestry and practice. I therefore propose, via amendment 31, that the forestry strategy must set out a vision for forestry in Scotland. The strategy will be consulted upon so there will be opportunities for all stakeholders to contribute to development of that vision, and that must be a good thing. Ministers will be held to account for the strategy's delivery and must report to Parliament every three years in progress, including on delivery of the vision within it. That will serve as a risk-free alternative. I offer amendment 31 in the spirit of compromise and of seeking consensus on the vital issue of demonstrating our shared ambitions for forestry. The Scottish land and estates support that approach. I hope that members will support amendment 31 as an alternative approach to amendment 29. I declare an interest as a partner in a farming business in the north-east, but we do not have any commercial woodland on our farm. I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on the work of the amendments that we have seen agreed at stage 2, and I believe that they have strengthened this bill. In regard to amendment 29 in the name of Colin Smyth, I have to say that we will not be supporting it, although we, as a group, did support the principle of an overarching statement and purpose to be included on the face of the bill. We now believe that this addition is not required and that it is not consistent with the long title of the bill. We cannot support sustainable development being put on the face of the bill as a defining purpose, as sustainable development has never been properly defined, and therefore we do not support it. Amendment 31 in the name of the cabinet secretary is one that we do as a group support. As forestry is such a long-term industry, placing a duty on ministers to set out their vision for forestry in the forestry strategy will help to outline their goals for the industry and help them to be carried forward and adapted through each revision of it. I hope that this vision will include planting targets, as this is something that I have spoken with the cabinet secretary about. As the purpose of this bill is to see our forestry industry grow, including measurable targets, it would be a logical addition for any future visions that the Government has set out in the strategy. John Finnie will be filled by John Mason. The Scottish Green Party will continue our support for this approach from Colin Smith. It is important to see where it comes in the legislation. It comes right at the start, obviously. Overview of the act. People have talked about the ambition that is inherent in the legislation and people want clarity and direction. I understand and listen intently to what the cabinet secretary said. Clearly, things are open to interpretation. Like Mr Smith, we will be supporting the cabinet secretary's amendment, but I rise to speak in support for Colin Smith's amendment. John Mason. I just wanted to make the brief comment that I think that having a purpose clause in a bill is a good idea. Ideally, it should be written out at the beginning and the rest of the bill follows on from that, rather than putting the purpose in towards the end, as we are currently facing. As Peter Chapman has said, there might be some reservations about the actual wording and whether it fits in, but I think that the principle that I said at stage 2, which is that, if there is a purpose clause in the bill, it helps the courts not to focus so much on the letter but, also, in the spirit of the law, still holds good. Thank you. If there are no other members who should speak, I call on Colin Smith to wind up in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Very briefly, I would simply reiterate that the wording of the purpose clause underpins, but does not put at risk the implementation of the individual clauses in the bill. A purpose clause such as this is included in other Government legislation, and I see no reason why it should not be included in such an important bill as the forestry bill. Therefore, I am happy to move amendment 29 in my name. Thank you. We move to our first vote. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. As this is the first division of the stage, I am going to suspend the Parliament for five minutes to call members to the chamber. We move now to the vote on amendment 29. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 29 in the name of Colin Smith is yes, 33, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move to group 2, and I call amendment 30, in the name of Colin Smith, in a group on its own. Colin Smith, do you speak to and move amendment 30? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 30, in my name, seeks to extend the bill's proposed statutory duty to promote sustainable forestry management from ministers to other public bodies. The duty placed on ministers is a positive step, but we have an opportunity to go further and in doing so implement recommendation 65 in the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee stage 1 report on the bill. That recommendation stated, and I quote, "...the committee recognises the benefits of sustainable forestry management and agrees with those who suggest in evidence that there would be an advantage in extending the duty. It therefore recommends that the Scottish Government give consideration to extending that duty to promote sustainable forestry management to all relevant public bodies." I am unsure why the Scottish Government, in response to that recommendation, said that they would consider it carefully but have not yet done so. We have an opportunity today to implement the unanimous recommendation of the REC committee and, by doing so, help to mainstream forestry and ensure a wider regard for issues affecting the sector. Forestry impacts on and is impacted by a wide range of other policy areas. Extending the duty to all public bodies reflects that and would promote a truly integrated approach. Let me be clear that this amendment would not place unreasonable demands on public bodies. As the wording states very carefully, the requirement applies only as far as is consistent with the proper exercise of their functions. The Nature Conservation Scotland act places a similar duty on public bodies in relation to biodiversity. Indeed, the wording in that act is the same as my amendment. That duty has been incredibly effective in advancing biodiversity and, critically, it has not undermined the effective bodies' abilities to operate. I would be somewhat bizarre and, frankly, lack any credibility for the Scottish Government to support such a duty in relation to the Nature Conservation Scotland act, but the claim is either unworkable or undesirable for the same clause to be contained within the forestry bill. Therefore, I urge members to support my amendment, number 30. We will be supporting amendment 30. The committee recognises the benefits of sustainable forest management and agrees with those who suggest that there would be an advantage in extending the duty. It therefore recommends that the Scottish Government gives consideration to extending the duty to promote sustainable forest management to all relevant public bodies. Because of that reason, we will be supporting amendment 30. I thank Colin Smyth for highlighting that sustainable forest management is not just the responsibility of one part of government. The need to mainstream sustainable forestry in Scotland is one of the primary reasons for completing devolution. First, I point out that amendment would not address the primary threat to sustainable forest management in Scotland's illegal felling, which is addressed by the amendments proposed in group 7 to give powers to stop suspected illegal activity immediately to allow proper investigation. I am confident that the vast majority of forest management in Scotland is sustainable. However, I recognise that tree felling permitted, for example, as a part of planning consent, requires careful handling to ensure that it follows sustainable forest management principles. That is why Scottish planning policy includes the control of woodland removal policy, which requires appropriate compensatory planting when forest areas are cleared for development. It is having an impact. I note, for example, that the annual loss of ancient semi-natural woodland estimated in 2016 had reduced to around 1.2 hectares per annum, compared with previous estimates reported in 2014. The planning bill currently at stage 1 proposes that Scottish planning policy is given strengthened statutory status as part of the development plan. Therefore, those planning matters go some way to achieving what Colin Smyth sets out to achieve. As a further example of proportionate action, we work in partnership with the sector to find ways of using new satellite imagery to provide better information on felling and to enable us to act more quickly and decisively if we identify unsustainable activity. In comparison, amendment 38, Presiding Officer, would place a duty on all Scottish public authorities to promote sustainable forestry across all their functions. Although that is well-intentioned, I believe that that goes too far. There are hundreds of such public authorities that do not have an obvious connection with forestry. For example, the chief dental officer, the accountant in bankruptcy, I could mention many others. I recognise the attempt to limit the scope of the duty by using the phrase so far as consistent with the exercise and authorities functions, but in law that would not limit the requirement for every Scottish public authority, including the chief dental officer, including the accountant in bankruptcy and a plethora of other public bodies, to consider those functions to assess the extent to which the promotion of sustainable forest management is or is not consistent with each of their many functions. Plainly, that would be a nonsense. Ensuring that forestry is at the heart of government, strengthening implementation of the control of woodland removal policy and improving information on felling activity, I submit a more effective and proportionate approach to ensuring the objective of the sustainable management of Scotland's forests and woodlands, and that amendment is not required. For all those reasons, I would encourage Mr Smith not to press the amendment, and I would encourage members, if pressed, not to support the amendment. John Finnie is indicating that he wishes to contribute. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak in support of Colin Smith's amendment. I listen again intently to the cabinet secretary. When everything plays around the words there, it is about getting a consistent approach across the public sector that Mr Smith is encouraging, and I think that we should all sign up to that. The phrase nonsense was used, while no one would realistically interpret that as having dental practitioners or administrators or indeed people connected with bankruptcy doing anything practical in that regard. However, that is very much giving the public sector a direction of travel in the support of Mr Smith. I ask Colin Smith to wind up in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Very briefly, the amendment was a clear recommendation of the rural economy and connectivity commitment. It is consistent with provisions and other legislation such as the Nature Conservation Scotland Act and the Climate Change Act. By agreeing to the amendment, we would be underpinning the importance of forestry across public bodies. I am therefore happy to move amendment 30 in my name. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 30 in the name of Colin Smith is yes, 63, no, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 31, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 29. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We now come to group 3. Amendment 3, in the name of John Finnie, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. John Finnie, to move amendment 3 and to speak to all amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. During stage 1 and 2, scrutiny, the Rural Economy, Committee discussed the important issue of woodland creation and how the bill could best ensure that there is a strong policy commitment from the Scottish Government on this matter. Woodland creation is good for the economy and it secures future supply to the trade for the environment and it brings considerable social benefits. The committee concluded that the most appropriate place for such a commitment is the forest strategy, and I agree with that approach. Colleagues on the committee, Peter Chapman and Richard Lyon, and I all lodged stage 2 amendments to require the strategy to cover the important issue. We all took slightly different approaches and used slightly different phrasing. My focus was and still is on the importance of creating native woodland. I have highlighted the importance of promoting native woodland in recent meetings with the cabinet secretary and will continue to champion that cause. The underlying principle behind each of the stage 2 amendments on this topic was the same. It is important that the strategy contains policies, priorities and objectives on creating woodland of all types. The cabinet secretary indicated at stage 2 that he would use the orders of such an amendment and I am pleased to lodge it in my name. I move amendment 3 and encourage members to support it and indicate that we will be supporting all the other amendments in this group. Thank you very much. I now call on Peter Chapman to speak to amendment 41 and to speak to all the other amendments in this group. I will be moving amendment 41 in my name. That will require ministers to insert planting targets into the forestry strategy. The main benefit that we want to see from this bill is more trees planted in Scotland. This amendment is logical as it would lead to measurable targets throughout each report on the strategy. It ensures continuity even with a change of government. We will be supporting all amendments in this group other than 6, 33 and 34, which we do not think strengthens the strategy. However, my colleague Jamie Greene is going to speak to the other amendments in more detail. Thank you very much. I call on Graham Dade to speak to amendment 4. The bill includes an important new duty on Scottish ministers that have been welcomed by all parties and by stakeholders, namely a statutory requirement to publish a forestry strategy. That is a big improvement on the current legislation and a centre piece of the bill. The statutory framework for the strategy was improved by amendments to the bill at stage 2. Specifically, the consultation requirements were enhanced by an amendment from Fulton MacGregor and requirements on ministers to report in progress were introduced by an amendment from John Finnie. In response to concerns from members, the cabinet secretary acknowledged at stage 2 that more could be done to ensure that the strategy is kept up-to-date. I note the current non-statuary forestry strategies now more than 10 years old. The Wreck Committee discussed the long-term nature forestry and how to balance that with Parliament's role in scrutinising progress and ensuring that the strategy does not gather dust. Suggestions for appropriate review and revision and arrangements were lodged, but not moved following a signal from the cabinet secretary that he would support a proportionate approach for a cycle of no more than 10 years. I am pleased to offer an approach that meets his objectives and I hope that it will be supported by members and by the Scottish Government. I therefore move those amendments in my name, encourage Parliament to support them and do the other amendments in the group. The issue of parliamentary scrutiny, if the forestry strategy was discussed during the Wreck Committee consideration of the bill at stage 1 and 2, Scottish ministers are taking on new duties in relation to a Scottish forestry strategy, and that strategy will be key to setting out the Scottish Government's ambitions on this important sector to the rural economy and our climate change ambitions, including the promotion of sustainable forest management. Those are ambitions that are shared by everyone in this Parliament. Amendments were lodged at stage 2 by Rhoda Grant that proposed additional parliamentary procedures for consideration of the strategy before it was published and laid for consultation report to be prepared to accompany it. It was acknowledged during the committee, at the debate stage of the committee, that the suggested additional parliamentary procedures contained in Rhoda Grant's amendment were not necessarily proportionate for the strategy and could potentially delay rather than enable its production. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary recognised the issues behind the amendments and committed to a best practice approach in agreeing that the Scottish ministers should commit to producing a consultation report to be laid alongside the strategy. I hope therefore that he and members will support my amendment 37 that delivers on this commitment. On scrutiny, it suggests that the improvements made to the bill at stage 2 on wider consultation requirements and duty on ministers to report on progress have strengthened the process for the strategy considerably. A further requirement is proposed by amendment 32, which is that ministers should consult in a draft of the strategy, not just be required to consult. That would enable stakeholders with a wide variety of interests to have sight of the proposed strategy and to contribute fully to its development. It is a proportionate approach for a policy strategy and has precedent is the approach for the land use strategy, for example. I encourage all members to support amendments 32, 37 and all others in the group. I call on Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 36 in the other amendments in the group. I thought that it was... I will try. Amendment 33, very far from the previous question. Amendment 33 to 35 all seek to ensure that the Scottish ministers must have regard to existing legislation on climate change, biodiversity and deer management when preparing the forestry strategy. Section 4 currently requires regard to land use strategy and land rights and responsibility statement. That existing list, in my view and the view of Scottish Labour, should be expanded to include the similarly fundamental issues on keeping the path of forestry sustainable. At stage 2, my colleague Rhoda Grant, MSP, highlighted the importance of grounding our practice internationally to preserve our climate change world leadership, particularly in the context of Brexit. Forestry and land management have a significant role to play in climate mitigation and amendment 33 aims to secure that focus on the face of the bill. Amendment 34 has similar intentions this time with regard to the code of practice on deer management. Deer are an important public asset, but Scotland has struggled to control their huge populations appropriately in many areas of our country for decades. The voluntary code of practice on deer management places a responsibility on all land managers to manage wild deer in conjunction with other land use objectives in the deer management groups. Unfortunately, slow progress is being made, but if we are to safeguard against deer populations spiralling out of control, this is an important consideration in the forestry strategy. Thirdly, amendment 35 ensures that ministers have regard to the Scottish biodiversity strategy. Our forests cover 17 per cent of Scotland, but play hosts the significant proportions of our precious biodiversity. I reiterate that this is not an issue that will fade away or achieve completion and then be forgotten. Those three issues all require constant effort. The delivery of such wide policy objectives has been highlighted by both my own committee, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and our letter to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee at stage 1 and also by the REC committee itself. I recognise the cabinet secretary's stage 2 concern that bills should not include, I quote, partial lists that risk becoming rapidly out of date. However, the integration of these three issues, climate change, biodiversity and deer management, is so integral to forestry and the long-term future of its sustainable development that it should be included. I would also like to highlight John Finnie's amendment 3 on the creation of woodland, which is so important, especially as he highlighted in relation to native woodland, and amendment 4 by my colleague Graham Day on the dates for the revision of the strategy, which is building on the stage 2 amendment. We will also be supporting all the other amendments in this group. I call on the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 36 and the other amendments in the group. Amendments 3 and 41 are on the important topic of woodland creation and the forestry strategy. I am in full agreement with Mr Finnie and Mr Chapman that the strategy should include policies on this vital matter. Woodland creation is important to help us to meet our climate change and biodiversity objectives, as well as securing future wood supply for our valuable wood processing sector. I acknowledge Mr Finnie's interest in native woodland and assure him and others that I fully recognise the benefits that those woods can bring. As an example, last year I made available increased grant support for native woodland creation in the Highlands and Islands area, and I am pleased to report the systemulated demand. Amendment 3 refers to all woodland creation and therefore takes a broader approach than amendment 41, as it includes woodland created by both planting new trees and natural re-seeding. Amendment 41 therefore partially duplicates amendment 3, but taken together they provide a strong signal supporting woodland expansion, and therefore I am willing to support them both. In supporting amendment 41, I should place in record that it does not have the effect of requiring the strategy to contain targets for planting, rather it requires the strategy to include objectives, policies and priorities with respect to targets, and those are different things. However, it is my intention that the strategy should reference both the reason for planting more trees and the targets that we propose, scrutinise and agree with the Parliament. Members will be aware that targets for woodland creation are set out in the Scottish Government's climate change plan, which has been developed through extensive consultation and is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The latest plan was laid before this Parliament on 6 March. The forestry strategy will refer to the planting targets set out in the climate change plan, and amendment 41 is consistent with that approach. I want to be clear with members that including this amendment will not introduce a parallel process for discussions on alternative targets, but will helpfully run in tandem with those targets by allowing the setting of the approach to achieving those targets in the Scottish forestry strategy. Turning to the other amendments to the group, I am pleased to support amendments 4, 32, 37 and 5, which strengthen the process for producing the Scottish forestry strategy. Those are helpful additions to the bill, and I hope that there will be consensus in the chamber upon them. Amendments 4 and 5 from Graeme Dey provide a proportionate review and revision cycle for the forestry strategy and build on the helpful addition to the bill at stage 2 of a three-yearly reporting cycle. Amendments 32 and 37 from Fulton MacGregor respond to recommendation on improving parliamentary scrutiny of the bill. Amendment 36 in my name responds to the comments made at stages 1 and 2 about the importance of policy alignment between the new statutory forestry strategy and the many and varied range of economic, environmental and societal matters to which forestry contributes. Amendment 36 achieves that by requiring ministers to prepare and revise the strategy with a view to achieving consistency so far as practicable with all their other functions. I am pleased to know that SLE and CONFOR also support that approach. The requirement that ministers should look to achieve consistency in the strategy across all of their functions means that the matters identified in Claudia Beamish's amendments 38, 34 and 5 are therefore captured by amendment 36. However, I fully acknowledge Ms Beamish's particular interest in the interactions between forestry and biodiversity, deer management and climate change. She has been a passionate advocate for improving policy alignment on those matters throughout the passage of the bill. I agree that those are important matters. Forestry is already making a meaningful contribution to biodiversity, climate change and deer management outcomes and must continue so to do. I have listened to the arguments put forward by Ms Beamish and prepared to support her amendments 33, 34 and 5. I also encourage members to support my amendment 36 to provide for alignment with the other relevant policies now and in the future. Finally, I turn to amendment 6. My name is a technical amendment to section 6A. In supporting John Finnie's amendment 130 at stage 2, I signalled that I would bring forward an amendment at stage 3 that changes the start of the reporting period for the three-yearly report that is required on the forestry strategy. It is more appropriate for the reporting period to start when the forestry strategy is published rather than the day after royal assent. It is our intention that the first statutory forestry strategy will be available by 1 April 2019. I have discussed the approach with John Finnie and hope that he and other members will support amendment 6. In conclusion, I believe that the group demonstrates the common view that we share of the importance of the Scottish forestry strategy and the significant role that it will play in driving forward the direction of Scottish forestry policy and delivery in years to come. I therefore support all of the amendments in this group and hope that members across the chamber will do likewise in a welcome outbreak of consensus on one of the key functions in this bill. I would like to focus on Claudia Beamish's amendments 33 to 35. 33 deals with article 2 of the Kyoto protocol, 34 on deer management and 35 on the Scottish biodiversity strategy. I voted against those amendments when they came to the committee in stage 2, because I felt that they came out of the blue. We did not have any chance at stage 1 to take any evidence on all of this, but time has passed to see his amendments again appearing at stage 3. Those are very worthwhile issues to address, so she will be pleased to hear that I will be voting for them this time. However, I would like to put on record the fact that I think that it is helpful to everybody if people have real issues like that to make sure that the committees have the opportunity to take evidence on them at stage 1. I hate to be the one to break consensus in the chamber, but I have some comments on the amendments. I will speak to my colleague Peter Chapman's amendment and some of the others and explain perhaps our situation and our rationale for some of that. First of all, I am dealing with amendments 41 and amendments 3. I absolutely support the concept of introducing targets for the planting of trees. It is no great secret that we have been failing to meet those planting targets for a fair number of years, but I also support John Finnie's amendment 3 on the creation of woodland. We see absolutely no harm in the additional wording there, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary agrees with that. Turning on to some of the amendments that we are unable to support and I explain the reasons why, those are amendments 6, 33 and 34. We will not be supporting 33 and 34. We took a position on that after stage 2. I appreciate that there is much merit in what the member is trying to accomplish with those, but we believe that those are unnecessarily complicated with references to deer management and Kyoto protocol. We felt that those are adequately dealt with in other pieces of legislation and were not entirely relevant to this piece of legislation. For example, references to Kyoto protocol are climate change targets are set out in the Kyoto protocol and have been in effect for nearly two decades. We felt no additional need for a clause in this bill to relate to those. That being said, the addition of amendment 35 around biodiversity was an additional welcome amendment, and we would be supportive of that. The biodiversity strategy 2030 vision is very supportive of the forest injuries conservation attempts, and we feel that amendment effectively complements many of the purposes and objectives of the bill. If I move on to amendment 6, which is another one that we are unable to support, we give consideration to that. Our interpretation of that amendment is that that could or might lead to the first reporting period being delayed, I believe indefinitely. Unless any evidence can be suggested otherwise, we will not be supporting amendment 6. Amendment 31 was debated and voted on previously, but it ties in with amendments 4, 5 and 36, which overall as a package of amendments strengthens the position that the Government must set out its strategy over a nine-year term. It would also allow future Governments—there is an important point—to deviate only after a fixed period of time. The nature of forestry requires long-term vision and strategy, and successive Governments should be required to pick up the work of previous Governments and see that strategy through. Our support for that, however, comes conditional. For that reason, we ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that the broadest possible consensus on that strategy is sought before being delivered to Parliament. I hope that that explains better our lack of consensus on all those points. Thank you very much. If no other member wishes to contribute, can I call on John Finnie to wind up this group? I think that there was a very good discussion there. I think that consensus is always good and it reflects how the committee scrutinised the legislation area. I am a bit disappointed that Conservative colleagues are not going to pick up and my colleague Claudia Beamish issues there. I do hear what Mike Rumble said. The dear act that has been referred to is 1996. I think that the cabinet secretary summed it up very well when he talked about the interaction between those policies and policy alignment. If someone said that it is unnecessarily complicated, it is not dear eat trees and we need to have a link between the two pieces of legislation, so I would encourage people to see that as part of the strategy and vote for Claudia Beamish's amendments in the group. I ask Mr Finnie to press amendment 3. I do press that amendment. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 41 in the name of Peter Chapman to move or not move. I will move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 4 in the name of Graham Day to move or not move. I move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 32 in the name of Fulton MacGregor. Already debated, Fulton MacGregor to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 33 in the name of Claudia Beamish. I'm already debated with amendment 3. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. I move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Oh, we're not agreed. We'll move to division and members may cast their votes now. This is a one minute division. The result of the vote on amendment number 33 in the name of Claudia Beamish is yes, 94, no, 30. There were no obsensions that amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 34 in the name of Claudia Beamish. Already debated, Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Move, Presiding Officer. Move. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to division and members may cast their votes now. This is a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment number 34 in the name of Claudia Beamish is yes, 94, no, 30. There were no obsensions that amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 35 in the name of Claudia Beamish. Already debated, Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 36 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 3. Cabinet secretary, move formally. Move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 37 in the name of Fulton MacGregor. Fulton MacGregor to move or not move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Can I call amendment 5 in the name of Graham Day to move or not move? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 6 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 3. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 6 in the name of the cabinet secretary is yes, 89, no, 35. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. That concludes group 3. We now move to group 4. I call amendment 38, in the name of Peter Chapman, on a group that is on its own, and I would ask Peter Chapman to move and to speak to amendment 38. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will be moving this amendment in my name. It is about research, which is an essential part of maintaining forested land and growing our forestry industry. The issue of three health research was raised by a number of stakeholders during stage 1 evidence for this bill, and I again raised it during stage 2. A number of members shared my concerns about research and specifically three health research, but I agreed not to press my amendment at that stage and welcome the cabinet secretary's offer to work on an alternative. Amendment 38 seeks to safeguard research efforts by requiring that ministers have not placed suitable arrangements for research. It anchors that requirement in the concept of sustainable forest management, which underpins the forestry functions of the bill. It also seeks to ensure consistency with the other forestry functions in the bill and to avoid unintended consequences by allowing a judgment to be made as to what arrangements are necessary. The focus on sustainable forest management in the provisions should ensure that three health needs are met and considered in a wider context. My understanding of how sustainable forestry management might work in practice is that it requires efforts to ensure that forests are managed to maximise their overall resilience and to take full advantage of the best scientific developments. I would welcome the cabinet secretary's view of that and how he sees three health being addressed through those measures. Finally, amendment 38 crucially allows for continued cross-border collaboration where that continues to be the most appropriate approach. I think that it is essential that, by providing a statutory underpinning that makes clear the desirability of continued UK-wide co-operation on research and evidence relating to forestry into the future. I hope that all members support my amendment. Presiding Officer, I would like to speak in support of amendment 38 by Peter Chapman. In the previous session of this Parliament, our committee, the then RACI committee, took a lot of evidence on tree health, and it is fundamental to the future of our forestries here in Scotland and, indeed, in the UK. Resilience through the development of native seeds and seedlings is important. It is also very important as any disease develops that we are very quick off the mark to assess the dangers and commission research quickly, as in the example of ash dieback. I understand that there is now a threat, a disease threat to sick spruce, which I am sure the same quick reaction is happening to. I also agree with Peter Chapman about cross-border working, and I support the amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. During stages 1 and 2, we heard many calls for reassurance that devolution would not lead to a reduction in forestry research efforts. I give you that reassurance. Research that improves how we prevent and respond to forestry pests and diseases will continue to be a priority. I welcome the considered approach that Mr Chapman takes on this amendment. It will allow us to continue the important work that is being done to carry on collaborating with other parts of the UK. On the day of stage 1 debate, we announced that forest research would continue as an agency of the forestry commissioners. As the chairman of the Forestry Commission, Sir Harry Sodholm, said in his letter to me, forestry disease respects no borders. The amendment also maintains flexibility, for example, to supplement UK arrangements with work to answer questions of particular interests to Scotland. I launched the new centre of expertise for plant health last month, which will build on the work that is already being driven forward by our chief plant health officer for Scotland, Professor Jerry Saddler, in collaboration with forest research. We are already taking action on this issue, and we will maintain that effort. I am heartened to see that this requirement tied back to the duty to promote sustainable forest management. That will allow a rounded view to be taken of all the aspects of forest management, including increasing our resilience to new pests and diseases. I see that the approach is ensuring that Scotland's forests, relying on the best research that the scientific community can provide, are the most resilient forests that we can grow. During stage 2, I stated that I have sympathy for anyone working to provide a sure footing for such an important issue. I believe that Mr Chapman's amendment does that, and I encourage members to support it. I thank you very much, and I call on Peter Chapman to wind up in this group. Very briefly, I just think that there is a lot of common sense in this, and I would ask the chamber to support it. So the question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move to group 5, and I call amendment 7, in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendments 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E and 24. Andy Wightman went to move amendment 7 to speak to all the amendments in the group. I want to place on the record the purpose of amendment 7. The purpose of amendment 7 is to place a duty on ministers to supply and publish information about certain characteristics, including the ownership of forests that are held not in the public sector. We have very little information on the question. The information that we have was revealed to me in written questions by the cabinet secretary. It is very out of date. If we are to have forest policy that is designed to, for example, encourage farmers to plant trees, to encourage estate owners to plant trees, we need a better site of the range of owners of forests in Scotland, how it changes over time in order to be able to develop policy that is targeted to getting the kind of forest expansion that we want. I also want to place on the record, Presiding Officer, and clarify in relationship to a letter that was written by the cabinet secretary to members and distributed at half past eight last night. The cabinet secretary encloses a letter from the accountable officer at the registers of Scotland and says, and I quote, that further information about costs is concerning, giving that funding would likely need to be found from within forestry budgets. Remind members of what amendment 7.1 says, the duty is to publish information. The Scottish ministers must gather and publish in such manner as they consider appropriate information on forest holdings in Scotland that do not fall within forested land as defined in section 10. It is a duty to gather and publish information in such manner as they consider appropriate. In the letter that Mr Ewing sent from Janet Eagdale, operations director and accountable officer of the registers of Scotland, it is stated by Janet Eagdale that information from rural payments colleagues indicates that there are around 17,500 holdings in Scotland with more than five hectares of woodland. We estimate that it would cost registers of Scotland around £600,000 to search for the named owner of each of those holdings. Can I just clarify that there is nothing in my amendment that requires the registers of Scotland, Scottish ministers or anybody else to go searching for who owns Scotland's forests? The kind of information that my amendment envisages is information on gender of owners, size classes, the characteristics of the owners, are they charities, are they local government, are they investors, do they live here, do they not live here, are they farmers, are they owner occupiers, are they tenants? That kind of data is common right across Europe. I think that Mr Ewing's intervention last night was highly regrettable. Turning to the cabinet secretary's amendments, amendment 7A replaces the word extent with area, and I am perfectly happy with that. Amendment 7B deletes a reference to the information to be gathered being natural characteristics of forests. I am very happy to support 7B. That information is gathered in other places, not least in the national forest inventory. 7C, in the name of Fergus Ewing, leaves out the word ownership and replaces it with proprietorship. Until half past eight last night, I was very happy to support that amendment, but I would like the minister to clarify in his remarks shortly that, in light of the letter last night, that clearly implies that his understanding is that we have to spend £600,000 to find out from the registers of Scotland who own Scotland's forests—a proposition that I do not agree with, but that is clearly his understanding. I want him to confirm that, in no way is he suggesting that replacing ownership with proprietorship is tied to the minister's understanding of the duty that is placed on ministers. 7D leaves out management, and again I am content with that. That information is gathered in other places. Fergus Ewing's amendment 7E is to delete the whole of 7.5. Section 7 subsection 5 says that information under the section must be first published no later than three years after the date of royal assent and subsequently published no later than five years after the date of previous such publication. The minister's amendment deletes subsection 5 and therefore places no timescale whatsoever on ministers to ever publish any kind of information limited or not, and I would urge members to vote against that amendment to my amendment. Amendment 24, in my name, is a consequential technical amendment relating to secondary legislative provisions. I repeat that section 7.1, and the minister is well aware of this, I have been in correspondence with his office for a number of days on this. Section 7.1 requires ministers to gather and publish in such manner as they consider appropriate. It may well be that ministers, either of this administration or of any future administration, may sit down and consider their duties under 7.1, may consider that the manner that they consider appropriate is no more than a pie chart. I draw members' attention to the spice briefing on Scottish Forestry of 21 November 2016, where, in figure 8, there is a pie chart. The pie chart is entitled Breakdown of Scottish Woodland by Ownership. It shows us that 33 per cent of Scotland's woodland is managed by the Forestry Commission and owned by Scottish ministers and that 67 per cent is owned by others. That would be information that could be easily gathered and published because it is already gathered and published. It is information that would certainly fall within a manner that a minister who did not want to publish very much would consider appropriate. Therefore, it wholly fulfills those duties. If any minister were to publish information in the form of one pie chart, I would be very disappointed, but I could not argue that that was not fulfilling the duties that are placed on ministers under section 7. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Government is so resistant to providing better data and information on how Scotland's forests are owned. I cannot understand why ministers would seek the support of a public official to misrepresent the purposes of the amendment and imply that it places an obligation to pay up to £600,000 for that information. I am pleased to see, because I know that the minister calls them in support whenever he can. I am pleased to see that Scottish land and estates support amendment 7. Confor don't, I move amendment 7 in my name. Can I call on the cabinet secretary to move amendment 7A and speak to all amendment in the group? Presiding Officer, I understand the desire to improve the availability of information on the ownership of forested holdings and to improve the transparency of land ownership in Scotland. In 2014, we asked the keeper of the registers of Scotland to complete the land register by 2024, committed to registering all public land by 2019. We are bringing forward plans to establish a register of controlling interests. I accordingly brought forward amendments to amendment 7 seeking to work with Mr Wightman to seek a deliverable outcome and to avoid disproportionate costs. Sadly, we have not been able to agree and I would ask members to vote against amendment 7, even if amended. At that said, I am keen to see what might be achieved on an incremental basis from information that we hold, primarily in the national forest inventory and in the land register, without a statutory provision. I will set out some proposals for how we might proceed should amendment 7 be defeated. I would like to make some progress and I will be happy to do so later, after I have made progress, if the member still wishes to do so. Amendment 7A to 7D would change the information to be published to that concerning the area and proprietorship of forest holdings, replacing terms that are ambiguous. Those are technical amendments to bring the terminology in line with terms already used in information collection, changes with which I understand Mr Wightman's content. Amendment 7A would remove subsection 5, requiring the information to be published within three years of royal assent. With respect, I would suggest that subsection 5 does not accomplish what the member intends it to. I wish to make clear for the record that I do not object to the intention behind subsection 5, but I am concerned about its potential impact as drafted. If Scottish ministers are required to gather all the information that is required for publication within just three years of royal assent, it is likely that the resource requirements, the cost of doing so, would substantially inhibit the early publication of information that might otherwise be available for publishing. If technical or data protection issues, for example, were encountered within that three-year period, subsection 5 would seem to require us to overcome them no matter what the resource or cost required. Make no mistake, Presiding Officer, there would be substantial costs involved. When seeking a workable outcome, I instructed my officials to examine potential sources for the information that is required in the amendment, such as the IACS data that is collected for rural payments purposes. The advice has been very clear. The IACS data is not intended to be nor can it serve as a source of land ownership information. Taking that approach would be a substantial change to how information is collected and held. The only reliable source of land ownership in Scotland is the land register and register sesines held by registers of Scotland. The IACS data did however reveal that there are around 17,500 pieces of land in Scotland containing more than five hectares of forested land. On that basis, registers of Scotland were commissioned to provide an estimate of the costs of identifying the ownership of those 17,500 pieces of land. I would draw members' attention to the letter that I received from the operational director and accountable officer at the registers of Scotland, setting out that to do so would cost around £600,000. The letter went on to state that, in addition to that, there would be many more holdings with areas of woodland less than five hectares and other forestry holdings that are not held within the rural payments database. It adds that, if those were to be included, the total costs to registers of Scotland of providing that information might be much more. Those matters were not canvassed earlier in the consideration of the bill. They were not considered in the financial memorandum. They have not been budgeted for. They are entirely uncosted. I am therefore very concerned that, to accept amendment 7, it would necessitate the diversion of precious finite resources that would have to come from forestry budgets, resources for actually spending on maintaining forestry, creating more woodland and planting more trees. My amendments 7e in particular are designed to ameliorate that, but I am not content that the risk would be reduced sufficiently. However, as I said, I am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment and to the overall ambition of increasing the amount of information available about Scotland's forests. Therefore, if amendment 7 is not passed, I wish to make the following as undertakings to members of this house. First, I would be happy to enter into dialogue with members from all sides to develop a shared approach to the publishing of information about forest holdings. In particular, I am keen to investigate what information may be published in advance of the three-year timescale referred to in the amendment. Second, I would like to examine whether an incremental approach to the publication of information can be taken. That would be with the intention of publishing information at the earliest possible time, with more and better quality information being published subsequently. It should also be considered what information additional to that specified in the amendment should be included. I am happy to and I make those commitments today, Presiding Officer, to undertake to inform Parliament on a regular basis of progress. I understand the appetite for knowing more about forested land in Scotland, and I am keen that we do so in a balanced and proportionate way that dovetails with other work under way in this regard. I hope that the proposals that I have outlined are accepted in the good faith in which they are intended, and that members, if they are still minded to support amendment 7, will support amendment 7a to d, and particularly amendment 7e for the reasons that I have set out. However, my strong preference remains that amendment 7 not be passed in view of the uncosted nature of it and the risk of imperiling other expenditure on our important forestry policies to be developed in due course. I respectfully ask members not to support amendment 7, even if amended. I will be brief as we support all the amendments in this group, apart from amendment 7. Amendment 7, we agree with on the basis that it would make it easier for the public to access information on forested land. An increase in the information of forestry ownership and management would be useful for many companies involved in the industry, as well as adding transparency for the public. However, I would like it stated in record that implementing this new duty will not, as Andy Wightman rightly says, result in undue cost for forestry owners, managers or the Government. We also support amendment 24, which is subsequent to amendment 7, facilitating open and transparent data of proprietorship of forest holdings. Amendments 7a to 7d in the name of the cabinet secretary are all technical amendments, which we do support. They make minor changes to the amendment 7 in Andy Wightman's name and make the amendment more aligned to the bill's aims. However, we will not support amendment 7e in the name of the cabinet secretary. The amendment seeks to remove section 5 of amendment 7. That would remove the deadline of duty to publish the information that it has a duty to gather. It also removes the timeframe to publish updates every five years. Section 7.1 allows plenty of latitude to publish more modest information if that is required, particularly due to concerns like data protection. Claudia Beamish, to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Claudia Beamish. I would like to speak in support of Andy Wightman's amendment 7, a duty to publish information on forestry. It is really important for public transparency, accountability and the points that my colleague Peter Chapman raised. In terms of 7c and ownership, we will listen very carefully to what Andy Wightman says in summing up before we make a decision on that. 7e, we will be opposing because by removing that clause, it actually means that there will be no timescales which we don't think is appropriate. I am concerned that the cabinet secretary has written to us as members about the costs at such a late stage after 5 last night. That letter does not, in my view, convince me that it reflects what Andy Wightman's intention is with his amendment in the gathering of information required. That is something that we will not be supporting. I call Mike Rumbles. We support Andy Wightman's amendment 7 and the technical amendments to it. I am concerned about 7e from the minister. To be fair to the minister, he has made it quite clear that he does not support amendment 7. I understand that position, but what I do not understand is why the only substantial amendment to amendment 7 that he has put forward is to take the section out, which gives a timescale. The minister could have put a different timescale here, but he did not. If his amendment succeeds, he removes that timescale altogether. That is a delayed stage 3 debate from the weather that we had a week and a half ago. To receive letters, as other members have said, as late as last night, throwing doubt on the costs of all of this is a scandal. It is a disgrace that members have been pressurised like this, but we have not had the time to go through all of this. I deprecate it. I think that it is bad practice. The minister should not have done it. To bring a public official like this into this debate at this stage is most inappropriate. I confirm that. I will say more about this later. I do not like what has been going on from the minister with some of the letters that have been sent to us across the piece. As I said, this is a delayed stage 3 debate. We have not had a proper look at this. I think that the minister is becoming increasingly desperate to try to change people's minds at the last minute with what I would call disinformation. At this late stage, when we are deciding a stage 3 debate, the letter of the law is really important that we get this right. The minister, by putting 7E and sending the letter last night, has achieved the opposite of what he intended. Andy Wightman, to wind up on amendment 7. From what the cabinet secretary said, he still appears to be laboring under a misunderstanding of the intention of amendment 7. I understand that what is said in Parliament during the course of the passage of legislation matters and can be taken into account by the courts in relationship to interpreting what the legislation actually means. I could not have been clearer in my opening remarks on amendment 7 that amendment 7 does not place any duty on ministers or anybody else to spend £600,000 or any sum of money to gather information from the registers of Scotland. That information is already there, and it is already in the public domain. It costs a fortune to obtain it, but that is an argument for another day. The kind of information that I am seeking to see published is, as I say, information that is routinely published across Europe that gives us a better understanding about the age profile of forest owners, gender. That is something that I understand that has been very important in recent debates around agriculture and farm occupation, about the need to encourage more women into agriculture and more women into forestry. Having some idea of the gender breakdown of forest owners is quite important. In Europe, my head is filled with other matters at the moment, but I refer members to countries in Hungary, Bulgaria and so on that have very high levels of women engaged in the ownership of forest holdings. It is also of interest to public policy to see what the trick is. Can the member tell us what gender a company who has ownership would be attributed to? Another category of information that could be collected is the characteristics of the legal owner. That would be a partnership, a limited liability partnership, a company that is limited by a guarantee, a Scottish limited partnership, a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation. Obviously, all legal persons would not be asked the question and would not be required to deliver an answer on the gender of the Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation. On amendment 7C, and I ask members to listen very carefully to what I have to say, I was minded to support amendment 7C, which changes the word ownership to proprietorship. However, in the cabinet secretary's comments, I asked him specifically to address the significance in his mind of the change of those words and I didn't hear an answer. Proprietorship is far more closely associated with the actual identity of the owner of land. As I have said, that is not the intention of amendment 7. I am not interested in the identity of who owns forest land. That is about gathering information on broad characteristics of how it is owned. Having failed to hear any clarification from the minister, having heard that he is continuing to believe that amendment 7 involves the gathering of detailed information about ownership at incredibly high costs, I will be voting no to amendment 7C. I would wish ownership to remain in amendment 7. If I could just repeat, section 7, 1, is an amendment to the Forest and Land Management Scotland Bill that places a duty on Scottish ministers to gather and publish in such a manner as they consider appropriate. I really do not understand how words that are designed, very specifically, to frame a duty in the widest possible terms to give us wide latitude as possible to ministers as to what manner they choose to gather and publish it and in what manner they consider appropriate, why that should be so problematic. I conclude there, Presiding Officer, and press amendment 7. I thank the cabinet secretary to wind up on amendment 7E. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been not without interest this debate, and I would like to reply to some of the points put. First of all, Mr Wightman states that he is not interested in information about ownership. That is a surprise to me because, looking at his amendment, it says this, duty to publish information on forestry. Subsection 2, the information to be gathered must include, in particular, information on the ownership of forestry holdings. I find it generally perplexing to understand how Mr Wightman reconciles his statement that he is not interested in the ownership of land with the fact that, in his amendment, he is calling upon the Scottish Government to publish information about ownership. Please try it. Andy Wightman. What I made clear in my opening remarks a moment ago is that there is nothing in this amendment designed to place a duty on ministers to publish detailed information about the identity of owners. That is not the purpose of this amendment. As I say, Spice has published information on the ownership of Scottish woodland. It is actually figure eight in the Spice briefing that I referred to earlier, and it is titled, Breakdown of Scottish Woodland by Ownership. This is a pie chart. It is very straightforward. I think that we could do with a bit more information. I think that 67 per cent could be broken down a little bit further. However, that is information on ownership. If the minister wishes, in this administration, to fulfil his duties of gathering and publishing in such a manner, as he considers appropriate, a pie chart, I will be perfectly content that that meets the spirit and the intention of the legislation. Since he is not interested in ownership, none of that answers why his amendment says that ministers must publish information about ownership. Moreover, let me go on to point out that, in subsection 4 of the amendment, it says that regulations may in particular make provision about whether the information is to be in the form of a statistically representative sample of or comprehensive information on all such forest holdings. Anyone with a passing familiarity with statistics knows that, in order to provide a representative sample, you must first establish the identity of the whole population. It is for that reason that I sought expert advice, and that advice is from the keeper of the registers of Scotland. If this Parliament and the Opposition parties choose to pass those amendments, they will be creating law, a legal obligation. As a minister, we are required, obviously, to respect and comply with that. The way in which that is done in Scotland is to invite the registers of Scotland to identify any information that is required with ownership. I would also point out a few other pieces of information that I hope will persuade members that Mr Wightman's arguments are not ones that should be accepted. He appears to argue that the information about ownership of land is held within IAC's data. That is not the case. It is not the purpose or the ambition of the IAC's system that information about the legal owner of land should be captured. He appears to believe that ARPD would be able to provide information about ownership. That is not correct. The purpose of ARPD is to administer the rural payments system. Any information about ownership and plainly the section specifically imports an obligation on us to get information about ownership, although the section does not go on to say what precise information we should get, which we have tried to improve. It means that we have to consult the keeper of registers of Scotland in order to get that information. Plainly in doing so, since the keeper has identified that there are 17,500 holdings in excess of 5 hectares and a very large number under 5 hectares, the keeper has got to get information about all of those holdings and, apparently, within a period of three years, the keeper's accountable officer in her letter goes on to state that the impact of the additional work that that would require may detract on other priorities such as completing the land register and implementing the new register of controlling interests. Finally, references were made to the fact that the information from the keeper has been presented late. That is because those matters were not canvassed at stages 1 and 2 when, frankly, they should have been canvassed in detail with costings. Those costings are not available to Parliament if Opposition members, as they are quite entitled to do, vote for those amendments today. They will be responsible for whatever this uncosted amount will require and for whatever diversion there may be of public servants from other essential work that they must carry out. Thank you. That concludes our debate. We move to our question. The question is that amendment 7A be agreed to. No, 7A is amendment 7, so we are going to take 7A first. The question is that amendment 7A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 7B, 7C, 7D and 7E all the name of the cabinet secretary, all previously debated, and I invite the cabinet secretary to move. No, no, I am just going to move the amendments on block, but we will have to vote on them individually. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 7B to 7E on block. Thank you very much for all the experts in the chamber. The first question is that amendment 7B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 7C be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now, and this will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 7C, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is yes, 90, no, 34. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 7D be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 7E be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now, and this is a 30-second division. The result of the vote on amendment 7E, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is yes, 60, no, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Andy Wightman, to press or withdraw amendment 7. Thank you. The question is that amendment 7, as amended, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now, and again this is a 30-second division. The result of the vote on amendment 7, in the name of Andy Wightman, is yes, 64, no, 60. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We now move to group 6, and I call amendment 1, in the name of Edward Mountain, grouped with amendment 8. Edward Mountain to move amendment 1 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and before I do, I'd like to declare my interest as being a member of a farming partnership. I would like to move amendment 1 in my name and speak to this amendment and amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Amendment 1 in my name is to remove the section on compulsorily acquiring land for sustainable development. The 1967 Forestry Act contained the compulsory purchase provision for forestry. A power that we heard at the REC committee evidence session had never been used. It was suggested that it might have been used or threatened to be used on one occasion, but no details were ever given. In the stage 1 report prepared by the REC committee, the majority of the committee, while supporting the compulsory purchase powers for forestry did not do so for sustainable development. The cabinet secretary however still seeks to enhance this unused power of compulsory purchase beyond forestry to include sustainable development. One has to ask a question of reasonableness of this proposal to ask if more powers to supplement unused powers is reasonable. I propose it is not. At the REC committee, we were given a hypothetical scenario where compulsory purchase powers might be needed for sustainable development, an example that I could not follow. I'm sure that the cabinet secretary knows that there are currently nine different ways that compulsory purchase powers can be used. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1997, section 189 and section 190, the Enterprise in Newtown Scotland Act 1990, the Housing Scotland Act 1987, national parks and access to the countryside in 1949, the Natural Heritage Scotland Act 1991, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas 1979, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. With all those options, we do not believe that the cabinet secretary has proven the need for additional compulsory purchase powers that widen the scope of the powers that were in the original 1977 Act. Therefore, as a group, whilst we might accept there might be remotely be a need for compulsory purchase powers for forestry, we see no need to widen the powers and give supplementary powers for sustainable development. I just remind you that the 1967 Act has been enforced for 51 years, which gives a pretty good idea of whether the powers are needed. Turning to amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary, we will support this amendment. I call on the cabinet secretary to speak to and move amendment 8. Thank you. Amendment 8 is a technical amendment that I have lodged following helpful discussions with Mr Rumbles about his amendments 1, 2 and 3 from stage 2. I supported amendment 1 and agreed to support amendments 2 and 3 on the understanding that they were consequential. In doing so, I indicated that I wished to examine the effect of 2 and 3 before stage 3 to understand if there were any unintended consequences. That scrutiny revealed that amendment 3 is not consequential to amendment 1. I have discussed this with Mr Rumbles and my rationale for seeking to remove that provision from the bill. I hope that he will be able to support amendment 8 accordingly. My amendment has no effect on the policy outcomes sought and achieved by Mr Rumbles' amendments 1 and 2 at stage 2. I fully support the objectives of those amendments. They amended the bill to require the forestry strategy to include objectives, priorities and policies with respect to the acquisition and disposal of land and to require the Scottish ministers to have regard to the strategy when disposing of forested land. Those are helpful and constructive additions to the bill. Moreover, there is a further safeguard now built into the bill through Mr Finney's amendment stage 2, which restricts the application of income from disposals of land, including the national forest estate, to use solely for the purposes within the functions of the bill. That ensures that there are appropriate checks and balances that I trust are sufficient to have similar effect to that which Mr Rumbles was seeking to achieve. I recognise that this power has attracted considerable interest. I have listened carefully to the concerns that some continue to hold. I believe that they are based on a misunderstanding of the legal effect of the power. I hope to allay those concerns today by setting the power in context and clarifying its scope. There is nothing unusual in having compulsory purchase powers. There are a necessary and common part of the statutory landscape, and there are more than 20 acts that include such powers in Scotland. Indeed, some of those, ranging from the Education Scotland Act 1980 to the Rhodes Scotland Act 1984 and the Enterprise and Newtown Scotland Act 1990, were legislation passed by the Conservatives when they were in government in a different era under a leader then who I do not recall as a noted land reform campaigner, which broadly still has effect today. Some, including the National Parts Scotland Act 2000 and the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, were bills led by the previous Labour and Lib Dem Administrations, in which the inclusion of such powers did not seem controversial, nor was that the case with earlier bills, such as the Flood Risk Management Scotland Act 2009, brought forward by an SNP Government. Powers of compulsory purchase are rarely used, and Mr Mountain is correct in that respect. They are a power of last resort, but that is not an argument to support the removal from the bill. They are a useful power to have, and the existence of such powers informs and influences transactions, enabling negotiations with private landowners to reach a satisfactory and affordable conclusion. Indeed, my clear recollection is that that argument may have held sway with some members of the rural committee when they considered the matter before. I am concerned that there is a misunderstanding about the extent of the power and that some believe it to be an unfettered power for ministers to buy property that they just wanted to manage. If that were the case, I would agree that it would be a matter of concern. However, it is not the case, and I am happy to provide assurances on the scope of the power. The proposed section 16.1b power to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of furthering sustainable development does not give ministers powers to compulsory purchase land where there is no connection to land already managed under the duty at section 13 of the bill. Ministers will only be able to use the power to purchase land when that land is required by ministers to exercise an existing land management function under this bill. To put it another way, the land is required to help ministers to manage land that they are already managing. The power is provided to support the new duties that are placed on ministers by section 13 of this bill to manage non-forested land for the purposes of furthering the achievement of sustainable development. Around one third of the national forest estate, 216,000 hectares of land, is non-forested land. It will be managed under the section 13 duty. Mr Mountain's amendment would mean that ministers do not have a specific power of CPO that would support management of this substantial land holding. The situation of a ransom strip might arise in relation to that land as it could for forested land. There may be issues with access to a site or management of a particular ecosystem for environmental considerations or unlocking a piece of land's economic potential. It is not at all clear that current powers would cater for all the situations that the new agency may face, for example if important mineral deposits were found on ministers' land. That power would be clear in its scope. It is purely for the purpose of facilitating sustainable development on land already managed by ministers and proportionate in its application due to the existing very strict tests that must be met when exercising any CPO powers. Scottish ministers could be placed at a significant disadvantage in negotiating a land transaction for public good with a private land owner where the CPO powers are not there as a backstop. I am sure that that is not Mr Mountain's intention from the manner in which he spoke to his amendment. That position seems inconsistent and anomalous when set against the context of the being general support for ministers to have a power of CPO to manage land under section nine. That land includes the two thirds of the national forest estate that is forested. There is a robust procedure for the exercise of the power of compulsory purchase that is set out in the acquisition of land authorization procedure Scotland Act 1947. The bill provides for use of this existing established procedure. The exercise of this power requires public notice of the intent to purchase and notices to be given to owners, lessees and occupars. There is the opportunity for objections to be made. A local inquiry can be held if necessary, which will weigh the public benefit of the order against the private interests of those with an interest in the land. Ultimately, a challenge can be made to the court of session. There is therefore a robust process that no acquiring authority, including Scottish ministers, embarks on likely in deploying the use of any compulsory purchase power. That would be no exception. At stage 2, colleagues from the Greens and Labour Party were pleased to vote for compulsory purchase powers. I wait with interest their contributions this afternoon. I ask Mr Mountain not to press amendment 1 and members not to support it if it is pressed. I rise in support of Edward Mountain's amendment to remove section 13 on the compulsory purchase of land. Will the members know exactly what is going on here? We took a lot of evidence on this at stage 1. It was quite clear that transferring powers from the 1967 act into this act, we are transferring compulsory purchase powers that the Government already has. Because we are going into sustainable development, the proposal here is to really expand the compulsory purchase powers of the ministers again. When we took evidence about this, this power has never been used in half a century since the 1967 act. The question is why we are opposing it. I tell you why, because this has a theme with what ministers do. Ministers of any particular party, not specifically the SNP, my experience of previous ministers in the coalition government was that they wanted to gather in ministerial power away from Parliament. It is happening again. It is going to happen again tomorrow's stage 3 debate. Are members like that or not? Absolutely. Bruce Crawford I have been listening to this debate carefully. I have looked at the page 4 of the bill about the minister taking a power for the management of land to further sustainable development. For the life of me, I cannot understand where the harm is in the minister taking a power to further sustainable development. Can the member please explain to me where the harm is in this? I am, frankly, bamboozled by the approach that has been taken in this particular amendment. Mike Rumbles I am saying to the member that he obviously cannot have difficulty in following this. The problem is—well, you do, do not you? That is what you just said. You asked the question and I am trying to answer the question raised if members would let me. The proposal is to expand the power of ministers. In discussion with the minister's team, when I challenged them to ask them what use could be used of this, the only question that came forward from the minister's team was, well, we want to future-proof this. That is what the response from the ministerial team was. Bruce Crawford The question that I asked Mike Rumbles was—quite clearly—what harm does this power create in terms of giving it to the minister in these circumstances, particularly when it is related to giving him powers to further sustainable development. Mike Rumbles I am a parliamentarian, as is Bruce Crawford. We are in Parliament. It is Parliament's duty to do this sort of thing. Giving power to ministers has to be given sparingly. When Parliament gives power to ministers, we have to be very careful what we allow ministers to do. The very fact that this power has not been used for half a century, when I gave the power to them in 1967, the question surely is, Mr Crawford, why does the minister want the power? That is the question that I have been asking. Why does the minister want the power? To that, no answer. I have to say that I am not even sure that the power is transferring from the 67 act is a responsible thing to do. However, in the spirit of compromise, I am happy to allow that power to be transferred. I am not happy to have the power increased. We are in a stage 3 debate. It is very important that Parliament realises what Parliament is trying to do here, but the minister is trying to deal with Parliament. That is going to be reflecting in a stage 3 debate tomorrow. That refers to section 13 of this act. Section 13 of tomorrow's stage 3 is more important than that. That is why I am getting exercised about this. Parliament should not be giving powers that the minister does not know what to do with to the ministers. I support the amendment in Edwin Mountain's name. Peter Chapman I stand to speak in support of my colleague Edward Mountain. I will be brief. Compulsory purchase for sustainable development is a red line as far as our group is concerned. We have said all along that the compulsory purchase powers in the existing bill will remain and be rolled over into this new bill, so compulsory purchase powers will be there. However, those powers have never been used, as Mike Rumble has said. They have never been used in 50 years. We are amazed that the cabinet secretary now thinks that he needs additional power. Further more, since sustainable development has never been explained in a proper manner to me, as to what it actually means in practice, we would be opening up the door to force compulsory purchase for almost any situation that the cabinet secretary chose to support. That is a danger in answer to Bruce Crawford. The situation is open to any situation. That is totally unacceptable and must be resisted at all costs. I am somewhat taken aback about the degree of controversy that is attaching to an issue that has not given concern to parliaments here and in Westminster for every decade since the Second World War, where it is routine. I have the list of the acts here. I will not go through them, so there are 24 of them. However, in Labour Governments, Tory Governments, SNP Governments and I think that there was a Liberal Government for a while, every single Parliament passed bills and where there was any conceivable need for this power, it was granted. I personally cannot remember in this place any controversy on previous legislation where we sought to confer this power. Secondly, the fact that it has not been used does not mean that it is not required, and that is very simple. For all of us who have been involved in previous professional life, involved in negotiation, everybody knows that it exists as a backstop in order to ensure that where land is required, for example, for a new road or railway development, then at the end of the day there are the powers to force the deal to a conclusion. That is why there are compulsory powers and it crosses all functions of government. It has never been controversial before. Turning to land reform, this is about land reform. I was surprised that we have not heard from the Labour Party or the Greens in this debate because this is specifically about providing the possibility of compulsory purchase powers where the land reform provisions of the bill come into play. I was very pleased that I got the support from Rhoda Grant and John Finnie, the members on the committee, on the issue at stage 2. At that time, I thought that it was a routine expectation that the Labour Party and the Green Party would support compulsory purchase powers for land reform. However, what I am puzzled about—what I am puzzled about—well, I am just about finished—well, okay, let Mr Crawford. I am just a bit surprised with the minister's direction here. Is the minister suggesting—because I have not heard from the Green Party in this amendment—that the Greens are going to vote for this amendment and not allow the power to purchase land for sustainable development reasons? Is that really the situation that we are in? I think that most of the Greens in myself were quite happy that I do not speak for the Green Party, so I am afraid that I do not know what is in their minds. However, what I do find a bit odd is that the case of the dog that did not mark in the right is the case of the land reform parties that have not spoken in this debate. I think that there will be a lot of explaining to do, should it emerge? I cannot imagine that this would happen, that parties that have supported land reform for decades would suddenly abandon it and do a deal with the Conservatives tonight. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I always bow to the cabinet secretary's knowledge about compulsory purchase. I suggested that there were nine acts when he started off his speech. He said that there were 20 acts, and when he concluded that there were 24, they seemed to be multiplying, and therefore I cannot see the need for legislation to cover this sustainable development that is not actually needed. We have still not been given any examples of why it is needed, and I would just reiterate to this Parliament that it is abundantly clear that this group has understood the need for compulsory powers as a backdrop for forestry. What we will not accept and will never accept is a power grab for more powers that we do not understand why they are needed. I take Edward Mountain to press the amendment. I move the amendment to my name. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. This will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 1 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 63, no, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I will now call amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 7. I call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 9 and speak to all amendments in the group. Those amendments seek to improve our ability to respond when investigating illegal felling. They reflect the input of Conservancy staff and will provide them with a stronger statutory underpinning to take action more effectively to tackle potential illegal felling. Those amendments complement existing powers of entry by allowing a halt to be imposed. I have a point of order from Edward Mountain. I do not want to stop the cabinet secretary. I am struggling to hear the cabinet secretary and I would like to hear what is being heard, if that is possible. That is a very good point, Mr Mountain. Would members please keep the noise down when they are leaving the chamber? Those amendments complement existing powers of entry by allowing a halt to be imposed on a felling operation by waiving a temporary stop notice and will enable staff to safely gain access to the site under investigation. Notices will require felling to stop and are underpinned by an offence in line with other offences in the bill. Safeguards are built into the amendments. For example, notices can last no longer than 28 days and where it transpires that felling was in fact permitted, any losses may be compensated. Illegal felling is a particular concern for ancient and semi-natural woodlands, meaning that it disproportionately affects those with high biodiversity value or a particular value to local communities. Illegal felling is a deforestation and environmental impact issue, but the use of those powers of entry is one of safety, safety for staff. Those notices are important to maximise our chances of addressing the former without compromising the latter. They are proportionate and necessary to enable us to protect woodlands, but also, crucially, staff, and I urge members to support them. I move amendment 9. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and support those amendments, Presiding Officer, which relate to the introduction of temporary stop notices. I want to urge Parliament to back those today, because, from a frankly appalling local experience, I know that there is an absolute need for these. A few short weeks ago, Maniki and my constituency was a site of an act of what can only be described as environmental vandalism, where a developer all but destroyed an immunity woodland as Angus Council stood by claiming that it had no locus. Not only were the trees felled on an unacceptable scale, so a variety of biodiversity was destroyed, biodiversity that had been supported from public money. Local residents had raised concerns over the developer felling a small number of Scots pine and willow trees, but as Forestry Commission Scotland sought to identify the owner of the site and instruct them to, in the absence of a felling licence, assist, they took a digger into the woodland and decimated it, and that, in spite of a request from our local wildlife crime officer to stop. Let me commend the efforts of FCS, SNH and Police Scotland on this issue and welcome the fact that an EIA enforcement notice has now been served on the owner, but so much better if we had been able to prevent what happened, rather than seek to force the perpetrator to restore the woodland insofar as that can be done. As things stand, Presiding Officer, FCS staff can alert operators that they may be acting illegally and that there is an intention to access the site, but those warnings can be ignored or perhaps even spur the operator on to complete felling before they are stopped. Those amendments strengthen FCS's hand and I urge Parliament to support them. We cannot turn the clock back in Maniki but we can ensure that regulatory staff are in a stronger position to prevent something similar happening elsewhere in future. I urge Parliament to support those amendments. One of the key issues in relation to the issue of temporary stop notices as covered by this group of amendments is a test of reasonableness. Let me say at the outset that those amendments stumble at this hurdle. Why? Well, for the simple reason that they were only submitted shortly before the Government deadline for amendments. As a member of the Wreck Committee and I stress that I speak as a member, I am not the convener. I am extremely disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary considers his any way appropriate to submit to members that cannot have proper parliamentary and indeed committee scrutiny. To me it demonstrates a lack of respect and also a complete lack of thought by the Government-built team. In the situation in which we find ourselves where there has been no scrutiny or explanation of the requirements for these amendments, I have tried to examine the rationale for their introduction. The only situation that is explained in the amendment is where an owner or contractor is contravening the Felling Commission restocking or felling direction or a registered notice or a remedial notice. This seems unreasonable and for owners to act in such a way as to be unreasonable. If contractors and owners are willing to go against what is agreed, even when it is pointed out to them, that is wrong. I have no way of assessing how often this situation has happened in Scotland in the recent past, which is why it would have been good to discuss this at the committee stage. We are in a quandary. We have to make a decision to support or oppose these amendments based on a lack of details. In fact, in my 15 years of experience of being a land manager, my answer would be that I have never seen it happen, but perhaps that is because I am unreasonable. Having made those points, I could perhaps conceive of situations where some people might be unreasonable, as Mr Day pointed out. As those notices have time limitation, a provision for compensation, we are, as a group, prepared to accept them at this late and unscrutinised set of amendments. I am pleased that the measures that we have introduced have found support. I am pleased indeed that we are implementing them, not least because they emanate from one of the workforce in one of the conservancies. That was brought forward by a member of staff who, through dealing with those matters, identified the need for the safety of staff and the conduct of good civil cultural practice for those temporary stopping notices to be brought forward. I commend them to all members. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Move to group 8. Felling permissions. I call amendment 10, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 11, 12 and 22. The cabinet secretary to move amendment 10 and speak to all amendments in this group. The bill provides for filling permissions to be granted with or without conditions, and those conditions may be varied or revoked. For example, conditions relating to when you may fell can be adjusted if necessary after the permission has been granted. Those amendments seek to introduce some flexibility in limited circumstances in filling permissions themselves, which I feel is consistent with our aim to create a modern and adaptive regime to support a modern and adaptable sector. I give the assurance today that we will be both reasonable and proportionate in the exercise of these powers, but to offer further reassurance, I will now set out what safeguards are built in to the amendments themselves. Variation will be possible in two circumstances, first with the agreement of the permission holder or possibly even at the request. Second, we believe that in order to prevent or minimise harm to the environment or any living thing, filling should stop immediately or not to begin. Suspending a filling permission will also be possible in two distinct circumstances, in this case either where compliance with the permission is in question and in order to investigate any harm to the environment or any living things, filling must stop immediately or not begin or where it is necessary to suspend filling specifically in order to prevent or minimise such a harm. Revolking will only be possible where the risk to the environment or any living thing is such that filling must stop immediately or not begin and there is no other solution. The limited circumstances in which those powers can be used to protect permission holders, they guarantee that the powers are used proportionately and all of those decisions, Presiding Officer, will be open to appeal. I move amendment 10. Thank you Presiding Officer, and in addressing the amendments 10, 11, 12 and 22, I must point out that those amendments again were published very late in the day and received no scrutiny by either Parliament or indeed the Wreck Committee, which I am a member. Therefore, as the amendments again stumble in my mind on the first hurdle of reasonable, I have no option but to criticise the Government and the Cabinet Secretary for allowing this to happen. Good legislation is legislation in my mind that has been through the full process of scrutiny and these amendments have not. My concern is that the timber grower who has entered into a legal agreement with the regulatory body will be faced with that body having the right to withdraw unilaterally from that agreement for as long as they want, potentially indefinitely, without agreeing to review or compensate. Those who know the industry realise that much work often goes on before the actual felling takes place. Improvements to roads, loading areas and stacking areas are some examples. All of those incur costs and should this process of suspension or revocation be allowed to proceed will remain uncompensated. Reading the proposed legislation variation, revocation and suspension can be implemented if there is harm to the environment or to any living thing. What is the definition of harm to any living thing? Wakes, we wonder if the Government Bill team has ever seen a 20 ton forwarder at work in the forest. Indeed, I go further. Have they ever seen a tree being felled? Either operation will result in harm to a living thing, including the tree, which is one of the definitions that the Cabinet Secretary used at the Wreck Committee. Therefore, the definition could be so wide as to say that any felling could be used as a trigger to launch variation, revocation or suspension. For these reasons, we cannot support those amendments. I say what a pity it is that the Cabinet Secretary did not bring them forward at the outset so that a solution to the problems that I have identified here could be found earlier and, therefore, we might have been able to support them. I make the following points on the proportionate use of powers. The overarching aim of the powers is to allow the Forestry Regulator to act where there is an overriding conservation concern. Ministers would exercise the powers reasonably and proportionately, as they must, of course, exercise all powers reasonably. In addition, the threshold tests built into all three of the sections should give comfort. For example, the power to revoke may only be used where there are no other options. That is right and proper. In relation to any living thing, references to the environmental powers must be exercised reasonably and proportionately. That is a test that is used in other legislation. For example, freshwater fisheries. The overarching aim is conservation, so ministers would exercise it with a view to protecting both species and the environment. The question is that the amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our division. The first vote and a group will therefore be a one-minute division. Members may cast their votes now. I note the point that Mr Stewart makes. Perhaps, if I read the result of the vote, the member can take a view, but I will note for the record that Mr Stewart tried to vote in this debate and was not able to. I am not rerunning the vote. The result of the vote on amendment 10, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is yes, 89, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I urge members, if their terminal is not working, just to find another terminal that does. I call amendments 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, all previously debated, and I invite the cabinet secretary to move the amendment 11 to 22 on block. I ask that any member object if I were to put a single question on all the amendments 11 to 22. No. The question therefore is that amendments 11 to 22 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Sorry, did we not agree to amendments 11 to 22? I asked. Did you say no? No, wait a second please. We have to hear. If I did not hear the member correctly, what I asked first of all was, could we move them on block? No-one said objected, so I moved them on block. The question is that we agree amendments 11 to 22. In that case, we will have to move each of the amendments. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. It is not agreed. We will move to a division and members will cast their votes now. This is on amendment 11, just to be clear. We are voting for amendment 11. The result of the vote on amendment 11 in the name of the cabinet secretary is yes, 85, no, 35. There were no abstentions. The result of the vote, I beg your pardon, was yes, 87, no, 35. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that we agree amendment 12. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members will cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 12 in the name of the cabinet secretary is yes, 89, no, 33. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Mae 다음 gwaethafserion eich byddiadau. Mae nwr gweithio Г operatedBoth yn hollu gyfan hyffredd어�バイ Darth Daffragur. I call amendment 23 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out that if amendment 39a in the name of Stuart Stevenson is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 39b, it will be preempted. I call on the cabinet secretary to move amendment 23 and speak to all amendments in the group. Presiding Officer, the Scottish cabinet is focused on ensuring that there is a bright future for forestry in Scotland and that forestry is substantial contribution to our economic, environmental and social outcomes continues to be both recognised and celebrated. I know that many members share that ambition. I know, too, that we all value the hard work and commitment of the staff in Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland and that this group of amendments are largely motivated by a desire to promote their interests. I understand that and I have listened carefully to all that members have said to me. I want to start off in relation to amendments 23 and 26 regarding a chief forester to reassure Mr Rumbles that I have given very careful consideration to his desire to provide for a chief forester role in the legislation. There are legitimate concerns about the drafting of the provision. I am of the view that having a chief forester heading up Scottish forestry at the heart of government will be a very important protection for the interests of forestry and its right to consolidate that view and role in legislation. I will therefore move my amendments 23 and 26 to hear what other people say, but I may not press it, Presiding Officer, depending upon views expressed. Indeed, I do not believe that we will achieve our ambitions for forestry, which I believe are shared by members across the chamber, without the skills and dedication of FCS and FES staff, ensuring that they have a bright future has been at the very core of my considerations. Since last May, when I announced the Government's planned administrative arrangements, I have continued to listen and respond positively to concerns. I have met staff around the country. I have taken account of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee's stage 1 report and the discussion at stage 2, and I have put on record my agreement with the vast majority of the committee's recommendations. I therefore published the Forestry and Scotland statement last month in response to the helpful recommendation by the Wreck Committee that we should publish further details of our arrangements. It has provided considerable reassurance to a wide range of stakeholders and senior forestry figures. I want in particular to pay tribute to the Forestry Commission trade unions for the series of positive and constructive meetings that we have held since November 2016. They, like me, are keen to end the uncertainty for staff and to get on with agreeing the best deal possible for their members on transfer to the Scottish Government. Having done everything that Parliament has asked us to do to date, I find myself somewhat perplexed to be considering a complex set of amendments that seek to put into law administrative arrangements that have not been fully specified, costed or worked up. I will now address each of those in turn. Amendment 39 is lodged by Claudia Beamish, and I thank her for her continued interest and for the discussions that we have had since stage 2. I want to assure members that I considered fully whether a single body could take forward the functions of both Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland during the consultation process in 2016, as fully set out in the bill's policy memorandum at paragraph 64. I concluded that it would be inappropriate to merge the body being regulated, FES, with the one that does the regulating FCS. However, the argument against the single agency is that it would, in all likelihood, put at risk the public cooperation status of the successor agency to FES, which allows for valuable financial flexibilities. That risk is addressed fully in the chief financial officer's analysis, which has been made available to members. In short, the financial consequences of a single agency could be, and I use the words of Simon Hodge, the chief executive of Forest Enterprise Scotland, disastrous. The likelihood of the loss of public cooperation status may result in a vastly depleted budget for forestry so that we can neither meet our economic nor environmental or other aims. I know that some have been concerned at this analysis appearing relatively late in the day. However, the proposal for a single agency was only laid at stage 3, and at stage 1 the committee rec did not recommend such an approach, nor even that government should explore any other options. I hope that the analysis that I have circulated to all MSPs has persuaded members not to support amendment 39 as it stands. I intend to resist amendment 39 for this core reason—that the people and businesses working in forestry now oppose the sole agency proposal. Confor, which represents forestry and timber businesses all over the country, has been fairly clear throughout the bill process. They originally had concerns, but they support the Government's planned arrangements. The Forestry commission trade unions have also confirmed that they do not support the single agency proposal. I appeal to members to also oppose amendment 39 and support the Government's planned arrangements. I want to offer that for their reassurance. Turning to amendments 2, 2A and 40 on reporting, should amendment 39 be defeated, even as modified by either amendment 39A or 39B. I want to give Parliament and members as much reassurance about the new arrangements as I can. I would accept the need to bring forward a further report to Parliament setting out those arrangements and would therefore support amendment 2, as amended by 2A, to prevent delays in other work on the provisions in this bill being commenced. In line with amendment 40, we would produce a report for Parliament within five years of the new arrangements, setting out how those functions are working. I acknowledge that it would not be desirable to have the Scottish Government produce such a report on one of its own divisions, so that report would be conducted independently by someone with appropriate expertise. As is contained in amendment 2, before making any significant changes to the new arrangements, there would be consultation and Parliament would be notified. I believe that all of this provides appropriate assurance for Parliament about its role in scrutinising the new administrative arrangements and provides public documentation on those arrangements. I respectfully ask Ms Beamish not to move amendment 39, and should she do so, ask members not to support it. I turn now to amendments 39A, 39B and 39D to agencies. I appreciate that members might not want to support a single agency but see two agencies as an appropriate compromise. Amendments 39A and 39D from Stuart Stevenson and 39B from Colin Smith provide for two agencies to be set out in statute. I have given much thought to those amendments. Either of those amendments passing would at least prevent the worst possible option of a single agency going ahead, so I will support amendment 39A and if it falls 39B. Colin Smith's amendment 39B is problematic, as it does not make clear which option but merely presents option. I quote a single agency or two agencies. I do not see how the amendment could be fulfilled without some further thought to determine which of the two options should be pursued. That would only serve to add further very unwelcome delay. The letter from the FCTU makes clear, Presiding Officer, and this is really important. The FCTU want to get on with it. They want further positive engagement on the new arrangements that we have been discussing with them. I myself have met them in detail since November 2016 on, I believe, six or seven occasions, each lasting around an hour or more. I am therefore sure that Mr Smith would agree that we should not be doing anything that creates further uncertainty for staff whom I believe, fervently believe, want to get this concluded on the basis of the Scottish Government's proposals as set out in our statement. I ask Mr Smith not to move his amendment 39B and at least to vote for amendment 39A, which provides more clarity and certainty. Amendment 39A and 39D from Mr Stevenson offer a welcome tightening up of amendment 39 so that the scope of the functions focuses on the relevant forestry and land management parts of the bill—in other words, the functions currently delivered by FCS and FES. That avoids the present very broad definition, which could, for example, require the Scottish Government lawyers responsible for drafting regulations to be located within the agency. I hope that members will support 39A and 39D. Turning now to amendment 39 as amended by either 39A or 39B. Although it would be helpful to turn amendment 39 into a two-agency proposal, those administrative arrangements would be far from ideal. Like the single agency, the proposal has not been fully debated nor its implications are fully considered by Parliament until now. No preparations have been made to establish FCS as a separate Scottish Government agency. It would likely involve additional costs, and that was specifically explained and mentioned in the policy memorandum paragraph 65. It could add delay to the new administrative arrangements being up and running. If we have to turn resources to create another agency, that means that we cannot apply those resources to other key aspects of the bill, such as beginning work to prepare the new forestry strategy that all members support. Such delay would be compounded should members also vote through amendment 2 unamended. That would mean that we would have to prepare a fresh report on those two agency arrangements and present it to Parliament before being able to commence the legislation, thus risking further delay. Turning to amendment 30C, a new legislation, that is why I am particularly concerned about Mr Whiteman's amendment 39C. It would actually require ministers to introduce further primary legislation within two years to set out the structure and powers of the agency. That would be two years to prepare, consult and two years to pass a move to implementation. I contend that that would be devastating to staff who are anticipating transferring to the Scottish Government in April. I believe that this, where it passed, would be greeted by amazement, astonishment and consternation by stakeholders who expect us to complete the job this afternoon. It would lead to very significant and unacceptable delays, as I have said, measured in years in completing the devolution of forestry, a policy that the Parliament unanimously accepted at stage 1. As forestry minister, I have a responsibility for the wellbeing of FCS and FES staff and I could not, in all conscience, support an amendment like this that would only serve to add many years of yet further uncertainty for them. It would slow down productivity that would result in us missing our planting targets and potentially risk other vital woodland creation and maintenance work. That would be an outcome none of us wants. I would not want to do anything that puts that in jeopardy, so I would ask Mr Whiteman not to move his amendment. If he presses his amendment, I would embarrass members not to support amendment 39C. In conclusion, I want to assure Mr Whiteman that I scrutinised his proposal before arriving at a view. Indeed, that has been my approach throughout this bill process to listen carefully to members' views if they wish to present them to me and to seek a consensus and compromise where I felt that that could be achieved. My metric has been a simple one—what will work best for the future of forestry in Scotland and the staff in our forestry bodies now and in future. That leads me to this conclusion. I am profoundly convinced that the administrative arrangements that I have announced—the division and an agency—provide the best solution. Those are the arrangements that are closest to the current ones. The discussions that we have had to date with the unions to take forward those arrangements have been positive and constructive. As the FCTU itself says, and I quote from its letter to me, we absolutely recognise and welcome the very significant commitments that are made and measures that are put in place to allay our members' concerns. We look forward to liaising with your office further in the devolution programme and coming negotiations. That could not be clearer. The FCTU anticipates moving forward to negotiate for staff interests in the planned arrangements. In the same letter, the FCTU rejects a sole agency arrangement, and I welcome that. The planned arrangements have been designed to have the optimum beneficial impact for staff and forestry in Scotland. The setting up of the Scottish Government Agency for Forest and Land Scotland, including the retention of FES's public co-operation status, is to be welcomed. The identification of a dedicated forestry division in Scottish Forestry within the Scottish Government, headed by a chief forester, is an important recognition of the need for such grounded expertise within the Government itself, especially with the duties that are placed on ministers in relation to forestry. Those are not my words. They are the words of Sir Harry Studhome, the current chair of the Forestry Commission in the UK, and a hugely respected figure in the forestry sector. I understand that members want to do the right thing by forestry in Scotland and for staff, and at their aim is like mine to make sure that we put in place the right arrangements to take forestry into the future. However, a single agency is not the right way forward, and whilst a two-agency approach might work at this stage, we cannot say, it has not been at all sufficiently scrutinised or tested. I ask you to listen to what the unions representing their staff say, and to organisations as diverse, as confor, the UKFPA, Community Land Scotland and, of course, to Sir Harry Studhome. Should all the amendments be pressed, I would ask members to vote for amendment 39A and, if it falls, for amendment 39B. I would also ask members to vote for amendment 39D and oppose amendment 39C, and finally, I would ask members to vote against amendment 39, whether it is amended or not. In doing so, I would then join members in voting for amendment 2 as amended by 2A to give further reassurance that Parliament will receive a report on the administrative arrangements. I would also ask members to support amendment 40 to provide additional safeguards of Parliament's role in being notified of the arrangements and any future changes. I will listen carefully to what the movers of amendments 2A and 40 will say in terms of how they relate to amendment 39, either amended or not, before summing up. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I call on Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 39 and the other amendments in the group. This amendment requires Scottish ministers to establish, as we have heard from the cabinet secretary, a single agency to carry out their forestry and land management functions. That is not a notion, as was stated by the cabinet secretary last night in his letter, but a real possibility for the future of sustainable forestry here in Scotland. We seem to be fighting over this today, but my amendment is to effect a lift and shift of current forestry arrangements, preserving the invaluable knowledge and expertise, respected brand identity and successful working arrangements. I do not think that this phrase can be used if the shift is greater than by bringing it into the civil service. The chamber will know that this argument has been repeated since the consultation stage, and there are very serious misgivings about the Government's plans for forestry centralisation. There is also a real risk in the future with this centralisation possibility if we do not vote for this amendment of the possibility of privatisation, a risk that we have seen previously, not by this Scottish Government, no doubt, but in the future, quite possibly. Forestry needs a long-term vision. It cannot operate under the shadow of a changeable whim of any minister of any Government department restructuring or a new Government and manifesto. The cabinet secretary has raised concerns regarding the public corporation status of Forestry Enterprise Scotland, and my colleague Colin Smyth's amendment, number 39b, offers a solution to this concern, and I add my support to this amendment. We have the support on this single agency of the Royal Scottish Forestry Society, the Woodland Trust, a charity, the Institute of Chartered Foresters, Rambler Scotland, another charity, Reforesting Scotland and the Forest Policy Group. My colleague Colin Smyth will further delineate issues from the trade unions about their concerns for the future of forestry in Scotland, which do not concur with those of the cabinet secretary's interpretation. I also want to speak about amendment 2 in my name, which requires Scottish ministers to lay a report to the Parliament detailing the administrative arrangements that they intend to make before sections 68 and 70 come into force. The amendment details which arrangements must be set out, as well as committing ministers to consulting appropriate persons and notifying the Parliament before making any significant changes. The amendment follows from the Wreck Committee's stage 1 report recommendation. Although I acknowledge that I am not a member of that, I was actually asked to be a reporter for my own committee, the Eclaire Committee, on this bill. The inclusion of this amendment would ensure a greater level of scrutiny in the process of devolution both from the Parliament and from those stakeholders with a wealth of forestry experience. I thank the cabinet secretary for the recent statement given in advance of stage 3 in relation to this. However, significant uncertainty remains from a wide range of stakeholders. Whatever the cabinet secretary argues, we have met them too, and so I have bought this amendment back after not moving it at stage 2, having listened to the cabinet secretary. We all want certainty for the future of forestry in Scotland. Given that there is disagreement between the Governments and many in this Parliament's vision for those administrative arrangements, the report that this amendment requires adds a very important layer of scrutiny. Allowing the Parliament and appropriate person's sight of the minister's administrative intentions, whatever the outcome of today's votes should not be seen as constricting ministerial powers, but rather giving the opportunity for transparency and improvement, which I hope and understand that the Government can welcome. I also, in this context, support Gail Ross's amendment 2A on a deadline to prevent any further unnecessary delay to the future of our forestry. I now call Stuart Stevenson to speak to amendment 39A and the other amendments in his group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me just briefly respond to the Shimmera brought to the chamber by Claudia Beamish of privatisation. I just suggest to her that no particular structure that you might end up with either enables or protects a woman or another, because any Government would have to bring forward legislation to undertake it. However, the real challenge is where we get alliance of the Labour Party with the Conservatives, as we have heard earlier in relation to compulsory purchase. That brings forward the power of the Conservative Party and serves the shared interests that I believe we have in effect to forestry. Turning to my amendments 39A and 39D, they are in the context of the amendment that Claudia Beamish brought forward seeking to improve it should Parliament choose to pass it. I say at the outset that I support the provisions already in the bill. The financial consequences of a single body whereby that body would be unable to carry forward funds and hold funds could be extremely severe. That is the underlying basis of which we need two bodies. The Scottish Government, in setting up a division of its Government, has no legal construct, I am aware, that provides for that to be a mechanism. My amendment therefore requires that ministers establish two agencies, rather than a single agency, as proposed by Ms Beamish. Certainly what I have seen of the final position of the Forestry Commission trade unions is that they are very clear and ambiguous that two bodies are required rather than the one. I accept that that is an evolved position that was not the position that was taken earlier. An agency would not be as close to the centre of the Scottish Government as a division, but it would not be as detrimental as being substituted into a single agency. Forest Enterprise Scotland in particular has been a spectacular success in terms of effective and successful management in the national forest estate, and that is predicated on public co-operation status. If we were to lose that, we would lose much that we all would value here. I am tidying up in relation to specifying that the two agencies are parts 2 to 3, that is forestry functions management, land by ministers and felling, just in the interests of clarity, and section 61, 64. Similarly, with respect to 39A versus 39B, 39B is not particularly specific, probably, as the minister referred in other contexts, and it requires further consultation. There is a very enthusiastic support for getting that forward as quickly as possible. In relation to Andy Wightman's 39C, I do not mean to be insulting, but it is a wrecking amendment for the whole prospect of taking forestry into the control of this Parliament in an effective way. Putting a two-year stop in things is simply not acceptable. I find myself in a slightly unusual position of asking for members' support for amendments 39A and 39D while hoping and asking that Claudia Beamish will not press her amendment 39A. I think that the provisions in the bill, as it stands, are the provisions that we should end up with. I now call on Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 39B and the other amendments in the group. I wish to speak in support of my amendment 39B but also to make comment on other amendments, in particular amendment 39 from my colleague Claudia Beamish. Much has been written and said about amendment 39, including today, but most of which has been scaremongrant rather than fact. Let us be very clear that no-one in the chamber is proposing that forestry in Scotland should be run entirely by a sole organisation. We have very clear advice that the reference in amendment 39 to a single agency would allow organisational arrangements to be established for forestry in Scotland, which respect the current setup, albeit in a devolved context, namely a Forestry Commission Scotland and a Forestry Enterprise Scotland, which is currently an agency of the Forestry Commission, allowing the latter to retain public corporation status. The claims to the contrary, in my view, are either based on partial advice designed to simply show up the Government's proposals or are insufficiently researched. The divide in line between the Scottish Government and it would seem that every other group in this chamber, and more importantly the forestry sector, is a fact that the Government wished to largely subsume the current functions of the Forestry Commission into a Government division. I will not rehearse all the many arguments against that, as they are all well documented. In contrast, the Government has singularly failed to make the case for the proposed division and why it appeared to have such an obsession with scrapping the forestry commission is difficult to understand. The cabinet secretary again failed to make any positive case whatsoever for the establishment of a Government decision instead. The positive case is that the Scottish Forestry Commission, as the Scottish Forestry Division of the Scottish Government, will be right at the heart of Government accountable to this Parliament, completing devolution. I would be grateful if Mr Smith could confirm that the trade unions now oppose a sole agency, if he will confirm that the Labour Party is not pressing that matter, and if he would also agree that the unions have not supported a two-agency solution either. Colin Smyth Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will certainly come to the trade unions in a second, because the reality is that Fergus Ewing has misled Parliament in his comments about the letter that Fergus Ewing sent. The wording of the letter is very carefully written by the trade unions, and I will come to that very point in a second. Once again, what we have seen is the tactics of the cabinet secretary not to listen to the concerns of a large number of organisations, and I could list them. The cabinet secretary knows exactly who they are, but he has failed to engage with them in any meaningful way. Instead, he simply sought to bat off the many deep concerns across the sector, and, frankly, at times in a very unsavory manner. Yes, some of those concerns have been allayed following the publication of the Government's statement in Forestry in Scotland and in further discussions. However, the Government's divide and conquer approach is not secured much in the way of positive support in favour of the Government's proposed structure, but it is simply statements that some fears have been allayed. I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on those efforts in recent weeks to secure support the way in which, in my view, has backfired. Let's also be clear. The Government's attempt to lay those fears on particular concerns by the trade unions over terms and conditions would never have happened had my colleague Claudia Beamish not tabled amendment 39. The cabinet secretary had no meaningful discussions whatsoever with the trade unions until after stage 3 of this bill should have been voted on until today. It's unfortunate that, when he commented—I'll give me in a second—on the trade union's letter, he used the phrase that he opposed a single agency. The letter from the trade unions very specifically talks about a sole organisation, which no-one in this side of the chamber supports. It did not make reference whatsoever to a single agency, and it's unfortunate that the cabinet secretary should say that it did. I'll give way to the cabinet secretary. The trade unions oppose a sole agency, which is a single agency, but does the member accept, as I said in my remarks, that I have been engaging with the trade unions in a respectful fashion, not just the last couple of months, but since November 2016. I have met them on six or seven occasions. We built up a good working relationship. The negotiations have been carried out by senior Government officials on the COSOP principle practice, which is as it should. A number of guarantees have been made over that period by the Scottish Government to the FCTU officials. Therefore, the process has been a respectful, long, protracted process, as it should be, and not one that has just begun in the last few weeks. That, surely, is something that Mr Smith would wish to withdraw. I certainly will not withdraw that comment. The meaningful negotiations did not take place until recent weeks. The package of terms and conditions that were offered to the trade unions were only offered days ago, not months ago, when the cabinet secretary claims otherwise. In an effort to be constructive to the Government and to put beyond any doubt that the aim of this amendment is to achieve a structure close to the existing agency structure, I have tabled amendment 39b, which slightly amends amendment 39 by making reference to either a single agency or to two agencies. I move amendment 39b to be helpful on the basis that it aims to ensure that the Government brings forward proposals for an agency-based structure similar to Forestry Commission Scotland and Forestry Enterprise Scotland. If the amendment is successful, I hope that the Government will respect that aim, which is now a matter of public record and get on with the job. I appreciate that Stuart Stevenson has tabled a very similar amendment 39a. On balance, I believe that my amendment 39b respects the views of those who believe that a single agency amendment would still have allowed a structure based on a Forestry Commission Scotland and a Forestry Enterprise Scotland. However, by referencing two agencies in my amendment, it ensures that the Government can move ahead with an agency-based solution that effectively retains FCS and FES. I have to say that many clumsy letters that we have received from the cabinet secretary in recent days express concern that a proposal to create two agencies would lead to delays. I would simply say that to the Government if they are not capable of replicating a structure similar to the one that currently exists but within the context of devolution by April 2019-19 and, frankly, the shouldn't be in Government. I also wish to strongly support amendment 2 in Claudia Beamish's name, which provides for parliamentary scrutiny of any proposals on the organisational structure that I regard as crucial, not least, given today's debate and the likely vote and, more importantly, the debate that has taken place within the Forestry sector in recent months and weeks. With regard to Andy Wightman's amendment 30, I see seeking a statutory underpinning of the organisational arrangements. I have to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment and understand fully its reasons for it, given the conduct of the Government in recent weeks. However, my only concern is the fact that it would delay matters further and I would hope that my colleague Claudia Beamish's amendment on parliamentary scrutiny will ensure that Parliament has a clear role to play in scrutinising any proposed organisational arrangements. Presiding Officer, we have an opportunity to take the devolution of Forestry forward in a way that brings all stakeholders together, united behind the right organisational structure for the future of Forestry. That means supporting amendment 39B in my name and amendments 39 and 2 in the name of Claudia Beamish's labour. We will also support amendments 39D, 40, 26 and 2A. Andy Wightman, to speak to amendment 39C in the other amendments in this group. I have been involved and interested in forestry affairs since I left school in 1979 or 1980. I can't remember now. I was very active in the forestry debates in the early 90s and also actively involved in discussions around the extent to which forestry should be devolved to this Parliament back in 1997. Amendment 39C or rather the bill completes devolution of forestry. Across the chamber, everyone has agreed that we wish to complete that process of devolution, a process in fact that should have been completed at the establishment of this Parliament. The Forestry commission doesn't own any land. It manages land that, according to section 1 of the 1967 act, is put at its disposal by Scottish ministers. The cabinet secretary said earlier in his remarks that there has been no debate in Parliament about future structures. That is precisely correct. The deficiency of the bill as a whole is that it completes devolution, but in so doing allows the management of forestry commission land, the public estate, to fall back into the hands of Scottish ministers without saying anything about the structures that should be set up to manage this public estate and forestry. That is why we are having this debate rather late in this day. Other public bodies such as Scottish Natural Heritage, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Water, are all established and underpinned by statute. Parliament decides the governance of the assets that those bodies own. Parliament 2 should determine the governance of the 1.6 million acres of public land that the Forestry commission manages on its behalf. Leaving future governance arrangements to ministers means that a future Government could change those arrangements to some detriment to the public interest without reference to Parliament. It has never been the case in 99 years of public forestry since the 1919 act that the arrangements governing the structures, the governance, the duties and the powers of those charged with managing public land have never been the case that they have not been underpinned by statute. They have always been underpinned by statute. That is the reason why I have tabled this amendment 39C to ensure that, in the future and for so long, as Parliament deems it appropriate that the governance, duties, powers and structures managing public forest shall remain under statutory scrutiny by this Parliament. Finally, I wish to put on record that the cabinet secretary made some comments in the debate around section 7. Attributing remarks to me about, for example, statistical surveys—I just want to, for the record, be clear that those remarks were made by me in private correspondence with a special adviser. They are not, in any way, relevant to anything that I said in the chamber today in support of amendment 7. I am conscious that we have one more amendment in this section and a number of other speakers who are interested in contributing. I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the time limit for this group for another 30 minutes. Will the minister move such a motion? Thank you very much. Sorry, but there is a lot of interest in this particular group in particular. The question is at the time limit by which the debate on group 7 must end and be extended by 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? Up to 30 minutes. It depends on contributions. We are agreed. I would just note for the record that that means that decision time is likely to now fall at 6.45, rather than 6.15. Decision time is likely to be 6.45. I call on Gail Ross to speak to amendment 40 and the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to keep it brief. I speak to amendments 2A and 40, and those amendments that I lodged seek to give effect to the recommendations made by the Rec Committee at stage 1. Before I cover them, I would like to say that I also strongly agree with the cabinet secretary in not supporting amendment 39 in relation to the single agency. As deputy convener of the Rec Committee, we did not deliberate on this issue, nor did we offer any recommendations on it either at stage 1 or stage 2. However, I have to say that Claudia Beamish said in her speech that she talked about uncertainty, and I must say that, after hearing what was just said about the difference between a single agency and a sole agency and what the amendments meant to do and the two agencies in 39A and 39B, it brought more uncertainty to me as to what the actual aim of 39 is. Certainly with a single agency, I think that it brings more uncertainty to the whole structure of the forestry sector in Scotland. We attended a briefing in which Claudia Beamish and Colin Smith were not at. We were told that the loss of the public corporation status would mean the loss of the ability to carry over funds, the loss of the VAT exemption and the loss of the regulatory functions that we currently have between the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forestry Enterprise Scotland. As the cabinet secretary stated in his opening remarks, the Forestry Commission and Forestry Enterprise have stated that a single agency would be a disaster and that it would actually mean a loss of transparency. Gail Ross, except that it would also be highly damaging from a biodiversity and a climate change perspective as well. Gail Ross. Yes, absolutely. That was mentioned in the meeting as well. I thank Graham Day for that intervention. I would also like to say that Colin Smith's argument about the lack of engagement with the unions and organisations is not just a slight on the cabinet secretary, it is a slight on the bill team and all the staff that have worked so hard to get that bill to where we are at at the moment. That brings me to my amendment 2A, Claudia Beamish's amendment 2. I am not sure that the amendment was needed, given that the cabinet secretary did, as the red committee asked in the first place, and has provided members with a full and detailed statement setting out how the planned arrangements would work. I accept the rationale for it and also welcome the cabinet secretary's indication to make its requirements should members accept his case for the Government's planned administrative arrangements. I agree that it is important that the Parliament has the opportunity to be fully informed on the future administrative arrangements for a sector that does generate billions of pounds in value for the economy every year, but such a requirement to lay a further report on those arrangements should not interfere with the central purpose of this bill, which is to fully devolve forestry and its functions to this Parliament. To have sections 68 and 70 put on hold, I think would be disproportionate and unnecessary, so my amendment 2A seeks to put a distinct timetable to the process for laying a report so that it must be done by 1 April 2019, and I hope that members will agree and that Claudia Beamish will accept that my amendment adds to her proposal that she has put forward. Just as we as a Parliament should expect scrutiny before measures are implemented, I think that it is appropriate for those new administrative arrangements to be scrutinised by Parliament once they have been implemented and had the opportunity to bed in. I believe that it would help to provide reassurance if a further report was proposed in five years' time as set out in amendment 40. That appropriately recognises the post-legit of scrutiny role that we rightly have here. I welcome the cabinet secretary's intention that someone independent of government with suitable expertise conducts the report. I have it on record that he has said that that will be the case. Amendment 40 provides a substantially similar approach to Claudia Beamish's amendment 2, with the important difference of the acknowledgement that some people are rightly concerned about the lack of scrutiny for the Parliament. Should there be any further changes to the administrative arrangements in the future, I consider that it is appropriate to provide a statutory underpinning to that commitment, which is what subsection 4 of amendment 40 would achieve. In the interests of time, I will keep my comments short and let my colleague pick up on some of the amendments today. We will vote against if the cabinet secretary presses 33 and 36. It is for a very specific reason that the committee at stage 2 made it quite clear in its recommendation, recommendation 30, that to save the status of attached to forestry under this new structure that the head of that division should be designated as chief forester, and it calls on the Scottish Government to give consideration to that proposal. Unfortunately, those two amendments do not give consideration to that proposal. I think that there are good reasons for the creation of that position. I have not heard much of the contrary as to the any potential negative impacts or consequences of the creation of that, so for that reason we will not support those amendments that have pressed. I would ask the cabinet secretary not to press them for that reason. On amendments 2 and 2A, we will also be supporting the amendment from Claudia Beamish on this. In looking at the wording of the amendment, one of the potential positive impacts of that is that it could allow ministers indeed it would mean that ministers would have to justify decisions they made. For example, the removal of any forestry commissioner functions before doing so and come to Parliament and explain those reasons. I think that that seems a sensible amendment, which we are happy to support. I will not go into too much detail in 39. I think that it has been one of those amendments in this whole debate that have been one of the more controversial alongside compulsory purchase. It has been an interesting one to follow the last few weeks. It has been a flurry of emails and letters tuned from interested stakeholders and the minister. I think that there has been an element of perhaps a bit of a lightness in how we have debated all this. In future, as a committee, we ought to dedicate a little bit more time to this, but that being said, I think that we are reminded to support 39 by Claudia Beamish in the sense that there are reservations around what is happening here. This has nothing to do with whether the devolution of forestry should or should not happen. It has nothing to do with trying to make life more difficult for government or indeed trying to increase costs or have potential financial consequences. No one in the committee wants that and no one on these benches wants that. I do not believe that that was the purpose behind Claudia Beamish's amendment. The purpose is to react to the very detailed reservations that people have expressed around the loss of expertise, the loss of the brand of the Forestry Commission, which is, yes, I will. For the intervention, the experts that we spoke to from the Forestry Commission and Forestry for Enterprise Scotland have called it a disaster. What does Jamie Greene have to say to that? I do not agree with the fact that there will be a disaster if there is a new body created. I think that what we are trying to achieve is that the existing structure that works very well is going to disappear under the existing government plans. I think that what is trying to be achieved here is a replication of the very positive structures in the organisations that already exist. For that reason, I would support amendment 39. I think that that and any subsequent amendments from Colin Smyth around clarifying whether it is one body or two actually create a structure that allows this new body at more arms length than what the minister is trying to achieve. It was very telling in his comments earlier that he said that the purpose of all this is to try and bring all those functions as close to government as possible. Therein lies the problem and the concerns. The fact that the expertise, which is currently at reasonable arms length from government, will now be soaked into the civil service in this way. We have not had guarantees that there will be no loss of expertise. I think that it would be a real shame to see the loss of the brand of the Forestry Commission in Scotland, as will many other stakeholders. For that reason, I will support amendment 39. Peter Chapman, to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We cannot support amendment 23 or 26 in the name of the cabinet secretary, because although there was some confusion at stage 2 regarding what exactly the role of chief forester would be, it was supported cross-party by the committee at stage 1 and again at stage 2. If the Government was unhappy with section 64A, which relates to the establishment of the chief forester role, there should have been amendments to that effect. Removing it entirely from the bill is something that we cannot support. Amendment 39, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is probably the most contentious in the whole bill, but it seeks to stop the Scottish Government subsuming FCS into the heart of government. Our group has never been happy with the centralisation of powers into government, and we are not in favour of such a move here. It is about foreign state. Neither, I add, are the unions or the staff. Unlike what Fergus Ewing said earlier on in the debate, they are not in favour of such a move, either. End of year flexibility has been the subject of much debate, and Forestry Enterprise Scotland has had end of year flexibility in recent years in order to carry over funds from one year to the next. If that flexibility were lost, the funds would simply be surrendered to the Scottish Government, which could make up the difference the following year, quite simply. I would like to confirm that the chief finance officer in the Scottish Government has confirmed that that cannot readily happen, and that, in his view—I hope that members would respect his view as an impartial professional expert civil servant—the risk is that we would lose potentially last year over £31.5 million. The last five years, £78 million of underspend carried forward in Forest Enterprise Scotland. That would surely be an act of irresponsibility for any MSP to support. Peter Chapman The important word there was readily happened. If you want it to happen, you can make it happen, I firmly believe. However, the amendment 39b in Colin Smyth's name takes away that possibility, because then we are looking at two bodies. It is important that there is a real fear that expertise from a sector will be lost if FCS staff are taken into the heart of government. It is important to recognise that FCS staff have a long history of staying in post for a long number of years and gaining experience, whereas civil servants employed by the Government move on in a very regular manner. In regards to the amendment 40, in the name of Gail Ross, I have to say that I disagree with it. It is an alternative arrangement to that set out by Claudia Beamish in amendment 39. Ultimately, however, we as a group prefer 39, as this amendment does not stop Scottish Government taking force to commission Scotland into the heart of government. I mean, Gail Ross's amendment does not. Amendment 39a in the name of Stevenson is one that we will not be supporting. That amendment would entirely eliminate the option for a single agency that we think should be left on the table. As I said, 39b in the name of Colin Smyth changes the term, similar body to two agencies. That amendment widens the options of amendment 39, and we will be supporting it. Amendment 39c in the name of Andy Wightman is one that we will not be supporting, as it would introduce another bell and cause further delays to the establishment of new forestry agencies. We want to see amendment 39 moving forward after this bell is agreed, providing all involved stakeholders and staff peace of mind of the future of their agency. We will not support amendment 39d, as it does not refer to the whole bell and stop short of referring to the chief forester in section 64, which is not acceptable. The implementation of a chief forester has had cross-party support at stage 1 and 2 and should not be removed at stage 3. Amendment 2 in the name of Claudia Beamish acts as a check on the Scottish Government with respects to the removal of the functions of the forestry commissioner. During the commencement of this bell, the Scottish Government will have to publish a report setting out the administrative arrangements that they intend to make to facilitate this. It is logical to expect the removal to be justified and accountable before it takes place, so we support it. That is why we cannot support amendment 2a in the name of Gail Ross. As it removes this check, it removes reference to section 68, modifications of enactments and repeals, and section 74, forestry commissioner's functions, no longer exercisable in Scotland from amendment 2. If I would like to address amendment 23 in the name of the minister, I was very pleased at stage 2 when the committee accepted this into the bill. At a meeting after stage 2 with the minister, he certainly left me with the impression that he accepted the need for a chief forester as the head of the professional service, as it were, that would assist him and other ministers in the performance of their duties. I thought that this had all party support. Lo and behold, again, the minister said in his opening remarks that he was in favour of having a chief forester, and he is nodding ahead now. I was absolutely astonished when I read the amendment that the minister submitted, and I will just read the amendment. This is to remove this. This is in the bill now, and the minister wants to remove it. It says in the bill that the Scottish ministers must, for the purposes of assisting and advising them in carrying out of their functions under the act, appoint an officer to be known as the chief forester. The Scottish ministers must, by regulations, prescribe qualifications to be held by the person appointed as chief forester. I thought that that had all party support. I thought that the minister nodding his head saying that he supports that now, and yet why does he lodge an amendment to remove it? I just do not know. Perhaps if he would like to intervene on me and explain why I would be happy to give way. The explanation is very simple, and that is that there was advice to the effect that because the statutory inclusion of the provision relating to chief forester related to the civil service, that might be a matter that was ultra-verious. However, on looking at matters again, we concluded that it was a grey area. Because we are all in support, as Mr Rumbles knows, of the chief forester. Indeed, when I brought that forward in our statement, most stakeholders warmly welcomed it. I concluded that it was safe to leave the section in the statute, and I can confirm that I will therefore not be moving my motion to that effect. I think that we are all struggling to reach an agreement here, an agreement that has never been in doubt. We have supported a chief forester in our statement. We believe that that is a sensible step. It was recommended by the committee, and it is accepted by me. As with so many other of the amendments today, it was purely technical legal issues that guided our approach, which, from the point of government, one has to carefully consider. Mike Rumbles That was very long, but a very welcome intervention. I welcome it wholeheartedly. I am glad that the minister has backed down and is not going to move his amendment, so we will not need to do that. However, I was a bit shocked that he even laid the amendment in the first place. I would like to turn to what I think is the most important amendment of the entire day in stage 3, which is Claudia Beamish's amendment 39. Claudia Beamish brought this forward or something very similar to this forward in stage 2 and was convinced by the minister not to move it and to bring it back at stage 3, where we could perhaps get some agreement on it. That was a forelaw in hope. I am very glad that I moved amendment instead at stage 2, because I think that this is an extremely important amendment. Again, I am disappointed that no agreement could be reached with the minister about this. Gay Ross asked in her contribution, she said that she could not understand what the aim of amendment 39 was. Well, it has already been explained what the aim of 39 was. The aim of Claudia Beamish's amendment is simply to shift and lift, which is the phrase that was used. I think that it is a very good phrase to have used, because that is how I see this happening, that we shift and lift the UK Forestry Commission into Scotland, and we have a Scottish Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise at arm's length from the Scottish Government. Why or why, listening to all the evidence on the committee as I did, I couldn't understand why the Scottish Government wants to centralise control over this and make them civil servants. I just don't understand it. Let me finish the point. Every political party in this Parliament, every one, bar one, can see this. The SNP, for some reason, I don't know what it is, the SNP can't see that this act of 39 is the right way to go. It's a good—yes, of course— John Mason. I wonder if the member would just accept that we really did not look at this in the committee, because it was not in the bill, it was kind of given in the background, and so the reality is that the committee did not take evidence or really consider this. Members agree that it is right to close. We certainly did take evidence from it. We had witnesses giving us at stage one, so why you say that this didn't happen is beyond me, quite frankly. Amendment 39 is the most important part, and I would also support Colin Smyth's 39B. I think that that also adds something. It's actually not saying that it must be one single agency or it must be two. It gives ministers the option to do the right thing here, and I think that that's what Parliament is trying to say to the minister to do the right thing for the future of our forestry in Scotland. This will not delay reaching our forestry targets. I would hate to think that that was used as some sort of excuse. I move on to 39C, Andy Whiteman. I hear that the Conservatives are not going to support that, fair enough, but I think that I'm going to support that, and my Liberal Democrats' colleagues will support it, because I think that he's absolutely right. It's a pity that we've been a division throughout the whole afternoon, and members can laugh, but the division has been on nearly all of these votes. All of the parties in this Parliament, while the SNP have been in a particular position because we can see the merits of the case right across the parties, but the Government wants to produce this forward. If you could just take a little step back and listen to the evidence that the committee, the all-party committee, took on this, you will see that what we've been trying to do is the right thing for Scotland, for the Forestry Commission in Scotland. It is the right thing to do, and I would urge support of the amendments that I mentioned. Can I thank Edward Mountain for withdrawing, in the interest of brevity, not agreeing not to speak, but John Finnie wishes to speak very briefly? Very briefly, thank you. It is in my colleague Claudia Beamish's amendment there. The minister is very keen to talk about consensus, and there are a lot of audiences that have to be satisfied here. Consensus and the issue of late submission of some of the amendments has been across the board. That is entirely competent with stage 3, but what I would say is that consensus and pragmatism for the majority of people in here seems to be in reach, particularly in regard to the information that was helpfully shared about public corporation status. That is reflected in the fact that Stuart Stevenson has given us a bill there. We will be supporting Claudia Beamish's amendment for these reasons, along with Colin Smyth's. If I could call on the cabinet secretary to wind up this group. I will be brief. We have had a long debate. I just want to make a few points. First of all, if Parliament votes that we have the option of a two agency as opposed to a single agency approach, we will seek to make work the two agency option. The single agency option would lead to disastrous consequences as we have set out. I am pleased that Mr Finnie welcomes the fact that we provided that information. Secondly, Mr Rumbull says that the committee did take evidence about the organisational structure. Yes, evidence was heard on that and it was taken. That is correct. However, what did not happen is that the committee did not recommend that the Government consider and examine either a single, sole agency approach or a two agency approach. On the contrary, what the committee of this Parliament asked us to do was to provide more detail with the proposals for organisation as set out in the relevant memorandum attached to the bill and upon which there was a substantive previous consultation. I have to say that this Government did everything that the committee asked. Had the committee asked us to explore further single or two agency options, we would have considered that very carefully and we would have done that, but it did not do that. That is why there has been further analysis that I have had to share with members to try to inform the decisions that we are all about to take. Mr Smith said that he talked about bringing Forestry Commission and perhaps Forest Enterprise staff into the civil service. I have to point out that they already are civil servants and I think that that reflects with respect some misunderstandings that underlie some of that debate. In conclusion, we have set out a detailed statement setting out our plans, which we believe are the best interests of forestry in Scotland. We have responded to the recommendations of the committee. I have warmly endorsed the proposal for a chief forester, the proposal for a head of professional development. We have confirmed that the conservancies will remain in place and I visited every one of them. Sylvan House will continue to be the HQ for the staff of the Forestry Commission. Forest Enterprise offices will remain in situ. We will bring forward further proposals for engagement with stakeholders both at a national and a local level. From my lengthy engagement, over the past 18 months or so, with the workforce representatives, and also from extensive dialogue and engagement with all stakeholders, contrary to what Mr Smith said, where as there is not unity and where as there are still some concerns, I do believe—and I will conclude with this, Presiding Officer—that the majority of stakeholders now believe that the proposals that we have brought forward offer a sound basis to take forward forestry policy in Scotland and build on the great legacy that we will have bequeathed to us by the Forestry Commission in Scotland. In particular, the staff that I have met, whom I have engaged with and whose representatives I have engaged with, do not wish the delay that would be pursuant upon us rejecting the options that the committee apparently was happy for us to accept and flesh out and instead go for proposals that were brought forward, frankly, at the last minute of the parliamentary process in stage 3, which has led to the complexity, the unnecessary complexity of this debate this afternoon. However, if Parliament so passes and so minded, we will make a two-agency system work and I am confident that the staff in both agencies would be at the heart of Government. The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills If he wishes to press amendment 23, the cabinet secretary would seek to permission to withdraw amendment 23. Does the chamber agree? We agree. I call amendment 39, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed. Where were you when I need you? Call amendment 39A, in the name of Stuart Stevenson, already debated with amendment 23. Stuart Stevenson to move or not move. I remind members that, if amendment 39A is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 39B to be preempted. The question is that amendment 39A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to division. Members may cast their votes now, and this will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 39A, in the name of Stuart Stevenson, is yes, 61, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 39B, in the name of Colin Smith, already debated. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 39B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 39C, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated. Andy Wightman to move or not move. I call amendment 39D, in the name of Stuart Stevenson, already debated. Stuart Stevenson to move or not move. The question is that amendment 39D be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now, and this will be a 30-second division. The result of the vote on amendment 39D, in the name of Stuart Stevenson, is yes, 89, no, 35. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I ask Claudia Beamish whether she wishes to press amendment 39. I still wish to press it. Thank you. The question is that amendment 39B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 39D, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is yes, 63, no, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 40, in the name of Gail Ross, already debated. Gail Ross to move or not move. The question is that amendment 40B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. No, we're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 40, in the name of Gail Ross, is yes, 88, no, 35. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 24, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated. This is already debated with amendment 7. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a debate. I vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 24, in the name of Andy Wightman, is yes, 64, no, 60. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 25, 26 and 27, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to move the amendments on block? I move on block. Does any member object to a single question that has been put on amendments 25, 26 and 27? You do. In that case, we'll put them individually. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. This is amendment 26. The result of the vote on amendment 26, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is yes, 83, no, 41. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 2, in the name of Claudia Beamish, to move or not to move. Is that too late? Presiding Officer, it's not too late first. The question is that amendment… Is that too late? Oh, sorry. I'll go in two ways first. I call amendment 2A, in the name of Gail Ross, to move or not to move. Move. The question is that amendment 2A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. This is amendment 2A. The result of the vote on amendment 2A, in the name of Gail Ross, is yes, 83, no, 41. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I ask Claudia Beamish that she wishes to press amendment 2? Has amendment… Yes, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. This is amendment 2A, as amended. The result of the vote on amendment 2, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is yes, 62, no, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 28, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 9. Of course, sir. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are agreed. That ends consideration of amendments. Now, as members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings, I am now required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of this bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for the Scottish Parliament elections. In the case of this bill, in my view, it does not. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I am just going to suspend proceedings for a few moments. Let's take a five-minute comfort break. The next item of business is a debate on motion 11111, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill at stage 3. Before I invite Fergus Ewing to open the debate, I call on the cabinet secretary to signify Crown Consent to the Bill. Thank you. I begin with the important matter of Crown Consent for the purposes of rule 911 of the standing orders. I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prerogative interests so far as they are effected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. If you could sit down again, please, cabinet secretary. It's just to inform everyone that we are really short of time for this debate, severely short in fact, and can't extend decision time any more. So I'm leaving the choice open to the chamber. If everyone cuts a minute off their contributions, everyone should be able to get in. However, if people insist on using all their time, I'm going to have to cut up to three speakers, which is certainly not ideal. I now begin the debate and call on Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion. The allotted time was eight minutes, and brevity would be appreciated. Today, Presiding Officer, is on a historic occasion. This bill is the first forestry legislation since this Parliament was reconvened in 1999. I'm proud to be the cabinet secretary responsible for this landmark bill. It completes the process of devolution of forestry that was started with the Scotland Act nearly 20 years ago. The Forestry Commission was established in 1919 to expand forests and woodlands after those were depleted during the First World War. It has achieved a great deal from which it can take pride. But administrative arrangements need to change with the times, and nearly a century on, the arrangements for forestry should reflect devolution. I'm determined that forestry will be at the heart of the work of the Scottish Government. The powers and duties held by the forestry commissioners in so far as they relate to Scotland will be transferred to Scottish ministers, and the management and regulation of forestry in Scotland will become fully accountable to this Parliament. The bill modernises the statutory framework for the development, management, regulation and support of forestry in Scotland. The sector is worth nearly £1,000 million a year to the Scottish economy, and it supports around 25,000 jobs. For the first time, there will be a statutory requirement to prepare a forestry strategy and a duty to promote sustainable forest management. Forestry is important to Scotland. It is a vibrant sector and one that we want to expand. It delivers a broad range of environmental outcomes, in particular climate change mitigation, and it supports and enriches the health and wellbeing of those who live in and visit Scotland. Our ambition is to lead the sustainable growth of forestry. The work of the Parliament today will help to deliver that ambition. From my engagement with the forestry commission staff at Sylvan House and the five Conservancies throughout the country, I am aware of the high standards of professionalism and of the commitment of the workforce to the promotion of forestry in Scotland. From my work with Forest Enterprise Scotland, I have seen the great work that they do on their core responsibilities in forestry, but also in other areas such as the environment, renewable energy, tourism, recreation, such as mountain biking, community woodland development and others. I look forward over the next few years to continue regular engagement with the entire workforce throughout the country. I wish to express my gratitude to stakeholder engagement, in particular from Confor and Scottish land and estates. I also wish to acknowledge the forestry commission trade unions for their very positive and constructive engagement over the peace. I am looking forward to on-going discussions with them, including twice yearly formal meetings. By including the additional sustainable development, the bill also enables more effective use of Scotland's publicly owned land. A minister will be responsible for managing the national forest estate to contribute to multiple outcomes. The bill has improved and strengthened as a result of the parliamentary process, and I welcome that. Although it is not the approach that I and many stakeholders and senior forestry figures prefer, I accept that Parliament has legislated for ministers to establish two Scottish Government executive agencies to deliver their functions. That arrangement will avoid the disaster of the successor to Forest Enterprise Scotland losing its financial flexibilities, and we shall make every effort to make that approach work, in particular for the staff who will transfer to the Scottish Government next April. Both will be part of the Government. Both will act as agents for Scottish ministers, and I will seek to ensure that both will be at the very heart of the work of the Scottish Government. Presiding Officer, I have followed your admonition at the beginning to be short, and I will conclude by saying that the Forestry Commission, which has existed for 99 years, has left us with a proud legacy of achievement. Now we have the opportunity in completing the devolution of forestry to take forward that great legacy for another century. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and I call Peter Chapman. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This afternoon we have had a good discussion, and I am pleased to see amendments from members across the chamber past at stage 3. I feel that all the amendments made will see this bill be much more effective at achieving its aims and providing assurance to those working in the industry. This bill is required under devolution to wind up the Forestry Commission as a cross-border public authority, transfer relevant property and liabilities to Scottish ministers, and transfer staff to create new organisational structures for forestry and land management in Scotland. It will repeal the Forestry Act 1967, and that is why it is so important that we work together to get it right. My aim during this process has been to allow the devolution of forestry to be a smooth process that is agreed between all the stakeholders and not imposed. The process needs to lead to the creation of a body that is fit for purpose and is able to meet the ambitious planting targets that have been set, namely achieving 10,000 hectares of new planting this year and expanding to 15,000 hectares by 2025. I firmly believe that this is possible and I hope that it can be achieved. It will help to meet our climate change targets, as trees are a great way to soak up carbon. It will help to fill our increasing demand for timber and make a dent in our timber imports, and we are, after all, the second largest importer of timber in the world, and it will provide jobs in some of our most remote and rural areas. Some say that that will impact our farmers and drive sheep off health. However, I firmly believe that there are real opportunities for our farmers to embrace timber growing and become much more like farmers in Scandinavian countries who are both farmers and foresters and reap financial benefits as a result. We did not want to see the Scottish Government take all of these functions into central government, which is why I am glad to see Claudia Beamish's amendment passed today, ensuring that all agencies remain out with government and at arm's length. We have met many concerned stakeholders who believe that this is the best way for the industry to move forward. I am also firmly of the opinion that end-year financial flexibility can be achieved under this model. I am pleased to say that both of the motions that I had submitted this afternoon have passed. The First Amendment that I submitted was in relation to tree health, which has always been an important matter from the early stages of this bill. We can never have enough research when it comes to tree health. Our forests are under an increasing threat from new diseases and climate change, and the more knowledge that we have, the better we can manage our forests sustainably. That must include cross-border tree health, which has been a major concern of many stakeholders, with the cross-border powers of the forestry commissioners being repealed with this bill. It is vital that cross-border tree health is still managed. My second amendment ensures that when preparing the forestry strategy, the Government must include planting targets. As this bill is about growing our forestry land, this is a necessary part of the strategy. The Scottish Government has missed its planting target of 10,000 hectares every year since 2001. With the aim of this bill and this Government to increase to 15,000 hectares by 2025, we need that to be monitored and measured. A concern that was shared by many at stage 1 of this bill was the issue of compulsory purchase for the purpose of sustainable development. That has been a red line for our group. We have never said that, in 1967, compulsory powers included in that should never be rolled over, but we have always agreed that the extension of those powers to include sustainable development were not needed and are not wanted. We welcome this bill after today's amendments. I am glad that considerations from all parties in this chamber have been taken into account. We have successfully worked to create a bill that works for stakeholders, our forestry industry and Scotland's environment and landscape. I support this bill. Scottish Labour supports the devolution of forestry powers, and we welcome the efforts within the forestry and land management bill to promote sustainable forestry management and strengthen and grow the sector in Scotland. It is a sector of huge importance to Scotland, supporting around 25,000 full-time equivalent jobs and £954 million of gross value added. The home region of Dumfries and Galloway is the most densely forested area in the country, with woods and forests covering 31 per cent of the land. The region is a major timber producing area that is harvesting 30 per cent of Scotland's home-grown timber each year, and it is home to Scotland's largest biomass power station. It is a little wonder that the timber industry is responsible for more than 3,000 jobs in the region, which is crucial in such a rural area. However, there remains a great deal more to be done to maximise the benefits of forestry in Scotland. The devolution of forestry powers is an opportunity to make significant strides in that regard. There are many positive and potentially transformative provisions in the amended bill, such as the creation of the forestry strategy, the establishment of the post of chief forester and the new statutory duty that is placed on public bodies to promote sustainable forests. Given the importance of forestry to our communities, it is imperative that we get the devolution of forestry powers to Scotland right, ensuring that the industry is not only protected but bolstered both now and in the long term, and that we proceed with the maximum support of all stakeholders. Fundamental to that is setting up the organisational arrangements for those new powers. Although the original bill did not deal directly with those arrangements, it was somewhat naive to believe that they would not be at the heart of the debate on the legislation before us, particularly given that the Government was using the devolution of forestry to try to centralise functions within Government. I am delighted that the Parliament has taken a stand against that when voting on amendments, and I am pleased that the Parliament will also get an opportunity to scrutinise the proposals when the Government will bring them forward for the new organisational arrangements. Forestry Commission Scotland has had a considerable success during its 100 years of existence, and it has taken a long-term approach, which is so important to the sector. It is well respected in the highly effective brand with an unequivocal focus on forestry and a level of expertise among its staff. There was genuine concern that that would undoubtedly be put at risk by the Scottish Government's plans to create a Government decision. I am pleased that the Parliament has listened, even if the Government chose not to do so. I hope that there will be a greater effort to take a consensual approach when bringing forward revised proposals for the new organisational structure. Those plans must not only be in line with the legal requirements of the bill, but they must reflect its intentions and spirit in full as a result of today's amendments and the comments that were made during the debate. There is an opportunity for the Government to reach a genuine consensus, and it should take that opportunity. Although, unfortunately, not all the constructive amendments that were put forward by all parties were successful today, Labour is pleased to support that amended bill and the opportunity's devolution will bring to forestry in Scotland. The success of the bill, in realising its aims, will, however, depend on a significant degree of on-going work. The development of the organisational arrangements for those powers and the contents of the up-and-coming forestry strategy will both be critical to ensuring that the overarching ambitions of the bill, which are shared by members across the chamber, are fully realised. With the bill agreed later today, I hope that we can move forward to build on the success of the forestry sector in Scotland and truly deliver the huge potential that it has. I think that this has been a very positive scrutiny that has taken place. I think that there has been some very positive engagement, not just with the public, but with the workforce. I think that the committee took the role of scrutinising the legislation very seriously. I also think that it has raised the profile of forestry, and I think that that is very important. Others have talked about the number of people who are employed in the industry. It is an industry worth nearly a billion. It is a significant industry across Scotland, but, of course, of great importance in rural communities, which I represent. The cabinet secretary talked about this being a historic legislation, and that is certainly the case. Of course, it is a significant responsibility that lies on the people who are responsible for looking after the national forest to say that it is an immense amount of land. There has always been transactions about that sales and disposals. I was pleased at stage 2 that the committee agreed that the retention of moneys connected with the disposals would be re-injected back into forestry. Of course, we know that forestry is not just about trees, timber production, much has been made of the recreational use that has been made. Increasingly, the health benefits are being recognised, significantly mental health benefits, so the wellbeing. Of course, forests have a lot to play, part to play. As we have heard with some of the amendments that my colleague Claudia Beamish brought forward about the Kyoto agreement, deer and biodiversity, there is linkage between and across all of those. Forests cover 18 per cent of our country, and the predominant species is cedcus spruce. People will, I am no doubt, share my concerns about a disease that I understand is affecting that now. That is why I am very happy to support Peter Chapman's amendments about the importance of a shared experience about timber health. Disease has no boundaries, just like fish don't. The international co-operation is very important. I am keen that there is expansion of our native woodland, rather than reliance exclusively on cedcus spruce, which covers a third of the area. It is important that we look to the future and what that future might bring. We got off to the debate on the amendments and got a very positive start by talking about the overarching principles that were considered. I think that that gave a very clear policy direction. I think that forestry is a dynamic sector. We know that there are challenges connected with production, and the promotion of sustainable forest management is something that we will all subscribe to. There is a key role for the strategy there and there will be a key role for parliament in maintaining a watching brief over the direction of that. I have no doubt that we will be hearing on the rural economy connectivity committee from the cabinet secretary at some future date. I do not have an indication of time, Presiding Officer. Half a minute. I think that it is positive that it is important that we look ahead. We know that the blip that is coming in production will really need a concerted effort to address some of the challenges that lie ahead. However, we know that forestry has historically done that, and I am sure that it will continue to do that. It is an important sector that will require important scrutiny from this Parliament. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome the amended bill. The parliamentary process in the passage of the bill shows, in my view, Parliament working at its best. From taking evidence at stage 1, by interrogating the real detail of the bill and improving it, it is at its best. I know that the minister might not feel that, but I can assure him that it is Parliament working at its best. The fact that the minister does not get all his own way has to be a good thing. I welcome the fact that Parliament was today to assert its authority over the wishes of the Government. I was particularly pleased to see that the further unnecessary powers of compulsory purchase that the minister wanted simply because they wanted them was denied to them, because they never ever came forward with an explanation as to why they wanted them. However, there is no doubt that the amendment in Claudia Beamish's name was the most important amendment of the day. Shifting and lifting—that is the phrase that was used from Labour benches—is a really good phrase to describe what I think we have done in the Scottish Parliament. We have shifted and lifted the UK's Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise to become the Scottish Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise, preventing the absorption of staff into the civil service and, in my mind, safeguarding the experience and expertise of the foresters. That is what I particularly took from the evidence that was given to us in committee. I am particularly pleased that the position of chief forester is safeguarded from stage 2, because that is what the committee did in stage 2. It was opposed by the minister, but I am pleased to see that it is supported by him. I am particularly pleased that the minister did not move his amendment to take the chief forester's post out of the bill. I know that time is short. Two minutes is enough for me to make the point. I think that what we have to concentrate now on and what the minister's task to do now is that the work really does begin to see a successful and efficient forestry industry grow in Scotland. Thank you, Mr Rumbles. We will now move to the open debate. Speeches of three minutes, please. Gail Ross, followed by Jamie Greene. As deputy convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I would like to begin, as I normally do, in these debates by thanking my fellow committee members, everyone that gave evidence, both in writing and in person, the clerks and spies for all our reports and briefings. I would also like to thank all the members of the forestry team, the staff that have worked so hard to get us to this point of general agreement. I know that many long hours have been put into the passing of this bill. With the passing of the Forestry and Land Management Scotland bill, we are completing the devolution of forestry, as led out in the Government's programme for Scotland. We made a commitment in our 2016 manifesto to devolve forestry, to take it into government, whether that is an agency or a division, and to establish a new land agency for Scotland, based on forestry enterprise, to manage public land in the best interests of the public. I sincerely hope that that is what we have done. Our committee spent a lot of time taking evidence and analysing everything that was put to us in the bill. The fact that the single agency model was never debated until stage 3 gave us little time for in-depth and valuable scrutiny of the option. The two agency model is uncosted, untested and unexplored, but it is clearly a better option than losing our public corporation status and the disastrous consequences that that would have brung. As it is, we now have staff that are uncertain of how long this will take and how the two agency model will work. I am sure that, as has been said before, we will make it work together, support the staff and I am interested to see suggestions from opposition parties about how this is actually going to work. As a committee, we supported the general principles of the bill, but we made a number of recommendations in our stage 1 report. The first one was that the Scottish Government provided a comprehensive statement setting out how it will manage its forestry responsibilities, and the cabinet secretary did so. The document set out the new governance arrangements, how the organisation must be structured, how the funding would be provided, which is still to be from the Scottish Government. The promise of local offices being retained, a clear commitment to no compulsory redundancies, the creation of a corporate plan, and the post of chief forester. That has been positively received, comfor, BSW Timbers, Scottish Land and Escape States, the UK Forest Products Association, all said that it was positive that they were sufficiently reassured and the industry's concerns were addressed. Although I am now unclear and maybe the cabinet secretary can address how these governance arrangements will apply to the new structure. I know that there was an interest, so I will also mention in my conclusion that I met with the cabinet secretary to discuss my stage 1 amendment about sustainable forest management. As was mentioned, that is a definition that is continually developing. I am satisfied that, after our discussion, the place for that definition is in the forestry strategy and that it will be included there. As I said before, I hope that we can all work together now to take the bill forward in a positive manner. Jamie Greene, followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today's proceedings, another mammoth set of proceedings, I think that this is turning into habit at these late night sessions. I do hope not. I think that what we have seen as a result of a lot of co-operation from members, and especially from the committee. I would like to thank my colleagues on the RAC Committee. I know that we do disagree on a number of matters throughout the course of the stages, but I would like to think at the end of all this, as we go forward with a bill that has Parliament's consensus. I am pleased that we are able to ensure that the devolution of forestry in Scotland happens and carries over many of the powers that were in the 1967 act, but we do so in a way that is also fit for purpose and reflects the need for forestry today. Without laboring any of the previous arguments, I have cut them out of my speech here, but on the issue of compulsory purchase, I am pleased that the minister still has the powers that he held previously, but just no more, that is all. I am also pleased that, on the issue of achieved forestry, there was a good debate on that. It is an important point, and I am equally pleased that this was a matter that was conceded. We have covered a real wide range of subjects over the last few months on forestry in Scotland. It is a very important topic to many of us, and a major source of not just income but also livelihoods and communities right across rural Scotland. We have covered everything from compulsory purchase to even some of the more subjective discussions around what is sustainable development, something that Gail Ross mentioned, or what are community controlled bodies and what is cross-border tree health and how should it look and feel, and what is felling and the circumstances around that. The world has changed from the original act, but, throughout the process, members have sought to improve transparency and scrutiny of the bill, and to mitigate any potential negative consequences of the structural changes that are taking place. That was a policy decision to do so. I am always of the belief that, if it is not broke, it will not fix it, but none the less decisions have been made. The Forestry Commission Scotland is an important and well-known and, in my view, a well-respected brand. I hope that goodwill remains as we move forward. We should also, at this point, thank the staff involved in the industry. It provides tremendous career opportunities, and we should also thank those who manage Scottish land on our behalf. Perhaps what is my shortest speech ever, I will summarise by saying that this is an industry that we should all be seeking to grow. We have targets to achieve. In the growth of the industry, I hope that we do so in the most inclusive way possible. I thank members for all their hard work in the bill. Alex Rowley, followed by Stuart Stevenson. I also welcome the bill, as amended by the chamber, but what is key to all of this is ensuring that land management works best for the people of Scotland. As such, it is vital that the Parliament listens to the views of key stakeholders and takes on board the recommendations that their expertise offers. It has recently been estimated that the forestry sector supports around 26,000 jobs and £954 million of gross value added. Aside from the clear economic impacts, it also impacts on climate change, biodiversity, flood management, health and wellbeing. I bear all of this in mind. It is clear that any changes to forestry management are well considered and thought through to deliver positive outcomes in all regards. When delivering the social, economic and environmental benefits of forestry as the bill has intentions of doing, those benefits must be to the benefit of all and not simply the few. There were serious concerns over the SNP centralising agenda in regard to that. Indeed, the Woodland Trust has stated, and I quote, that the loss of dedicated standalone public body for forestry in Scotland will result in the loss of forestry focus in Scottish policy making along with loss of professional expertise from the trained foresters who currently staff the Forestry Commission Scotland. That is why Scottish Labour believed that it was essential for the Scottish Forestry Commission to be organised as a two agency. I am pleased that that has been agreed today. I do hope that the Government has listened and paid attention to the views that have been expressed, not just today but in this whole process. It is also why there should be a statutory footing for the position of the chief forester, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary did not push that amendment. Forestry has many beneficial impacts, but the key to that is the expansion of our native woodlands. Indeed, Scotland has lost much of its native woodland and is now one of the least forested countries in Europe. By increasing and by a diversity of forests, we will give future generations a rich environment that benefits all. The economic benefits of forestry are important. We cannot ignore the environmental impacts of mismanagement. That is why it is essential that we utilise and retain expertise and not simply create another centralised civil service directorate that simply maintains rather than helps flourish our natural land and environment. That is why it is good to be standing here supporting the bill as amended. Let me start by agreeing with Peter Chapman when he highlighted the opportunities that there are for forestry, agriculture and abarrow culture to work together. Abarrow culture includes vines, I look forward to vines in Scotland in the future, because I think that there is an underexploited opportunity there. Alex Rowley highlighted climate change and I absolutely agree with him on the importance of forestry to managing and mitigating the effects of climate change. Just a little word about unused powers. We have had a discussion about compulsory purchase powers that have never been used. That is not to say that they have no effect, because the very existence of powers forces people whose powers might be exercised over to come to conclusions. Let me give you an example of an unused power that touches on the life of us here. Forging the great seal of Scotland is in fact high treason. It has been in the Scots law canon for over 500 years, and, as far as I can establish, it has never been used. It is, nonetheless, of considerable value that it is part of our legal system. Unused powers are not powers without value. The great Michael, which I referred to in the stage 1 debate, when it was built in 1513, was 1,000 tonnes and was the biggest warship in the world. It cleared all the forest of fife and imported wood from elsewhere. A couple of years later, the English decided that they wanted a bigger vessel, so they built something even bigger. The great Michael, an impressive achievement, was never used for any particularly useful purpose. Let me just, in the last few seconds that I have, draw on personal experience. My wife reported to me earlier this month to men, because it was men, came to the door. We live on four acres and were surrounded on three sides by forests of about 70 to 80 acres. They came to make her aware that some of that forestry was going to be harvested over the next few years and to discuss the plans. One of the person was the new owner of the forestry and the other was from the Forestry Commission. My wife felt that that was an excellent intervention by the Forestry Commission person to talk it through what was going to happen and give sufficient notice, because it is actually three years notice, to allow us to put some more protective trees up that might start to grow in that period to continue to give the shelter that the forest has. Forestry Commission is one of our crowning glories. I hope that today's act, as it will become, supports its future development and success. As someone who has grown up, lived and worked, and now represents the constituency of Galloway and Western Fries, I have always been acutely aware, and I know that other members in the chamber here are also aware of the importance of the forestry industry to my region with the biggest forest park in the UK. I supported the amendments that were put forward by my Scottish Conservative colleagues and others across the chamber, designed to safeguard the forestry industry going forward. Like my Scottish Conservative colleagues, I had grave concerns over the bill's plans to take powers away from the Forestry Commission and hand power over to their function to a division within the Scottish Government. We have repeatedly said that the way to support our forestry industry is not by taking away power from the commission, a commission that has helped to create and support thousands of jobs in our urban and rural communities, and a commission that is rooted in the community serves, supports and sustains. We have listened to the concerns from the Scotland land and the states, who stated that we have a major concern with the Government's current proposals. That is that we do not believe that they will best enable the retention of forest expertise within the public sector, a verdict that could not be any clearer. That is why I was pleased to add my support to Claudia Beamish's amendment earlier, which will pave the way for one or two agencies. That will mean that Scotland's forestry is managed at an arms length from the Scottish Government, an agency that is able to function away from Government control. That single agency will deliver far greater accountability for stakeholders through a board with the non-executive directors. I know that my constituents in Galloway and Western Fife would not have wanted yet more going to functions in the Scottish Government, and I was pleased to reject further centralisation through the various amendments today. I was also at a loss as to why Fergus Ewing went against the committee's recommendation that would take away the creation of a position for chief forester. Not only was he going against the advice of the committee in this Parliament, he was not listening to the advice of the experts. Once again, Scottish land and the states said that to ensure the retention of professional staff in the long term, the bill should create a post of chief forester for Scotland. Ministers should commit to designating key professional posts. You only need to look at the fact that the average length of time spent working in the forest commission is around 25 years, whereas in the Scottish Government it is merely two. To speed up very quickly, I am pleased to show my support for the amendments that were designed to strengthen the bill rather than weaken the legislation and ultimately the industry itself. I support that bill. Thank you, and the last of the open debate speakers is Richard Lyle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to begin this afternoon by reflecting, because I know that many across this chamber will believe that I am someone who is always for development, but I am also a believer in conservation. Particularly when it comes to the aims of this bill, we are so privileged in Scotland to have beautiful areas that are enriched with forests and trees. Aberdeenshire, for example, where I visited a lot recently, is filled with incredible scenes. Of course, there are many to even in the central belt, and I must also mention Strackley country park again. The bill seeks to protect and develop those special places as we plan for the future. I hope that my new grandson, Nathan, who we have just welcomed into this world and who is very much enjoying his baby box, another great idea by the Government, will be able to grow up to an age in a country that protects and celebrates its incredible landscape, thanks to the legislation that we are passing today. Indeed, the new framework and administrative arrangements have been put into place. Hopefully, we will support forestry in Scotland for years ahead, as I have already outlined, and we will give forestry's rightful place in supporting Scotland's economy. I wish to reflect on the contributions by stakeholders. In particular, I wish to mention Confor, who, through his chief executive, Stuart Goodall, have made a truly valuable contribution in their input on the bill and who have worked constructively to put across their opinions and knowledge in those areas. There have been various amendments passed this afternoon that will have to stand the test of time, such as Andy Wightman's pie chat. I am sure that the Government will enjoy making pies. I think that the cabinet secretary for his work—no, I do not have time, sorry—has continually made himself and officials available to the committee in consideration. He has sought to work collaboratively with those who have interests in doing so, so he has my high respect. He has, of course, been supported by various officials, people such as Kate Higgins of the Scottish Government, who has been a great help in understanding some of the working of the bill. I thank her, too, for her work. The committee, the Government and the officials who are sitting behind me have been on hand to talk through the bill, and they have also been there to address questions that members have. I thank all and all for their approach. The bill today is a key to our ambition in order to lead the sustainable growth of forestry to increase its already substantial economic, social and environmental contribution to Scotland. Completing forestry functions will help to support the ambition. I hope that, for years to come, the effects of the legislation will be recognised for the contribution that it makes to keep Scotland the beautiful country that we all know. Everyone has been really, really good today. We are back on time, and I will move to the closing speeches. I call Claudia Beamish for minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Tomorrow is International Forest Day, a day to celebrate the importance of forests and the ways that they sustain and protect us the world around. We can also look forward to the Forestry Commission's centennial celebrations next year, so this is truly a time to focus our minds on the best way forward for Scotland's forests. Throughout this process of this bill, I have heard from a number of impassioned voices, as have many of us in this chamber. My thanks go to all those who I have managed to engage with, along with my colleague Colin Smyth, including numerous emails from South Scotland constituents. Forestry's future is that of a growing sector, already thriving, as a £1 billion industry. It faces an opportunity for yet more significant growth, but also new challenges to keep up with planting targets, maintaining a good supply of commercial timber, and improving rates of natural regeneration of native and ancient woodlands. I am relieved that the Scottish Government has today accepted my amendments on deer management and climate change and biodiversity, which I think are very important in those regards. Rural economies and employment, green urban spaces and, as John Finnie has mentioned, mental wellbeing, construction and low-carbon materials, community initiatives and tourism and so much more is important and what comes from our forestry. This Parliament has made the right choices, in my view, for the future of forestry, with the right structures for governance. From consultation stage 2, and consistently, since then, the Government has been made aware of the significant unease regarding its vision for forestry. There is 100 years of success under the current arrangements. Let's secure the sector's strong footing and nurture its ability to grow by preserving the skills on the ground knowledge and the irreplaceable expertise of FCS and FES staff. I want to thank them all today. Forestry needs, indeed, are long-term vision. It could not operate as it currently and successfully does if it was the full victim to the changeable whim of a future minister, a Government department restructuring or a new Government and manifesto. I don't need to remind this chamber that it has been less than 10 years since the SNP Government attempted to lease publicly-owned forests to private companies. My amendment and Colin Smith's amendment today sought to require Scottish ministers to carry out their forestry functions through an agency or agencies to both retain this proven and effective brand and allow the retention of Forestry Enterprise Scotland's public corporation status as the cabinet secretary has highlighted. I have also required a greater level of scrutiny by report to Parliament, which adds a further layer of comfort in ensuring that we get this process right. I am grateful for the support of the Parliament today for amendment 2. The climate service that our forest provides is one that we should not take for granted. The climate change plan woodland expansion targets are welcoming, increasing the sequestration capacity. As well as that, community woodland projects and local rural development goals must shine in the future. Bit by bit, planting and subdividing land into smaller plots can empower communities and often offer a greater focus on nurturing biodiversity and climate mitigation. I have been a strong advocate of agroforestry in the previous session of the Parliament and hope to continue to do so, as was highlighted by Peter Chapman. Scotland has indeed a bright future in sustainable forestry. Today, the Parliament, in my view, has helped to secure it. I am eager to support the bill as amended. I call Edward Mountain up to five minutes, please, Mr Mountain. Presiding Officer, I will do my best to fulfil the time that you give me. We, the Scottish Conservatives, are delighted to add our support to the forestry and land management bill. We believe that this bill, as amended, will work in the best interests of our environment, our conservation efforts, our timber trade and our natural forest estate. We are pleased that this bill completes the full devolution of forestry to Scotland. More powers mean more responsibility on the Scottish Government to improve its, frankly, I would have to say, poor record of achieving planting targets. Under Richard Lochhead's stewardship and now Fogus Ewing, the target for planting 10,000 hectares a year has not been reached. This needs to be resolved. Targets are targets and achieving targets and hitting targets is important. Therefore, we welcome the cabinet secretary with his intention to raise the planting targets to 12,000 hectares per year in 2020, an ambitious target on one that we and the party will work together with him to ensure that he achieves. We will also be monitoring carefully the rebranding of the forestry commission to Forest Scotland. There is always a temptation to spend lots of money to make overnight changes. It can often be done as the cabinet secretary accepted at half the price if branding has changed on equipment and vehicles as they are replaced on a rotational basis. I would like to remind him of his commitment to that. We also heard during the evidence session for the need for a new computer system, too. I think that we are all praying for one that works and one that will work and deliver for Scotland's forestry. The Scottish Government, we believe, now has all the tool it needs in reaching its planting targets and doing what it needs to do with forestry. I am mindful, Presiding Officer, of the time and the fact that you wanted me to keep my comments brief, and I will. Today, I believe that we saw the Parliament working as it should, working across the chamber to achieve issues that all parties consider important. What is true is that not everyone got everything that they wanted, but what we have done is managed to deliver a new forestry structure for Scotland. I am delighted that the cabinet secretary has made an undertaking to make it work and the will of Parliament work. I would also like other members of this Parliament to take time to thank all those who have held the Parliament in their discussions and the scrutiny of the bill, from the clerks in the committee to the members of Confor and other agencies and the trade unions that came in and spoke to us. Being informed about matters that sometimes we do not all know as much as they do is actually, frankly, very helpful. I would also particularly like to thank all the members of the Wreck Committee for the diligence that they gave during the scrutiny of the bill, and for those of them that are in here, I just want to remind you that we start stage 2 of the Ireland's bill debate tomorrow morning promptly on time. I think that this has been a good debate with positive outcomes for the forestry in Scotland, and the Government will have to have listened to the combined views of the Opposition parties to come to a sensible and worthwhile outcome, which I believe will take forestry in Scotland forward, which must be the aim of all parties in the chamber. I now call Fergus Ewing. If you could take us up to just before decision time at 6.45, please, cabinet secretary. I will see what I can do, Presiding Officer. I thank members for the contributions to the debate. I have found the whole parliamentary process of hyper-stimulating at times. Improvements had been made in the by-going. I think that the main improvements were made, actually, because the Government accepted the vast majority of the recommendations that Wreck made, the committee—the league committee—made at stage 1. They were taken forward. We have listened to Parliament and we have acted upon it. Now the responsibility rests with me primarily, as the minister, to make it work. In that task, I know that we will succeed because I have built up over the past two years excellent working relationships with Joe Harra, Simon Hodge and their professional teams. It is because of their commitment, dedication and professionalism that I know that we will make those arrangements work. I am quite sure that Parliament will hold me to that as well. It was a Highlander, Simon Fraser, who I think was the 14th Lord of Love It and the redoubtable figure who was the founding father of the Forestry Commission in 1919, following, I think, the Ackland report of three years prior to that, when Britain was denuded of trees. The action taken then was really quite radical. The forest estate was built up with successive injections of drive, enthusiasm and finance from the likes of Philip Snowden, the Chancellor and the First Labour Government and Winston Churchill in the Baldwin Government, so that by the beginning of the Second World War, the Forestry Commission was the largest landowner in Britain. That was an amazing achievement, actually, and it was followed after the Second World War with a further wave of plantations with Scotland, I think, leading the way. Indeed, my late uncle, David Woodburn, was someone who played a great part in that process. Over the 1999 years, since the Forestry Commission was established, the National Forest Estate grew, and the aims have extended. They extended to include, as well as the core purpose of forestry, conservation, tourism, renewable energy and a whole host of other functions, and they have risen to the task of meeting those additional tasks and functions as they have been accumulated. I want to say that I am acutely conscious of the legacy that is bequeathed by the Forestry Commission. The phrase that I have used to describe it, really after I had the opportunity and the pleasure to work with many of the, not just the management but also the staff around the country, is that it is essential that we continue the ethos and the spirit of the commission. For a great many, if not most of the staff who work for the commission and the forestry enterprise, it is not just a job, it is a calling, a vocation, a profession to which they are themselves personally devoted. I want to place on record that we need to do our best to preserve that and we are aware of that and to preserve and protect those traditions continuing in practice for the next 100 years. It was because of that that I set out in the statement that I brought forward at the behest of Parliament for the creation of a chief forester who will be responsible as head of professional development and the chief forester will become the head of the agency, which was formerly the Forestry commission. That particular measure was very much welcomed by all the stakeholders, even those who were not satisfied with the proposals that we brought forward, as was the commitment to maintain the Conservancies, to maintain Sylvan House, to maintain the Offices of Forest Enterprise and to indeed maintain that ethos to which I referred. The next few years, I hope, have reached the target of 10,000 hectares of new plantings and moved on to the even more ambitious target of 15,000 hectares by 2025. Indeed, it was a study by WWF that concluded that unless planting rates are increased, then by 2050—for the younger members of us here, it is not that far away, I suppose—the UK would require to import 80 per cent of its timber needs. That is quite a shocking scenario for a landmass country that is so suitable to plantations. The UK is now the second largest importer of forest products, as Mr Chapman referred to. To avert that happening, we must increase our own timber production and meet our climate change targets by growing more forests in Scotland. That work must be informed by best silvy cultural practice, namely the right tree in the right place. It must also, as has been acknowledged by all party speakers, be integrated into overall land management in Scotland, where farming and forestry can complement each other. I want to emphasise what is of fundamental importance in enabling those considerable challenges to be met. That is perhaps the most important point of all, that our key asset is our staff, and that is the workforce of the Forestry Commission and the Forest Enterprise Scotland. It is vital that we continue to invest in our staff. When I say that, I mean invest in them, value them, ensure the process of negotiation of terms and conditions that is conducted and completed as swiftly as possible, and contribute to further professional development of staff, as I have seen for myself in visiting all the Conservatives in Scotland. I value the good relationships that are being forged with the trade union representatives over the past 18 months. I pledge that that engagement will continue with bi-annual meetings. There is much more to be done over the next year, Presiding Officer, as we prepare for 1 April 2019, when we intend to bring the new arrangements into force. That includes the completion of the collaborative arrangements for cross-border functions working with the UK and Welsh Governments, and the secondary legislation is required to take forward aspects of the bill. We are committed to maintaining continuity of deliveries as we make the transition to the new arrangements. We must continue our shared national endeavour to expand Scotland's woodland area to secure future timber supply. We have the most ambitious planting targets in the UK, and that will help us to meet our climate change objectives. We also cherish our forests and woodlands for the benefits that they can bring to people—benefits of a myriad variety across the range. The bill also enables the more effective use of Scotland's publicly owned land. Presiding Officer, as I come to our close, I want to express my gratitude to my officials who have provided exemplary support under, especially over the past three weeks, considerable pressure. In closing, Scotland's woods and forests are of enormous importance to our people, our communities, our economy and our environment. The bill makes forestry directly accountable to this Parliament. It puts it at the heart of our endeavours and the heart of the rural economy. I am pleased to have brought forward this first bill on forestry to this Parliament. We have seized a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a new modern statutory framework that will support the realisation of our shared national ambition for one of Scotland's most important assets. I hope that, when we vote, we will support that unanimously. I am proud to move the motion that the Parliament agrees that the Forestry and Land Management Bill will be passed. Thank you very much. That concludes our stage 3 debate on the Forestry and Land Management Bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 11170, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to vary standing orders and revise business on Wednesday. I would ask anyone who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-speak button now, I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 11170. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No one is speaking against the motion, therefore the question is that motion 11170 is agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. We turn to decision time. There is one question to be put as the result of today's business. The question is that motion 11111, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on stage 3 of the Forestry and Land Management Bill, be agreed. Because this is stage 3, we will move to a vote, so members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 11111, in the name of Fergus Ewing, so it is yes, 120, no, 0, there were no abstentions. The motion is agreed and the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill is passed. That concludes decision time. We will move now to members' business in the name of Peter Chapman. We will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.