 I'm starting. Thank you and good morning everybody. Welcome to the third meeting in 2016 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Before we move to the first item of the agenda, I'll remind those present, switch off your mobile phones at least onto silent, members of the committee use tablets. We don't want any interference in the process of the meeting. The first item today is a piece of subordinate legislation, and the committee will take evidence on three pieces of negative subordinate legislation as listed in the agenda, i.e. the inshore phishing prohibition of phishing and phishing methods, Scotland Order 2015, SSI 2015, 435, the inshore phishing prohibited methods of phishing Loose Bay Order 2015, SSI 2015, 436, and the South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2015, SSI 2015, stroke 437. Motions to annul two of those, the inshore phishing prohibition phishing and phishing methods and the South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2015 have been lodged by Jamie McGregor, who has joined us this morning. Good morning. As is the usual practice in such circumstances, we'll have a brief evidence session first with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, who has also joined us this morning to seek questions, seek clarification and so on on some of these things. We welcome the cabinet secretary, Richard Lochhead, with Michael McLeod, head of marine conservation and David Palmer, head of marine planning and the Scottish Government. Good morning. We invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement or remarks. Thank you, convener, for the introduction and good morning to the committee and good morning to Jamie McGregor, who is here as well. Thank you for all the hard work that you put over a number of weeks in terms of taking evidence previously on the marine protected area network that we are designating and putting management measures in place for in Scotland. I don't need to remind the committee that Scotland sees support, a huge diversity of marine life and habitats with around six and a half thousand species of plants and animals, with plenty more to be discovered in Scotland's incredible waters. Our seas account for 61 per cent of UK waters, and we remain at the forefront of many of our key sectors and protecting our wider environment and all the benefits that delivers for Scottish society in terms of the duty that we have to look after that. The marine bill that was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 4 February 2010 was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that recognised our seas need better management and we need to create a range of powers in duty to deliver that, and that is what the bill delivered. That included the power to designate marine protected areas to complement existing obligations under the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives. The Marine Scotland Act also places a duty on ministers to improve the health of the seas where appropriate through our decision making. It also requires ministers to act in a way that is best calculated to also mitigate climate change. MPAs have been selected and designated for a broad range of habitats and species, which are important elements of our overall marine ecosystem. Ensuring that those habitats and species are properly protected and allowed to flourish is a key aspect of improving the health of our seas overall. Many of those habitats, such as seagrass beds, capture and store significant amounts of carbon, making them a key element by themselves, but not the only one of mitigating climate change. Scotland's Marine Atlas, which was published in 2011, highlighted two key things that are worth mentioning today. Firstly, in some cases, high impact fishing can be a significant and widespread pressure on Scotland's marine environment. Secondly, many of our species and habitats are in a state of decline. Therefore, Parliament agreed and the committee supported that the status quo is not an option. Our marine protected areas need to be managed in a way that improves the health of our seas and ensures that they continue to contribute to our many economic sectors at the same time, but also, of course, improve the status of those habitats and species. That requires removal in some cases or reduction of fishing pressures, particularly from the higher impact methods, as I said previously. On the MPAs that are capturing some of our headlines and we are discussing today in response to the motion to annull from Jamie McGregor, I would say that I have been lobbied very hard by many sectors of Scottish society who feel that we are not going nearly far enough with the MPAs we are designating or, more important, the management measures that we are putting into place for those MPAs, including the ones that we are discussing today, including some fishing sectors. Meanwhile, other sectors, including clearly the mobile fishing sector in some cases, are arguing that we are going too far with our management measures. Given the considerations that we have to take into account, I think that what we have here is a proportionate and pragmatic response in terms of fulfilling our responsibilities. In that note, I therefore put to you the committee that we should support, of course, the motions that we are moving today and will be subject to this discussion. Thank you. Do members of the committee have any questions, first of all, to the cabinet secretary before I bring in Jamie McGregor? Yes, Sarah Boyack. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. It might not be a question directly for you, might be one for your officials. I would like to delve into some of the economic impact that we have got in front of us. There seems to be a wide gulf between the papers that the cabinet secretary and his officials have put to us, which give us quite detailed assessments of impact on employment and the representations that we have had from some of the fishing interests. It appears to be quite a gulf, so I wonder if you can comment on the detail of the research that has been carried out by the Scottish Government on the impact on employment issues. I will initially answer the question. I am sure that colleagues may want to come on with more of the detail, but clearly, as we always have to do with such designations and legislation, we have to carry out economic appraisal and assessments of what we are putting forward to Parliament. Those have been available publicly for some time now in terms of the individual NPAs and the overall network. In terms of the overall NPA network, I think that it is worth highlighting that of the over 15m vessels that are affected, there are 160 of those in Scotland that are affected by the NPA network. 690 men, according to information that I have been given, are employed across those vessels, but 71 of the 160 vessels, for instance, will not be affected according to our calculations of more than £1,000. Those statistics are based on the fleets that are affected, not taking any mitigating impact. As the committee may be aware, we have argued all along that the fleets will be able to adapt, given the very modest impact that the NPAs have on their fishing activities. In terms of the South Arran NPA, if you look at the detail of the economic appraisals, we have a figure there that 9.9 jobs could be affected by this proposal again on the basis that there are no mitigating impacts undertaken by the fleet concerned. I have been fishing minister for nearly nine years. Over that nine years, I have seen many different policies adopted by the European Union, and, domestically, they have led to the fishing fleets having to adapt, as they always do, to designations. The fishing patterns have to change. Adaptation can happen as a result of changes in stocks or legislation from Europe or elsewhere. I am hopeful that there will be minimal, if there is any impact in terms of economic impact from those measures. Under 15m vessels, there are 214 vessels affected by the 510 crew across all the NPA network. 119 of the 214 vessels are again affected by less than £1,000. The big picture in terms of the South Arran NPA, which you mentioned, is that the impact will be shared by 137 vessels, who currently gross between them £19.2 million. Therefore, the effect on their income is 2.4 per cent. Again, our expectation is that, hopefully, the vessels will be able to mitigate that 2.4 per cent on their income by simply fishing elsewhere. For instance, at the fishing negotiations that we successfully conducted as a Government just a few weeks ago, there was an increase in the prawn quota for West of Scotland. Therefore, in terms of economic impact, there are various factors that have to be fed into what will actually happen in the real world at sea for the fishing fleet. However, of course, I have been very conscious of the economic impact as much as the conservation impact. We have had three rounds of consultation on the NPAs. We have listened very carefully to the representation made by our fishing communities. Clearly, the third round of consultation affected some of the NPAs still to be discussed, perhaps by this committee, but they are coming forward shortly. We have had the other rounds of consultation affecting the ones that we are discussing today. All along, I have gone to great lengths to listen to representations made by our fishermen affected. Again, in terms of economic impact, the other side of the argument is other parts of the fishing industry—the static gear, men, divers and other sectors that are expressing interest in the future of the NPAs—are arguing that there is a massive economic benefit from the NPAs in terms of what will be delivered by protecting a marine environment in the future. I know you for representations from environmental organisations and others making the economic case of what will benefit Scotland from putting in place those NPAs. There are two ways of looking at that. There is a direct impact on those parts of the mobile fishing communities that feel they will be affected. I have given you your statistics on that. The other way of looking at it is the economic benefit that Scotland will enjoy in terms of putting the NPAs in the first place. I think that it is very helpful to get that on the record, cabinet secretary. You talked about mitigating impact and adaptations. Will there be support for the Scottish Government to assist those industries? Some of them are quite locally based and others are more widely spread to make the changes that you are referring to. That is a very good point to raise. We announced a few weeks ago a three-point plan to address some of the concerns that are expressed by all stakeholders and some of those mitigating measures that I have mentioned, particularly the concerns that are expressed by the mobile fishing sectors that are expressing concern. We have said that we will specifically allocate funds in due course, but shortly within the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which is now available of more than 100 million euros to Scotland for diversification or adaptation that vessels will be able to apply to should they have to generate any expense in terms of adapting to any new fishing methods. We have also said that we will carry out environmental monitoring. As part of that, to look at the effectiveness of the NPAs over time, I have announced £500,000 worth of finance over three years. I have specifically said that those vessels are most affected if they can put forward a case that is the case by the NPAs that can apply to the £500,000 to undertake environmental monitoring for us to help to offset any potential economic impact on those vessels. Thirdly, in terms of the overall economic impact, the third three-point plan is economic monitoring. We will work with the public agencies, we will work with our own people as well as the industries that are affected to have economic monitoring put in place in the coming months and years to ensure that we understand fully the economic impact of the NPAs. Those issues are always controversial. When I was fishing spokesperson for the opposition in 2005, I recall some measures that the fishing industry said at the time would be utterly devastating for the fishing industry, and I expressed their concerns as an opposition MSP in this Parliament. Now they told me that those same measures are some of the best things that have happened to fishing industry in Scotland in terms of delivering economic benefit to the sector. It is very difficult because we sometimes are in the heat of a debate to understand what exactly the economic benefit will be. Mike Russell, Claudia Beamish Thank you particularly for the economic information, which I think is vitally important, and it is extremely important that it was put on a record. Can I just press a little on the adaptation issue? Clearly, if people have to adapt to a greater or lesser degree and your evidence indicates that some will have to adapt to a greater degree, that will cause pressure on existing fishing grounds and existing fishing operations undertaken by other people. What work has been done on two issues? One is the economic effect of that conflict, and the other is the actual effect of conflict, gear conflict and other conflict between people who are fishing in other areas. There is considerable fear that the result of those will be more difficult. As an MSP directly affected, I already see evidence of that conflict. Mike Russell In terms of the overall picture, I can give you some answers. I am not sure whether we are speaking specifically about South Arran NPA and others being discussed today, but I will try to give a general picture on the specific questions about the specific NPAs. I can come back to that. It is a good question. There are a number of factors that have to be taken into account to try and analyse what the impact will be. Firstly, we are still allowing fishing, for instance, in the Firth of Clyde, where the measures will only affect 4 per cent of trawl grounds and 19 per cent of scallop grounds. Therefore, the quid pro quo is that 96 per cent of trawl grounds will still be available and 81 per cent of scallop grounds are still available to the fleets. Overall, there will still be 98 per cent of estimated inshore trawl and dredge grounds still available, 98 per cent. The other factors that have to be taken into account—I gave one example and I am not saying this as the whole answer—is that the prawn quotas are going up. Clearly, the prawn stocks are healthy and therefore the options available to the fleet, which still have the vast majority of the grounds to fish, in most cases, are able to fish for those stocks because they are more abundant overall. Yes, there will be specific circumstances where specific parts of the sea have different stock levels. Overall, the vessels are mobile vessels and they are able to adapt their fishing patterns. That happens, of course, in the fishing industry. I know that there are issues in terms of the smaller vessels, the less distance they can travel and there are more safety issues to take into account. However, the approach that we are taking is that most of the measures are very modest. All vessels should be able to adapt. I have a slightly different issue. You made some small changes to the other MPAs, but you made no changes in the final round of consultation to the South Arran MPA. What was the reason for that? In the South Arran MPA, it is important to say, especially some of the commentary that I have seen in the media and elsewhere, that 64 per cent of the South Arran MPA is available for trawling. In terms of the burrowed mud, which is most important to the trawl sector, 60 per cent of the burrowed mud is available to the prawn trawlers. That is not closing South Arran to fishing. That is me referring to one part of the mobile sector. I have read commentary that we are closing South Arran to fishing. I hope that that gives an indication that that is not the case. We are trying to our best to take a pragmatic approach that balances the conservation needs with the economic needs of the local fishing fleet. In terms of South Arran's role in wider fisheries conservation, it is worth noting that the wider Clyde ecosystem has, of course, been impacted by fishing down the decades. As we speak, it is one of the most frequently trawled areas in the whole of Europe. I have this map here, which unfortunately you cannot see probably in detail. You may have seen it in your earlier papers, which is the European maps on intensity of fishing across Europe. The deeper the red areas, the more intensely trawl those areas are. If you look at South Arran, it is one of the dark red areas in the whole of Europe. We have to take into account that the Clyde is under some pressures. The prawn stocks are sustainable. I am not saying that there is not fishing activity justified in those areas. I am just saying that in terms of the MP and the measures that we have put in place, we have felt that we have got the balance already right. Can we have copies of that map in colour distributed to the members of the committee? Presently, it is radio rather than television. It would be quite interesting to see that. Thank you. Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary and to your officials. I found it helpful because I wanted to ask some questions, particularly about the South Arran designation, but also some more general questions. A lot of those have actually been answered by previous questions, so I am not going to go into them again because they are on the record. I have had concern expressed to me about South Arran also about the fact that there was not a further consultation and that there had been some small changes, as I understand it, in the three other designations before us today due to further consultation. I wonder if you could perhaps explain why that decision was made not to further consult, or to reassure those who might have concerns. There are clearly sensitive issues in all the NPAs and in terms of the environment. Well, all NPAs clearly have a sense of environmental areas, hence they are being designated as NPAs in the first place. We took the view in terms of South Arran that we have to recover the metal beds. The metal beds are very important for all kinds of environmental reasons. As you know, some of the NPAs are about safeguarding and some are about recovery of certain environmental features. There are other features within the South Arran NPA as well. We also have the lamb lash bay no take zone already there. We wanted to protect that. Indeed, given some of the sensitive features in South Arran, there are also some minor restrictions on the creofishing sector as well. It is not just a bit of the mobile sector who are largely being discussed as part of this debate. I reiterate that the statistics that I gave to Michael Russell are that in terms of the burled mud, which is of the most importance to the prong fleet, that 60 per cent of that will be available. Therefore, we thought that we had the balance right. Just further to that, could I seek clarification on which of the options was adopted for the for the South Arran NPA? It has been unclear to me which of the options was the preferred option of Marine Scotland. Was it the preferred option, as has been highlighted to me, that there should be no trawling? That is not the case that you are saying to me. I think that there is some confusion in some people's minds. It would be helpful to have that on the record. I will respond to where we are now, and Michael can comment about where we were originally. We clearly put forward in the initial consultation some proposals with over 5,000 responses to those over a year ago. We had to reflect on what people had said to us. People, yes, wanted the proposals to be proportionate. They also wanted them to be simpler, because the simpler the proposals are. I know that they are not as simple as it could be in some areas, but the simpler they are, the easier they are to manage if everyone understands so that they can abide the law and everyone understands what is restricted and what is not restricted and where that occurs. Therefore, we did announce our final proposals after the consultation. What are the changes between the initial proposal for South Arran and our final proposal for South Arran? We had a consultation, just like we had consultations for all the NPAs. Just like I took on board the fishing industry's representations in response to a number of other NPAs. I do not have a uniform approach for every single NPA. You have to look at the individual features within that NPA and what is best in the environment and look at the individual issues that are raised by the fishing industry in those parts of our seas. I do not have many comments to come in on the initial proposals. Certainly. The original consultation ran from November 2014 to February 2015, and for South Arran there were three approaches in the consultation. The preferred approach was approach 3, which was at that point the most stringent approach. In response to the three approaches that we consulted on, there was pretty much no support from any stakeholder for any of the approaches, which led us to go back to the drawing board and make it simple and straightforward as possible. Another key fact that came through from the consultation was that a lot of stakeholders said that they were not going to recover anything with the measures that you have proposed, and that really made us think about exactly what you are trying to achieve with that NPA, which is recovering in particular the meryl beds. That led us on to the revised proposal, which is the one that is now in front of you today. That was consulted on again over the summer between June and August 2015, so people all got a chance to provide their views on that proposal. In response to that consultation, our stakeholders remain very much split, rather like the two groups that are outside this morning, whereby some still do not think that we are doing enough and others think that it is going slightly too far. We are probably somewhere in between. I have two further questions. One follows on from that. If your cabinet secretary or officials could give us some detail of how the local consultations were organised and advertised, I think that that is important because I have had some correspondence not from my constituents but from a member of the committee saying that local people had not been listened to. I have a lot of evidence sent to me from the other side as well, but it would be helpful to have on the record how those consultations were arranged and organised. In the process of developing his management measures, the first step that we took, and that was back in the autumn of 2014, we had a series of management forums and there were representatives of community groups, environmental NGOs, fishing industry, recreational activities, all came along to participate in looking at the various approaches that we were probably going to put out to that first public consultation. During the consultation, we had a series of events at various strategic locations in relation to where the NPAs are. They were advertised in local press, where possible, on radio and fishing news. Those events ran from the middle of the afternoon until nine o'clock at night to make sure that anyone who had an interest at least had an opportunity to come along and make their views known. Notes from those meetings were published in our consultation report detailing a broad spectrum of opinion and views that varied around the coast. It is a two-fold question. You have highlighted the socio-economic concerns, Cabinet Secretary, and those have been expressed to me and others that I know. In view of the fact that we are talking about fragile coastal communities that are involved in the west coast, is there the opportunity to say a little bit more about what local socio-economic monitoring will be if those measures go through today? In view of the concerns that have been expressed, I understand that a review has to happen in six years. I wonder whether there might be an opportunity for you to consider the possibility of an earlier review if they go forward in view of the concerns. First, the review is scheduled for 2018, because that will be six years after the initial proposals have been put forward in relation to the MEAN Act. We have the ability to review before then should be so wish. I am happy to say to the committee and all the various sectors that we will work with them in terms of the economic monitoring and the local councils and others of an interest in the local economic impacts. Secondly, we reserve the option to return to Parliament at any point before the official review in 2018, because we can simply bring forward amendments to the orders. Should something arise on either side, if there is perhaps more of an economic impact than we expected, we can intervene and we can come back to Parliament in terms of reviewing any of the orders. Secondly, of course, if there is more environmental damage than we expected or whatever we can likewise come back to strengthen the MPAs. I am happy to put on record that that is an option that we will put on the table to reserve the right to come back to Parliament if anything arises that we feel needs addressed. I support the principle of MPAs. I am very much behind them. We have to conserve our environment absolutely 100 per cent behind that. However, I have witnessed over the last 50 years, cabinet secretary, the decline in fishing in my hometown Lossymouth. When I was a boy, there were many fishing boats. The harbour was jam-packed and now it is jam-packed with yachts. A totally different type of economy, if you like, and a lot less lucrative, because many of the local butchers and bakers and all the rest of it also made their livings from supplying the fishing boats. I take a point that there appears to be minimum effects and that fishing boats and fishermen do adapt, but the expression death by a thousand cuts brings to mind that lots of little things over time, and I have mentioned 50 years since the decline of fishing in Lossymouth, can have a serious impact and effect. I was interested in your answer to Claudia Beamish there about the reviews, because I would urge you to come back with reviews later this year. I think that Marine Scotland and SNH and others need to keep a very close eye on how things are developing, because we have conflicting views. The science on the west coast is not particularly good in many areas. You have examples in Broad Bay and Lewis, for instance. It has been close to fishing for 30 years. All you have there are now are starfish. Now there could be various reasons why that has happened. Maybe it had been denuded to search an extent before it was closed that it could not recover. It is a bay, so it is enclosed, quite different to the South Arran situation with the open Clyde and so on. I am saying that we do not know the impact or effect of many of those things at the moment, so I welcome your environmental monitoring, but I urge you to be looking at that very closely over the next six to nine months over the year and to come back at a fairly early stage with your initial conclusions in relation to the economic monitoring. I wonder whether you would comment on that and give any assurance that you would do that. I am happy to say to the committee in response to your point that perhaps what we can do is bring back a progress report before the end of 2016 to inform the committee as to how the implementation of the management measures and the NPAs are progressing. Although I cannot promise a full review, we will make some resource available just to have a progress report and pass that to committee before the end of 2016, if that is helpful on the provides for the permanent parties, the NPAs and their good place in the management measures. On your point, which is a very serious point in terms of the decline of efficient communities in Scotland—if I can break the rules and perhaps speak as MSP for Murray for two seconds, given that I am familiar with Lossy Mouth, mentioned by Dave Thompson—I am clear familiar with many efficient communities in Scotland as minister. If you speak to any wise, elderly, long-and-the-truth gentlemen at the harbour in Lossy Mouth, they will tell you the decline of fishing in Lossy and many other communities has been down to a range of factors. Firstly, poor fisheries management over many decades. Secondly, a vessel today can catch several scores of the catch of vessels pre-war. I am not referring to any fact that Dave Thompson is around in Lossy Mouth, but I am simply mentioning that technology plays a big role in the catchability of vessels, so there are less vessels to catch even more fish. The decline of fishing in Scotland in some communities has largely been down to not getting the management right in the past, not because of other factors solely. Thankfully, fish stocks are now recovering in Scottish waters in large part thanks to conservation measures adopted by our fishing fleets, and I commend them for that. I have worked closely with them to put those measures in place over many years. I have to make the fundamental point that there are spillover opportunities and benefits from MPAs for fish stocks. The scientists will tell you that protecting mineral beds and other marine features will help spawning scallop stocks, cod stocks and so on. Therefore, there are benefits for fishing from MPAs, but MPAs themselves are protecting marine features, not fish stock regulations. They are protecting the species and habitats on our seabeds, of which we have learned a lot more about in recent decades through to advances in science and knowledge. Science is very important in those spillover effects and all the rest of it that you mentioned. That is why we have to put a lot of effort into that in the west coast. I think that there has been a lot more done in the east than in the west. There is also the crucial issue, and I will be probably going into that in more detail when you come forward with the small aisles MPA management proposals. However, there is the issue of critical mass in small communities such as Malig. If one or two boats drop out for whatever reason out of maybe 15, the slip is not viable, the ice factory is not viable, the transport is not viable, and basically you destroy the whole infrastructure of fishing. I think that that has to be looked at very carefully, especially as you move up the west coast where we have very many very fragile communities, quite remote from the central belt. We have already seen problems arising in Lochaber, with Marine Harvest announcing 100 jobs across the north, and with the Smelter, Rio Tinto going through a review that could affect 150 direct jobs and many others. That might not seem an awful lot of jobs to people sitting in Edinburgh or Glasgow, but it is a massive number of jobs. We do not want to add to the problem by jeopardising ports like Malig. We are extremely conscious of the social economic impact of the MPAs or any measures that we put in place at the Government level. We also look at the economic benefits of putting in place the MPAs or any measures that we put in place at the national level, because you mentioned the history of decline in some communities, which means that we have to do some things differently and stem that decline, and we have to regenerate. It is a hot debate just now as what is the future of the Clyde, what is the future of fisheries management there, of marine management there and the other economic sectors as well. I do not sit here pretending to have all the answers, but what we do know is that there is less diversity in fish stocks in the Clyde, and we have a good prawn fishery, but once upon a time we had good white fish fisheries as well, and the white fish stocks have not been in great health for the last few years to say the least. We still are looking at what the answers are and trying to regenerate and speak to our scientists, speak to fishermen, speak to the other economic sectors to understand how we can build a healthy ecosystem and healthy fish stocks and healthy economic marine sectors in the Clyde for the future. The decline that you referred to is something that we have to try to prevent, stop and reverse at the same time, and that means doing some things differently. I will curtail people's questions, but I would ask you to try to keep them as short as possible and to the point. Jim Hume, followed by Jamie McGregor. I will try to keep them as short as possible. I am just interested in why we have come to MPs that are quite different from the MPs that were originally proposed and were originally fully consulted, and even the SNH recommendation was quite different to what we have now. We have talked a little bit about science and you said that during the consultation process, you thought to change the proposal, so it would be interesting to see what science came up at such a late state and what evidence came up to change the MPs that were originally proposed. You mentioned South Arran, and you mentioned that it is a heavy fish area, but it has important merlbeds and so on, but it is also there despite heavy fishing. I am just wondering whether the evidence came from science or otherwise at such a late state. Effectively, what we are speaking about is management measures informed by the science. We have to take a decision as to how to manage MPAs effectively, where we balance the interests that we have discussed previously between the conservation benefits and the aim of the act, and looking at the social and economic impact at the same time. The science is just the same as it was at the beginning of the consultation process, where scientific advice, SNH and others said that high-impact activity in addressing that is the way in which to help the marine environment to recover. We have to take a decision as a Government, working with all the stakeholders and their consultation responses as to what the best management measures are to make that happen. Of course, there is a wealth of scientific evidence out there about the benefits of protecting marine features, so clearly that informs our management decisions. I know that the committee has taken that as part of the evidence previously, but we are all aware of the carbon capture and storage, which is known as blue carbon, in terms of the role that marine features play in tackling climate change. We know about the benefits for shellfish species and other species of having those marine protection measures in place, the importance of sediments, the importance of water quality to the wider eco environment. I could go on and on about the environmental benefits of marine features, so that scientific information is out there and informs all the decisions that we have taken over management. I can reiterate what I said to Michael Russell earlier on that there are large areas available for fishing activity to continue in South Arran. We did not see any need to revisit that, so that is why there was no further consultation. If we keep consulting over and over again on MPAs, they will just become more and more watered down, then they will just become paper MPAs, as opposed to actually having any real meaningful difference to protect our marine environment. Of course, we will run out of parliamentary time as well, so we will not have an MP network. Three rounds of consultation for the other MPAs is more than adequate, and the rounds of consultations that we have had for South Arran and the MPAs that we are discussing today are more than adequate as well. Jamie McGeiger and Aynolic Ferguson Thank you, convener. My first question is a very basic one really. Regarding the South Arran MPA particularly, it appears that there was no copy of the final draft served on the interested parties, which I think is the law which was passed in this Parliament, namely section 87 of the marine act. Why was no copy of the final draft not served on the interested parties? I am unaware of that, as far as I am concerned. We have done everything that we should have done, and the only real complaint that we have had from some of the sectors is that there has not been enough time for the third round of consultation in response to some of the MPAs. I will ask the point about South Arran and the final draft. Section 87 requires us to publish a draft of the order and make it available to all interested parties, which is what we did on 11 June when we published our response to the original consultation. According to a great many fishermen standing outside the door, they never received anything. Is that not against the law? I am sorry, I am not accusing anyone of breaking the law, but it appears that it could be. The response to the consultation and the making available of those draft orders was made available to those who had responded to the consultation. In the case of Clyde Fisherman, the Clyde Fisherman's Association had made a response that was made available to them. There were also emails sent out to the various groups that Sea Fisheries have, so the fisheries monitoring and conservation groups that they have for inshore and offshore waters also received that notification that a draft order had been published. I take that point, but I would have thought that individual fishermen and fishing boats were interested parties, since they are the people who are going to have to stop fishing in some of those areas. If they did not get it, would you agree with me that there was possibly something a bit wrong here? We cannot answer that question, but when the fisherman spoke to us outside the Parliament this morning, there has been plenty of commentary from the... This morning, I spoke to them, and this has been totally... That is what I thought he said, he spoke to the Fisherman himself. We have had plenty of commentary from the Clyde Fisherman's Association and I do not think that there is any indication that they are not aware of what is happening. I know that you are a non-representant at the Clyde Fisherman's Association, so I am sure that you are aware that they know all about this. You could declaration about that a bit later on. My second question. You made it now. We start talking about the subject when asking questions. Well, if you want me to do that, but I was told that I was any questioning as an MSP originally, and then when I actually came to move my motions, that was when I was meant to make my declaration of interest. May I leave it like that? We recognise your interest and you can declare it then. I declare an interest in that. I am in fact the honorary president of the Clyde Fisherman's Association, not vice president, as some of the bodies that have been talking on the website have said. I think that it has been promoted. Promotion, yes. My second question. In relation to the South Island MPA, there are two maps, one relating to scallop fishing and one relating to prawn fishing, which were discussed at the workshops with the Scottish Government last year and which the fishermen and the CFA thought they had got agreement on, and which appeared to meet all the requirements also to protect the marine features that you talked about. Well, why then was a final map produced, which I have also got here, which goes way beyond what was suggested in the initial consultations? As I said before to the committee, we had an initial consultation and Michael McLeod laid out the options that were available for South Island as part of that. In fact, there was not much support for any of the options from any of the stakeholders. Therefore, we then listened to the 5,000 responses that we had to the consultation. Again, I referred to that earlier on. As the proposals were changed, new maps were produced, so clearly over the last, I do not know, year and a half of those consultations. Clearly, we listened to people and we adapted our proposals, and that is why we, for some of the NPAs in our position, we have three rounds of consultation. We are trying to do our best to take on genuine concerns expressed by sectors, but there have been changes. All I can say is that the final map seems to shut out scallop fishing altogether from the south end of Arran and only leaves a bit of burrowed mud for the prawn trawlers. However, the initial maps, which were the ones that we consulted on, there was room left for those people to continue their livelihoods. That is what the whole argument on the South Arran thing is about. If I could just go on. Sorry, convene, I have got some other questions. Does the cabinet secretary ever respond to the question about livelihoods being at risk? In terms of livelihoods, I have to reiterate that the analysis of the measures that we are putting in place in South Arran show that the actual effect and the income of the vessels concerned is 2.4 per cent. The 137 vessels that fish there gross £19.2 million. I know and accept that there are some vessels in that where the percentage of their income will be much higher than 2.4 per cent being affected. It could be up to 20 per cent or 10 per cent in some cases. That is why we have made substantial grounds that are still available to fish within the South Arran MPA to the trawling sector in terms of the prawn fleets. The latest document from SNH on the South Arran MPA makes it clear that the featured burrowed mud, which a lot has been made of, does not require restoration or recovery. The Government document states that the aim is to recover the mull beds and conserve, that is to be an important word, the protected features of the MPA. It therefore goes to that saying that stopping fishing as an instrument to protect these features is not per say justified according to the advice of SNH. Can the minister explain why he disagrees with the evidence of SNH? It is probably more appropriate for me to try and explain that because this is a bit more detail. The advice that we got from SNH advised that we should remove or avoid mobile gear pressure on meryl beds, the meryl gravel habitat and sea grass beds. The advice on burrowed mud was to reduce or limit the amount of pressure being exerted. We have made absolutely sure that we have removed the mobile gear pressure from the most sensitive habitats, the remove or avoid habitats. For burrowed mud, we have gone for a combination of some spatial element, so 38 per cent of the burrowed mud will be closed to trawling. We have also put a limitation of 120 gross tonnes on the size of the vessel. As the cabinet secretary said earlier, the Firth of Clyde around Arran is one of the heaviest fished areas in the whole of Europe. You are not going to conserve that habitat if the whole area continues to be fished at that degree of pressure. You will continue probably to have a decline in the habitat, which means that you are not conserving it. You have to do some measures in a pragmatic way that ensure that you are conserving and furthering that conservation objective. There is a difference between conservation and restoration, because it is made quite obvious to me that there is a difference between that and what measures are needed for conservation and restoration. Two different things. I think that that depends on the sensitivity of the habitat or species that you are trying to protect. Is it a species? Is it not the habitat? Is a habitat armed with species biotopes that live upon it or in it? Right. Can I just continue? Yes, bearing in mind that we have debates in the east. I know that we do. I am aware of that. I am sorry. No, no. The measures that I suggested in the South Arran MPA are likely to shift effort to other areas of the Clyde, both for scallop dredging and for prawn trawling. In point of fact, I am told that with scallop dredging it could actually wipe it all out within two or three years, because if effort is put on other bits, they may well be denuded and then there won't be, the vessels will just disappear. It would severely restrict prawn trawling as well. Without wishing to be its two subjective cabinet secretary, have you quantified the effect that this will have on jobs and income in the towns in places like Tarbot, Campbelltown and the Ayrshire coast? Well, I gave some figures earlier on, but in terms of the overall economic impact, we are talking about scallop vessels in the main that are mobile, clearly, very mobile, and that fish for tens of millions of pounds worth of scallops. Therefore, the very modest impact from the South Arran MPA on the income of scallop dredgers, I cannot see that wiping out the industry, as you say. I know that this is controversial, and I know that there are very tough debates, because we are trying to balance conservation and economic impact. I think that we have to have a sense of realism about the statistics and phrases that we are using. There is no danger of the scallop sector being wiped out by the South Arran MPA. However, I am very conscious of the economic impact, and that is why I have said that we will very carefully monitor the economic impact. The three-point plan that I have mentioned has that as one of the points—the economic monitoring. As part of environmental monitoring, we are going to offer part of the £0.5 million available for that to deploy the vessels that are affected if they so wish to undertake some of that environmental monitoring to offset some of the economic impact if that does indeed materialise. We are very sensitive to that, but we believe that it is a modest impact overall. Just on that point, cabinet secretary, of the scallop bridging, I know that you are quite rightly very proud of Scottish food and drink. One thing that has happened in the past few years is that practically every fish restaurant that has sprung up around the west coast of Scotland, particularly in other places, has scallops on the menu. I am told that scallops, as we know, do not go into creels, have to be either dredged or dived for. I am told that the diving sector produces only 1 per cent of the scallops that are harvested. If you did not have the dredging sector, would the scallops simply be imported from other countries or would we be able to use Scottish scallops? Would Scottish restaurants be able to use Scottish scallops any more? I love Scottish scallops and, if I am ever lucky enough to see them on the menu, I take advantage of that because they are fantastic. I work with the sector trying to promote Scottish seafood and scallops all the time. I can say that 98 per cent of our estimated inshore, trawl and dredge grounds in Scotland will still be available. For an industry worth tens of millions of pounds, we are talking about, in the case of only the economic value of South Arran, the vessels that fish there, 2.4 per cent of their income being affected. What we are talking about is proportionate. Again, there is scientific evidence that the NPAs can help to scallop stocks so that we can ensure that there are scallops there in the future. There are benefits, hopefully, for stock regeneration in some parts of Scotland from those protective measures. Are we getting many more questions? A couple, but one anyway. One more. Very good. Well, thank you very much. In regard to the process of this whole thing, 20 areas were formally designated in mid-2015, but when the accompanying management measures decided upon by government ministers, 16 were as expected, but four in the west of Scotland had measures more severe than that required to meet the conservation objectives, which had not been consulted upon in the series of workshops held in the 18-month final period. While there was consultation on three of these, the South Arran NPA, which, after all, had been suggested by a third party, not originally by Marine Scotland at all as an area, was not granted any further discussion or consultation before today's consideration by this committee, how did this come about? Considering that zonal management measures for the South Arran NPA were recommended by SNH, as I've said before, and accepted by all during the process, why did the measures become so much more draconian? I think that this is the core of this thing than during the workshops when the consultation took place. Well, clearly, you have a certain view of the role of NPAs and use words like severe and draconian, whereas many other sectors in Scotland are saying that they are more beneficial as a result of the changes, and perhaps we have not gone far enough in terms of being even more beneficial by having more changes to the NPAs. I do believe the struck right balance. There are three NPAs, of course, where people made very strong representations, as well as South Arran, where people did make strong representations that Sina didn't, and we took a decision to listen to a number of the NPAs' communities where those representations were strong and make some changes. We judged each case and its merits across the NPAs where the communities were making representations to us, and that's why we'll have a further opportunity in the next few weeks potentially to consider the further three NPAs where there were further changes made. Thank you Cabinet Secretary. I think that we should move on to agenda item 2, which is supporting that legislation. This is the second item of business today, and it's consideration of motion S4M 15336, asking the committee to annull the inshore phishing prohibition of phishing and phishing methods Scotland Order 2015, SSI 2015435. There is an opportunity to debate this just now, and I hope that, having had a good evidence session that the debate would not need to last the 90 minutes, which procedurally it can do. Procedurally, that's what's possible, but, obviously, at this stage, officials can't now take part in the formal debate, so therefore only the cabinet secretary will debate this matter. I invite Jamie McGregor to speak to and move the motion. Thank you, convener. I move S4M 15336, but before I do so, or having done so, I would like to declare an interest that I've already done, which I am, hon. president of the Clyde Fisherman's Association, and the main job for me, for that association, is not to take part in any policy decisions that they have. I've never actually been to one of their proper meetings. My main job is to turn up at the annual lunch, which I've been doing for 15 years, and I have to say that, at that annual lunch, I've heard politicians of pretty much every party in this Parliament extolling the virtues of the artisanal fishing for nephrops and scallops, which underpins the many jobs, the many livelihoods, and many families in Tarbot, Campbelltown and the Ayrshire coast. I've heard politicians of all parties singing the praises of the Clyde Fisherman and extolling their virtues, so it's therefore important that they get the same support from politicians in the hour of need that they get at the annual lunch. I just thought I'd make that point. Talking about the general order, to meet their aims, MPAs must have specific objectives supported by the best available evidence. Self-evidently, they should meet their conservation objectives and, where possible, contribute to the maintenance of existing sustainable activity, i.e. fishing in this case. There is a current issue with the introduction by the Scottish Government of a tranche of MPAs for the protection of specific features. A logical process agreed by all stakeholders, including the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, was run by Marine Scotland over a period of four years. The features to be protected were agreed, location selected and a series of workshops were held over the final 18-month period. That verified the process itself and examined in detail the potential management measures to meet the aim and the objectives. Scottish National Heritage, the statutory nature adviser, participated throughout and made recommendations on optimum measures to meet the conservation objectives. I've already spoken about that in my questions. Regarding the process, it was meant to be an exemplar that could demonstrate Scottish leadership to other areas on how to plan a network of MPAs. I think that the network of MPAs is actually a UK network and not a Scottish one. Twenty areas were formally designated in mid-2015, but when the accompanying management measures decided upon by ministers were announced, 16 were as expected, but four in the west of Scotland had departures into measures that were more severe than that required to meet conservation objectives. The problem with that is the potential damage to sustainable fishing activities, which the MPAs are also meant to keep. The central point is that the extra measures are not required to meet the conservation objectives. I'm not talking about restoration, I'm talking about conservation—two different things. The resultant damage to established sustainable fishing was underplayed by the Scottish Government using broadly-based figures indicating little percentage damage to fishing overall. While that is correct, the localised efforts on already-delicate local communities, which Dave Thompson spoke about, are enormous. That was represented to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, and rapid additional economic assessment provided at the correct grain to illuminate the practical effects of what was actually happening here. I will emphasise that 16 from 20 of the proposed areas were accepted by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—I'm not talking about CFM, I'm talking about the Scottish Fishermen's Federation here—of the four disputed MPAs, the Scottish Government reacted to protest with a further consultation on three, and the Cabinet Secretary's decisions are awaited. For one area, the South Arran MPA, no further discussion or consultation was granted, and the unmodified execution of its statutory instrument is to be considered today here. There wasn't any—this is the consultation on that last final draft. For all the MPAs, management measures are zonal, and this is a logical approach where features exist. They are delineated and suitable protection measures are applied. Where existing sustainable activity with the MPA is possible, and without compromise of the conservation objectives, that is permitted zonally. If you will just bear with me for a moment, I would just like to talk about the—I'm not talking about South Arran here, I'm talking about Loch Sween, Loch Guile and Loch Fyne. It will be noted that all forms of mobile fishing are prohibited within Loch Sween. In the hatched area at the mouth of Loch Sween, a much-restricted fishery is permitted. In the two approaches to management proposed by Marine Scotland, the mull beds at the head of the Loch and in the side of Loch Linnomurich were to be fully protected. Now, this position was supported by the Clyde Fisherman's Association and they supported it. There are no mull beds in the centre of the Loch, but it does contain a small area of borrowed mud harboring the mud volcano worm, which is a terrifying sounding thing, but no, it's not. While this feature may be of interest, it does not meet the OSPAR criteria for protection in OSPAR region 3, which is the European Atlantic coast. Given the other substantial areas of borrowed mud that have been offered protection, more importantly, this area was opened up, in fact, to multispecies environment from a completely dead acidic environment by the operation of small trawlers. It was actually improved by the trawling and the acidity was introduced by the downwash of the sicker spruce needles from all the surrounding forest replantations. This case was not argued against by the Nature Conservancy Council. Now, the predecessor of SNH, when it attempted to have Loch Swin closed against mobile fishing. Now, the Clyde Fisherman's Association is prepared to compromise in order to safeguard the very small but important artisanal summer fishery in the Loch. It is not suggested by either Marine Scotland or SNH that the borrowed mud feature requires mobile fishing to be prohibited. The compromise offered is that a summer fishery, with dates to be agreed by Marine Scotland, is allowed to the same class of vessel that we have permitted to fish at the mouth of the Loch, which I believe is everything under 75 tonnes. In management terms, given that there is no restriction on the size of the vessel that can fish in the Loch, this compromise represents a more than satisfactory reduction in effort. So, convener, the other thing is Loch Fine, and I'm trying to tell the different points and the different locks. For many years, the CFA has undertaken that mobile vessels in its membership will not operate to meet conservation requests from third parties to the north of certain lines that are marked on the map A to B and north-west of the line A and C. This is in Loch Fine. It is prepared for that voluntary arrangement to remain statutory, as is proposed. However, it does not accept that a complete prohibition on mobile fishing yet to the south of the line C to A to B has been justified on any scientific basis. It proposes that the restricted mobile fishing allowed in the Black Cross Hatch area be extended north to the line C, A and B. Now, to the south of that will be seen a large rectangular area in which all forms of mobile fishing are prohibited lying immediately to the north-west of the flame shell protected area. Now, the CFA is not making a fuss of the fact that flame shells do not actually merit ospar protection. The point that it is making is that the flame shell bed, as it exists, is already protected by a separate part of the order and is given a buffer zone, which is more than adequate already for the protection. The further protection given by the prohibition of fishing in the rectangular area is therefore disproportionate and in any event it does not contain any feature justifying ospar or marine act protection. Mobile fishing should therefore still be allowed on the proposed restricted basis in that rectangular area. Now, I think that that brings me to the end of what I have to say about the first motion. Thank you very much. The motion that you moved was S4M-15336 that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the inshore fishing, prohibition, fishing and fishing methods Scotland order 2015 SSI 2015 435 be annulled. The next thing that we have to do is to invite members who wish to join the debate if they so do. Alex Ferguson. I am grateful to you, convener. I chose not to ask questions and answers for the sake of time but appreciate the opportunity just to make a few comment, brief comment at this stage, if I may. I very much agree with many of the concerns that Dave Thompson raised in the question and answer session that preceded this debate. I do think that the science base that has been put before us is questionable and there has been considerable doubt cast by witnesses on the financial value of the annual catch of some of the affected vessels that have been referred to during previous discussions. I have to say that I do not understand the quantum shift that has taken place from the original SNH proposals, which, as I understand it, fulfilled all the requirements of EU directives and which the scalloping sector, rightly or wrongly, was convinced to have been agreed following the first round of consultation. I do think that many of the problems that we have since raised with us have stemmed from the fact that that apparent agreement was not as it seemed to be. I want to briefly comment on the loose bay order that is within this given that it is in my constituency. I find it really interesting, because undoubtedly a further compromise has been reached with the loose bay order that has very much taken heed of some of the issues, particularly around safety, that were raised by my scalloping constituents. Although it is also fair to say that many of the non-scalloping or dredging stakeholders around loose bay are not happy with this compromise at all and believe, I have been told, that the order may be challengeable through the courts. That, of course, is a decision for them to take. However, the point that I think that this raises is that, if such a compromise can be reached regarding loose bay, where some of the concerns were just as great as they are now in other regard to other MPAs, I cannot understand why it appears to be so difficult to reach a similar level of compromise, albeit tailored to the particular demands of each MPA. It seems strange that that is not the case. The cabinet secretary said in the earlier comments something that I thought was very interesting, referring to previous measures that we had passed when he was in opposition. What he said was that it is not always easier to understand the economic benefits of measures that we have passed in this Parliament. That is absolutely true, because it is difficult to measure benefits that are going to take place in the future. However, what we can understand much more easily are the economic disadvantages of measures that we put in place. I have no doubt at all that there is going to be severe economic disadvantage to the scalping sector in particular, brought about by these orders and on balance. I am not convinced fully that the identified disadvantage, which is measurable, is justified through these orders, and I will be supporting Jamie McGregor's motion in front of us. I think that the right question to ask at this stage is how have we got ourselves into this mess. Outside we have people who did what, but eggs are being thrown outside. We are having a debate that, according to the cabinet secretary and I said that I shall be supporting the MPA, who is talking about a very small degree of financial damage and Jamie McGregor is talking about Armageddon, which is taking place. The reason that we are in this mess is because we are not learning from what is happening elsewhere. We only have to take a glance at the issue of conflict throughout the world between traditional methods of land use or sea use and conservation to realise that this is a common problem. There are ways to resolve it, and none of those ways have been applied to the issue of MPAs. If I just briefly want to make three points about that and what the problem is, the first problem is consultation. That was not a consultation about the minutiae of dog licences, but it was running that way. I am not blaming individuals in Marine Scotland, and I am not blaming Michael, who was deeply involved in it, and others, but it was badly managed. There was a mismatch. One group of people believed that they had heard something, and another group of people believed that they had heard something else, and that was never resolved. I met Fisherman and Islay on Monday, and that is exactly what they were telling me. They understood that they had an agreement, and that never happened. The first thing is that there needs to be great care taken in treating a consultation about traditional activities, those lifeline activities for many communities, so that everybody understands what is being talked about. The second one is that we do not confuse the situation. I met the group responsible for the proposed regulating order a year ago, more almost a year ago. I said that this is going to confuse the on-going process with the NPAs and separate them out, but it did not happen. Now, we have an absolute conflation of two things, and that conflation is creating enormous difficulties. When you read coverage of that in the press, you actually read about the regulating order, not about the NPAs, so that was the wrong thing to happen. Thirdly, because there is such confusion, because there is such passion on both sides and I understand that passion, then that leads to unacceptable behaviour. I disagree with Jamie McGrigor on that. I am not going to support him, but his actions are not shameful, and yet that was in a press release from coast last weekend. He is quite entitled to come to this committee and to argue his case. Equally, I have known the cabinet secretary for a long time, I could say, man and boy. He is not the devil incarnate. He is not in the pay of American multimillionaire conservationist, but that material is all over the internet and elsewhere. We have to step back from this and say that there are methods of dealing with conflicts between traditional and on-going use of natural resources and the demands of conservation. I would ask the cabinet secretary to learn from this experience and to move forward by saying the next time we do anything like this, particularly with the regulating order on the horizon, which at the present moment I will not support because of the way that this has been handled, it would be useful to try and create a new means of going forward, perhaps an individual or body that can be trusted by both sides who can show the persistence and the patience to take forward negotiation. If we can have negotiation to resolve the most intractable conflicts in the world, then we should have a structure and a means of resolving these conflicts. The fact that that has not taken place has led us into a very unhappy place today. Politicians, as they get to elections, always look for advantage. The cabinet secretary has talked about what he did 10 years ago. We need, as a committee and as a Parliament, to find a way of dealing with this, so that we get the best for both sides, which is possible, but it is not going to happen today. I want to follow on, and I apologise if my voice is going to seem to have a cold that is taking my voice over. I asked a couple of very detailed questions to the cabinet secretary because I have been watching over the last year that I have been a member of this committee the heated nature of these debates. As much as we can to get the science right and to get the economic research right, it is really important to assess both the opportunities and the impacts on a range of fishing interests. When we took evidence in the autumn, it was clear that there are really sharply differing views on the impact of marine protected areas and the impact of different boundaries being put on the map of those different marine protected areas. The question that I asked the minister today was what is available in terms of investment for our fishing interests, so that regardless of the detail on the map, whatever is approved by the Parliament and whatever is proposed by the Scottish Government, there will be support available for fishing interests to be able to adapt and to be able to mitigate the impact if there are going to be negative economic impacts on what might be very fragile rural communities who have made representations to us today. I think that that is really important to get on the record and I welcome the minister's response to my questions and to Claudia Beamish's questions about the need for monitoring because we need to track that through and we need investment to help some of those very small companies and small fishing interests to be able to survive and to be able to retain the jobs that are important. I picked up that comment from Dave Thompson today for small communities. Even one or two jobs can be quite important, so we need financial support to enable them to survive. We also need support for new industries that might be opportunities that come from the network of marine protected areas that we are going to debate over the next few months. I am very much in support of marine protected areas. They need to be clear and transparent and to be effective. We need to get the most of the regeneration of the natural environment to make sure that we can get the benefit of restocking and to make sure that we can get the benefit of regeneration that will come from this range of marine protected areas. Like Mike Russell, I think of the debates that we have had in this Parliament. When I convened the committee in the 2003 to 2007 slot, we had many debates about the South Arran MPs, which Richard Lochhead referred to today. There is a historical track that we can take about following this over the last 12 years in this Parliament. Today is important because it comes after the questions that we had last autumn. That is a continuum. It is important that we take the support for our traditional fishing industries, but that we also support the new opportunities that will come in tourism and wildlife jobs. If we have the right network of marine protected areas and, crucially, they are given the support from the Scottish Government, we need both of those things today. We have tested the Government's proposals. We have done our job as a committee to ask tough questions. We need to make sure that marine protected areas are not just passed but that they are implemented properly and that they get the right support financially from the Scottish Government for the challenges and the opportunities that they will bring. I will support those orders today, convener, but it is not just supporting the orders, it is supporting the investment and the monitoring and the continuing discussion that comes today. As Mike Russell said, those are difficult issues because people view totally differently what we are doing today. It is important that we get people's concerns on the record, but we also get the investment that the Scottish Government has promised and we get the points that Claudia Beamish made about effective monitoring and effective promotion that will come after today. I wonder if any subsequent speakers could raise any new points without going over the ground that we have already. I will be supporting the orders today, convener. I will make that clear from the start. As Mike Russell said and other speakers said, we have to get this right. That is a really, really important issue and there have been mistakes made, there is no doubt about that. People did think that they had agreement and it turned out that they did not. We have to learn from that, as others have said, and we will have an opportunity to do that. I do not know if it will be next week or maybe the week after when we come to look at the outstanding orders that are out to consultation, including the small aisles, because I believe that a relatively minor tweak to the revised small aisles order would satisfy everybody. Personally, I do not think that it would be a huge problem if that was done, even if it had to go out to consultation again, which it would need to, and it would knock it back to the next Parliament. A few months delay to get it right, I think, would be a price well worth paying. The bulk of the orders that I will support today, but I think that we need to learn and we need to use the lessons learned as we move on in this process when we consider the other orders that we will be looking at in the next week or two. I think that we can see from across the whole parties that there is a discomfort at the whole process. It was just back to the points I raised, which I do not think that we answered fully in my question. That was regarding the science and the evidence. The cabinet secretary mentioned that the science was there to begin with, but why was SNH recommended in one thing? Another thing happened. Perhaps the minister and his cabinet secretary in his contribution would address the specificness of where science came from that changed the recommendations to what they are in front of us today. Claudia Beamish I am not going to repeat any of the points that were made by other people in the debate. I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague Sarah Boyack on the MPAs. As we all know, they are statutorily necessary. They are also necessary for both conservation and for protection and, in some cases, recovery of our marine environment, which is in the interests of having healthy seas but also in the interests of the fishing communities and the range of different sectors in that, both today and I stress for the future. I just want to disassociate myself from the remarks of my colleague Jim Hume because I do not have a discomfort with the whole process. I just want that to be on the record. I have expressed concerns and have had some reassurance from the cabinet secretary today about the consultation process and how that was organised. I have had reassurance, which I want to put on the record, about the future socioeconomic and environmental monitoring, which I think is extremely important and the issue around the possibility of consideration of an earlier review. I want to say something very briefly about the consultation process from my understanding of it. From having been a community activist in the past, it is not the same thing to say what you want within a consultation process and to assume or to hope and to conflate that with thinking that you have been told that that is what is going to happen. As I understand the process, it is that there is a consultation process and beyond that, that goes back from Marine Scotland, from SNH and from all the stakeholders for the consideration of the Scottish Government. I think that things have got somewhat confused as to what that process is, so I just want to put that on the record in respect to that. I believe that there is a proportionate response, which is why I am supporting the MPAs today. I have never actually met any fishermen and I have had discussions with a number of them, far more in the last year than in the rest of my lifetime, who are against marine protected areas, and I just want to make that point as well. I think that it is very important for our future for the points that have been made around the room for carbon sequestration, for biodiversity, for enhancing the marine environment for all our futures, and I will be supporting this motion today. Bearing in mind all of those points that have been made, I remind people that the evidence that we took in the autumn required us to look at the Wester Ross MPA, which had to be brought in as an emergency because of infractions that we discussed at that time. I hope that we will not find ourselves in a position where the cabinet secretary has to do the same in any other place, and therefore I would ask members to bear that in mind when they are making up their mind how to vote on this matter. Jamie McGregor, do you need to sum up with the cabinet secretary first? I have listened closely to the very eloquent contributions during the debate from members of the committee. I want to say at the outset that I have the utmost respect for the Clyde Fisherman's Association, and I very much value the role that they play in landing top quality seafood and sustaining employment in many of our fishing communities in the west of Scotland. Jamie McGregor outlined the Clyde Fisherman's Association's view on many of the detailed aspects of the 12 MPAs that are part of this particular motion that we are discussing at the moment, and I listened to them carefully as well. Clearly, as minister, I have to listen to all voices in the debate, and the Clyde Fisherman's Association and the mobile sector are one of many voices in the debate. I also have to listen to the voices of the creelers, another part of the fishing industry, the hand divers and another part of the fishing industry, as well as many other sectors who have an interest in this debate, and of course people living in the communities in the west of Scotland, who have expressed their views in many cases, but in many cases have not expressed their views, because there is a very passionate debate. I have had many people who have spoken to me who said that they are too scared to speak out publicly or make their views known when I have urged them to do so. That is a sad state of affairs, quite rightly, as Michael Russell eloquently raised in his contribution. It is a sad state of affairs that people feel too scared to speak out in some of those issues. The 12 MPAs that we are discussing as part of this motion protect our merrel beds, native oysters, subliteral mud and mixed sediment communities, which are important biamentally, burrowed mud, horse muscle reefs, stony reefs, flame shell beds and many other very important marine species and habitats that are in Scotland's waters, which I believe wider society who have an interest in this debate as well want to protect. That is why Parliament put through the marine act. However, yes, of course, feelings are very passionate on both sides of the debate, and new lessons have to be learned. On the one hand, I will say that there were no back room deals or agreements as part of this process. I do not understand how that misunderstanding arose from one particular sector, because, quite clearly, I have said all along that I have to listen to all voices, not just the mobile sector of the fishing industry, so there were no agreements behind the scenes as part of this process. If that impression was given, then clearly it should not have been given, and lessons have to be learned. However, I think that the heat will never be taken out of those debates. Every country in the world that has an interest in marine environment that is looking at similar designations are going through these very controversial heated debates, because the marine features and species that I am speaking about that we have to protect do not have a voice, the environment does not have a voice, and that is why Parliament put through the legislation so that, in legislation, we have to give some kind of voice to the environment and protect the environmental features that are part of our ecosystem and deliver wider benefits to society, including to our fishing industries and other sectors, and I rehearse some of those benefits earlier on in today's session. The final point is what help will there be moving forward. I just want to reiterate the three-point plan in response to Sarah Boyack and other members' concerns. We have said that we will bring forward mitigation through the European funds that will be available if they are required. I have also said that there will be environmental monitoring in place, and as part of that, there is £500,000 over three years, and we will offer to deploy the vessels that feel the most affected as part of that to help offset any income that they feel they are losing through the MPAs, although only time will tell if that does indeed end up being the case. Finally, there will be economic monitoring as well, and we will make sure that that is robust in the months and years ahead. However, I have given an undertaking to Dave Thompson and Claudia Beamish to bring forward a progress report before the end of 2016, and I will make sure that that happens as well. The final point that I will make is that we will continue to listen to all voices. I cannot take the heat of the situation, so it will always be controversial when it comes to the passionate view that people have in terms of anything that might impact on their livelihood and their income. Of course, those people also care about their marine environment in its future. I am not saying that it is mutually exclusive. I think that fishermen support the concept of MPAs as well, and I think that they are responsible in that way. However, I do also believe, and I finish on that point, that future generations will look back at the marine act passed by this Parliament and the network of marine protected areas that have put place as a result of that to protect our marine environment. They will be proud of the steps that are taken by this Parliament and future generations of being enjoying the benefits of protecting our marine environment at the same time. Therefore, I urge the committee to reject the motion to annul the MPAs. Jamie McGeiger, you have a chance now to wind up and indicate whether you intend to press or withdraw your motion. Yes, but bearing in mind, convener, that I haven't even moved the second motion yet. We will. We are very aware of the second motion still to come. Thank you, convener. Just to sum up then, and I'll do it as quick as I possibly can, I would just like to quote an extract from the Scottish Government document, a strategy for marine nature conservation in 2013. It will take me a moment. It's new material. It's new material, Mr McGeiger. Sorry? It's new material. Yes, it is new material, convener. Well, that wouldn't normally be the material that you'd use in summing up. Please continue. Well, just to emphasise what I said, this is a Scottish Government document. It says, to maximise sustainable use of our seas and minimise disruption to sustainable marine activities through proportionate marine management measures and the fundamental principle of our approach to marine nature conservation is sustainable use. That really sums it up. I think we've heard a lot of very intelligent comment and I'm grateful to everyone for coming in on it. The fishermen are not against MPAs at all. They believe that they can avoid things like mild beds. I think that the only point that I would really make is that no copy of the draft order was served on interested parties, which is after all a law that was passed in this Parliament. Thank you very much. Are you going to press? I would like to press. The question is that motion S4M-15336, in the name of Jamie McGregor, be approved. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. Those who are in favour of annulling the motion, please show. Alex Ferguson and Jim Hew. Those against, 1, 2, 7. Anybody abstain? No, there isn't because we can do or some. There were two for and seven against, therefore the motion falls. In that case, we move on to agenda item 3. The third item of business today is to consider S4M-15337, asking the committee to annull the South Arran marine conservation order 2015, SSI 2015-437. The motion will be moved. I invite Jamie McGregor to speak to and move the motion and ask that we do not have a repeat of evidence that has been given in the previous order about South Arran. Unless it is new, I think that it is not necessarily informing us anymore, but I leave you to judge that, given the business that this committee has to cover. I understand that, convener. I am very grateful for the time that you have already given me. I move S4M-15337. I will give you some quick bullet points. No consultation conducted in respect of the proposal now before Parliament took place. The proposal to eliminate or restrict fishing activity goes well beyond the maximum protection for features of conservation interest proposed by the Scottish Government in its consultation. The proposal has now moved from the realm of nature conservation to, in my view, a subjectivity of attack on those who derive their livelihood from the birth of Clyde. That is all that I have to say. Thank you very much. Are there any other members who wish to say anything in the debate? Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. I would like to say that I will not be supporting the element today of this motion. I have taken an enormous amount of evidence, a lot of it is very heated, as have other members highlighted today, and that has a cabinet secretary. I have been reassured by the cabinet secretary about both the process and about the information about the Marine Scotland option, giving some sectors that had concerns the opportunity to fish within the area, although in a restricted sense. I have also been reassured by being more localised socioeconomic analysis and environmental analysis in the near future. The highlight of the compensation issue is important, and the fact that, more broadly, there will be a review, possibly, before the six years, if that is to be necessary. I will not be supporting Mr MacGregor today. Any other? To put on record, convener, I have the same reservations that I raised in the previous item on the agenda. I think that it is right to put that on record. I will support Mr MacGregor today. I asked from the cabinet secretary what evidence and science had come forward. I have been in mind that the cabinet secretary said that the science was the same at the beginning of the original consultation as it was at the end, but I did not hear from the cabinet secretary the specific changes or evidence or science that he had heard to change the SNH recommendations. We will be voting the same way, which is to support the MPAs, but I would repeat the requests that I have made to the cabinet secretary to think very carefully about how those issues are handled in future to find some mediation process that can avoid, as happens elsewhere in many places in the world, in that type of conflict. Dave Thomson. I have been in my comments in relation to the previous debate about the MPAs that would hold true in this case as well. To reiterate in terms of the South Arran MPA, I will ensure that the monitoring that I referred to previously is carried out robustly in terms of this particular MPA. Again, I recognise that there are very strong feelings on the different sides of the debate, with people feeling that we should ban all trawling in the MPA and, clearly, parts of the mobile sector believing that we have gone far too far in terms of not making further concessions to them. In terms of the scientific advice for South Arran, the SNH advice was to remove or avoid all pressures from mobile gears on metal beds, metal gravel and seagrass beds. The measures that are being implemented deliver that. SNH advice is to reduce or limit pressure on habitats such as a burled mud. That is exactly what we have done, but why we are allowing trawling to continue the outer parts of the MPA. I reiterate that 64 per cent of the area will be available for trawling. Most importantly, 60 per cent of the burled mud, which is important for the prone fleet, will be available to them. I reiterate that that is a very pragmatic approach, but at the same time it should help the South Arran MPA to be a beacon of sustainability and forward thinking in terms of marine management. There are many communities who have taken an active role in protecting the coast on their own doorstep, and, likewise, the fishermen, I believe, should be able to have a sustainable living. The statistics that I have referred to many times showing a very modest impact on their income will hopefully ensure that that is the case. Again, I urge the committee to reject the motion to an all. Jamie-Millan MacGregor to wind up and indicate whether you wish to press or withdraw your motion. I understand that the cabinet secretary has a very difficult job on this. I would like to say that, so far as I am encouraged by what he has said and that he will help to look at some of these things again. I am encouraged also by members who may be voting against me. They have said that they are not entirely happy with the process that has taken part. I thank Michael Russell for his defence that he said that I was not, in fact, shameful, which I never considered in the first place, but there we are. John Winded, perhaps, is shameful, no. I intend to press my motion. The question is that motion S4M-15337, in the name of Jamie-Millan MacGregor, be approved. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. Those in favour of annulling the motion, please show. The result is that there were two for seven against, therefore the motion to annull has not been agreed. We will thank the cabinet secretary and his officials and Jamie-Millan MacGregor for attending the meeting. We will move on to agenda item 4, a sub-ledge. This is an item that includes three negative instruments as listed on the agenda. Ensure fishing prohibited methods of fishing in loose bay order 2015, SSI 2015-436, the waste and meaning of recovery miscellaneous amendments Scotland order 2015, SSI 2015-438, the community right to buy Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-4. We have already taken evidence on the insure fishing prohibited methods of fishing loose bay order as part of the agenda item 1, but I refer members to the papers and ask the members to respond. I think that the comments have been made in the previous debate. I would have made them under this item had they not been able to be made, but I have nothing further to add. I think that a reasonable compromise has been reached, although I accept that some of my constituents are not happy. Are there any other comments on any of those orders just now? If there are no other orders, then as the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to those instruments, we are agreed. There will be a brief suspension now to allow for a changeover of witnesses of five minutes, and then we will start on this board and legislation item for suspension. The fifth item of business in our agenda is to take evidence on the water environment. I amend on part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act of 1990, Contaminated Land Scotland Regulations 2016 draft. I welcome the minister for environment, climate change and land reform and her officials, Dr Eileen McLeod, the minister, Joyce Carr, the team leader in the environmental quality division and Neil Ritchie, the branch head of environmental quality division of the Scottish Government. I ask the minister first of all to make some opening remarks on the instrument. Thank you, convener. I am pleased to be here this morning to support the committee's consideration of the Water Environment Amendment of part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Contaminated Land Scotland Regulations 2016. The instrument is primarily a technical one with the aim of clarifying the boundary between our legal regime for the remediation of contaminated land and that for protecting and improving Scotland's water environment. By way of background, our local authorities and SEPA are responsible for dealing with land that is contaminated as a result of historic activity and potentially causing a significant risk of harm to human health or the environment. For instance, if contaminated land is having a significant impact on the water environment, it is normally a matter for SEPA to take responsibility for remediation at such sites. Where that is not the case, it is normally the local authorities who take responsibility for remediation. That approach works well in practice. However, convener, there is a further complexity to the legislative landscape. SEPA has responsibility for taking enforcement action to remediate pollution to the water environment arising from current activities using the provisions of the Water Environment Controlled Activities Scotland Regulations 2011. That introduces a lack of clarity at the boundary between our regime for addressing land contaminated by historic activities and our regime for addressing pollution caused by current activities. We have just published the second round of river basin management plans. In looking ahead to delivering the plans, SEPA and local authorities have been reviewing the legal and policy framework for delivering improvements where contaminated land is identified as a pressure on the water environment. They have indicated that the lack of clarity at the boundary between regimes could lead to confusion about who is responsible for taking remedial action in certain circumstances. I believe that it is essential that our legal framework is clear so that action can properly and swiftly be taken by the most appropriate authority where contaminated land is identified. I therefore recommend that the committee supports the instrument. Thank you. Are there any questions for the minister just now? Just a point of further clarity, minister. Can we be assured that the local authorities and SEPA are happy about where this order takes us? That they are fully comfortable understanding what their roles and responsibilities will be? Yes, I can see that, because I think that SEPA has been working with the local authorities with the aim of delivering the framework. It is a point of clarification in view of the recent extreme weather conditions and the very serious flooding that has happened. How will that be taken into account, if that goes forward? How will that be taken into account? That is a very good point that Claudia Beamish has made. Will Neil give some more detail on that? I do not think that the impact of the current severe weather conditions will impact on the legislation. That is relevant to that. What is more personant is how SEPA is offered to be pragmatic and support land management and others to deal with impacts of the water environment through their regime, such as the controlled activities regulations. Sorry, I did not hear that. The control activities regulations, the 2011 regulations, regulates the engineering-related activities around management of the water environment. That is something that SEPA are engaging actively and proactively with land managers to deal with. To add a point for the information for the member, SEPA has recently published its manual on flood risk management. I am sure that the member might find it quite helpful to have a look at it. Agenda item 6 is consideration of the motion S4M-15274 that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the Water Environment Amendment part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, contaminated land Scotland regulations 2016 draft, be approved. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion. Any members who wish to speak and the minister to formally wind up? There is nothing for me to wind up. Therefore, I put the question that this motion S4M-15274, in the name of Aileen McLeod, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Thank Aileen McLeod and her officials and we will record the results. We will have a very brief suspension. That is just only in time to turn round the officials for the next item, which will proceed to as quickly as we can. I have to say about this so that you understand where we are at. Agenda item 7, Land Reform Scotland Bill. We moved to the second day of consideration of amendments to the Land Reform Scotland Bill and today we will consider amendments picking up where we left off last week in part 3 of the bill, and we will consider amendments up to and not further than part 9 of the bill if we have the time. We will have a brief suspension at the conclusion of part 5, I think. Welcome back. The minister and her officials will be present for the amendments to part 3, 4 and 5. I note that officials are not permitted to speak on the record in these proceedings. I expect that we will be joined later by Patrick Harvie, who has amendments to lodge. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill. The bill has introduced a martial list of amendments that sets out the amendments in the order of which they will be debated and the groupings that were published on Monday. There will be one debate for each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate to me or the clerk. If the minister has not already spoken on the group, I will invite her to contribute to the debate just before moving to the winding-up speech. I should also note that there may be times when I allow a little more flexibility for members to come back on points during the debate, but I would wish that you would note that that should be rationed, if at all possible. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on the group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to vote or withdraw it. If the member wishes to press ahead, I will put the question on the amendment. If the member wishes to withdraw their amendments after it has been moved, I will check whether any other member objects. If any member does object, the amendment is not withdrawn and the committee will immediately move to vote on it. If any member does not wish to move their amendment when it is called, they should say not moved. Any other MSP present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, however, it will immediately call for the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members will be allowed to vote. Voting on any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. If we do not reach the end of part 9 today, then we will stop at an appropriate point and pick up where we left off at day 3 next week. I hope that that is all clear to everybody. So, we are on to the power of the keeper to request information, the procedure for regulation, and I call amendments 31 in the name of the minister group with 32, 33, 34 and 35. The minister to move amendment 31 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Section 36 of the bill inserts a new section 48a into the land registration etc. Scotland act 2012. The new section 48a enables regulations to be made enabling the keeper of the registers of Scotland to request information relating to proprietors of land. That may include information about the category of a proprietor and information about individuals having controlling interests in a proprietor. As I outlined in the committee last week, the Government is setting out our proposals to amend part 3 of the bill at stage 3. We intend to bring forward amendments at stage 3 to amend section 36 to remove reference to requesting information about individuals with controlling interests. This part of section 36 will not be needed because of the new regulation making power to be brought forward at stage 3 for a public register of controlling interests in landowners. It is the intention, convener, of the Government to retain section 36 so that regulations can be made enabling the keeper to request information about the categories of proprietors. That information will be useful in establishing further information on patterns of land ownership. That will help in developing policies in relation to use and management of land. The Government is still considering the committee's suggestion that section 36 be amended to enable the keeper to require information about categories of proprietors. We will certainly be keeping the committee updated of our position in relation to that ahead of stage 3. In the report on the bill at stage 1, the Delegate Powers and Legislative Reform Committee expressed a view that, although the Government's view is that, other than the first use of the power in new section 48A, the subsequent use of the power would be to make regulations that were mainly minor and technical in nature and the power that is not limited to doing that. The committee heard in oral evidence that the scheme for requesting information could change over time with additional categories of information about proprietors being requested. In addition, the committee said that there was potential for changes to be made to the regulations about matters such as the consent of individuals to disclosure of information with a corresponding potential for interference with article 8 rights. In light of their concerns, the committee recommended that the affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made under the new section 48A. The Government recognises the Delegate Powers and Legislative Reform Committee's concerns, so amendments 31 to 35 provide that the affirmative procedure will apply to all regulations made under the new section 48A of the Land, Registration etc. Scotland Act 2012. Thank you minister. Any other members who wish to speak on those? If not, in that case, we move to the question that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendments 32, 33, 34 and 35, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move the amendments 32 to 35 on block. Are there any members who object to a single question being put to amendments 32 to 35? There are not. Since that is the case, the question is that amendments 32 to 35 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I now call amendment 36, the name of Graham Day, and I'm ready to debate with amendment 103, Graham Day to move or not move. I can be here and view the fact that we have just approved the series of amendments to section 36 and the Scottish Government intends using parts of this section of the bill, which my amendment would have deleted, to make further progress and transparency at stage 3, not moved. That's not moved. The question is, is section 36 agreed? We move on to the guidance on engaging communities and decisions relating to land purpose of engagement, contents of guidance etc. I call amendment 13, the name of Sarah Boyack, group with amendments 37, 81, 38, 108 and 39. Sarah Boyack to move amendment 13 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I would like to move my amendment number 13. There are clearly new opportunities which are going to flow from the guidance that's envisaged in this part of the bill, and it is to be hoped that owners and communities will take it seriously and work with it in the spirit intended. However, the concept of the guidance is not very explicit. It simply says that Scottish ministers must issue guidance about engaging but to what end. Further, it's clear that it would be very easy for many to engage but also to then ignore matters arising from that engagement. The engagement guidance implies more of an honour than simply providing information to a community, otherwise that section would simply provide for that. It does go further, but it's not really clear how far it is implied that it does go. To me, the purpose of meaningful engagement would be to try and seek a measure of agreement between the owner and the community on key strategic land use and management questions, maybe even on the questions of ownership of the land itself which might flow out of the engagement process. I believe that it would be important to try and make it clearer on the face of the bill that the purpose of engagement was not just engagement for its own sake but to seek to secure agreement on key land use and management issues. I hope that my amendment, which seeks to make that clear, will help to raise the bar and clarify what is really intended here. To be clear, the seeking of agreement does not mean that agreement must be secured but that an honest attempt is made. I believe that clarity would help in shaping the guidance itself and make it much clearer to all involved what the purpose of the guidance was. I very much look forward to hearing what the minister has to say on my amendment. In relation to my amendment 102, in the policy memorandum, it already states that it will apply to all landowners. However, if you look at the way that the bill is actually worded, it does not specify that in depth. I am speaking of the guidance on engaging communities and decisions. I am not speaking to 102—I am speaking to 102—that is all right, but you said 102. Oh, sorry. That is okay. No, you are speaking correctly to the order. I was speaking to my amendment 108. As you could tell in the earlier proceedings, my voice is going but clearly more than that. I thank you for picking that up, convener and colleagues. In the policy memorandum, it already states that this section on guidance on engaging communities will apply to all landowners, but that is not what is said on the face of the bill. I want to use that as a probing amendment to the minister to get her to put this on the record for clarity's sake. In the policy memorandum, it says that all landowners and those with a controlling interest in land who have substantial land holdings or land close to communities where their decisions in relation to land could affect communities should engage and or consult with those communities over decisions. That is not what is said on the face of the bill. That is an amendment that the Scottish Environment Link was keen for me to move so that we could get that clarity from the minister in her response. There are a number of circumstances where it would be useful to clarify if landowners are acting to what extent are they now expected to consult with communities. The example given by Environment Link was that if somebody was spraying crops with pesticides, would they have to consult with communities? I think that just a sense of where the boundaries are here would be quite useful. The comment that I received about section 37 was that the advice seemed pretty weak. Though the minister could pick that up in her comments, I would be very grateful. In relation to the other amendments in the group, I very much welcome the amendments 37 and 38. We had an excellent discussion last week about the importance of human rights, and as somebody quoted the First Minister, it is about putting the justice into social justice. The key thing is to see it embedded in legislation effectively. I think that the amendment from Mike Russell also attempts to do that on the face of the bill, so I am keen to hear what the minister has to say on his amendment. In relation to amendment 37, I think that it is important that there is a chance to raise awareness here on the issue of guidance. By laying it before the Scottish Parliament, that potentially enables discussion by the relevant committee. It enables MSPs to comment, and hopefully it will enable stakeholder engagement to get the widest number of people involved in what will be important discussions in the early implementation of the bill. In relation to amendment 13, in drawing up the guidance, ministers will consult with a wide range of stakeholders. The guidance will define the different sorts of engagement that will be appropriate in different circumstances. When making decisions about land, landowners will usually take account of a number of considerations, including matters such as adherence to statutory and legal requirements and profitability. The aim of the part 4 guidance is to foster, or to help foster, that spirit of co-operation between landowners and communities, so that communities are properly engaged in decisions that affect them, and that we expect landowners to take account of the views of communities as part of their considerations. The amendment would make the guidance focus on seeking the agreement of communities. While ministers recognise that seeking a consensus between landowners and communities is desirable, there will be instances where, following consultation, their respective views differ. That is a legitimate consequence of open engagement. In addition, the community itself may not reach a unanimous view among all its members. The amendment might also prevent ministers from including useful material in the guidance that is not about seeking agreement. In effect, the amendment could lead to a heavier burden of engagement on landowners that exists for many purposes in public authorities and, in turn, would act as a disincentive to having that open, discursive engagement. At this point, it is more important that we create that culture of co-operation. That is what part 4 seeks to achieve. The extent of that guidance will be developed through a close working partnership with a whole range of relevant stakeholders. We did not wish to pre-empt that process at this early stage. While I recognise the good intentions behind Sarah Boyack's amendment, I cannot support it. For amendments 37 and 38, the Scottish Government places a high priority on furthering equalities and the protection of human rights. Amendment 37 requires Scottish ministers, when preparing that part 4 guidance, to have regard to the desirability of promoting respect for an observance of relevant human rights, encouraging equal opportunities and furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which result from socio-economic disadvantage. As I said last week, an example of the relevant human rights might be the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. The consideration of article 11 of the international covenant, the right to adequate housing, might mean that it is enjoying up the guidance. Ministers in particular consider the need for community engagement when decisions relate to housing or, in consideration of article 6, the right to work when decisions may affect employment in the local area. In terms of equalities, the reference to encouraging equal opportunities within the meaning of section L2 of part 2 of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 will ensure that, in preparing the guidance, ministers consider equalities issues, including sexual discrimination, race relations and disabilities, as well as furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which result from socio-economic disadvantage. Amendment 38 defines relevant human rights to mean such human rights as the Scottish ministers consider relevant in the preparation of guidance. That will ensure that Scottish ministers consider human rights treaties or legislation, for instance, that is relevant to the preparation of the guidance. Together, those will require ministers to take a progressive approach to human rights and equalities when preparing the guidance. In terms of amendment 81, given that I have lodged amendments 37 and 38 that require ministers to have regard to the desirability of promoting respect for and observance of relevant human rights, encouraging equal opportunities and furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which result from socio-economic disadvantage when preparing the part 4 guidance, I would like to ask Mr Russell to withdraw his amendment. I have indicated that I am content to accept amendments 97 and 97A relating to the definition of human rights in principle, and we will consider a further change to part 4 as required at stage 3 in light of this amendment. In terms of amendment 108, I understand that this amendment is influenced by concern that the guidance will exclude certain types of person with control over land altogether. For example, charitable landowners or agricultural landowners could be excluded altogether. This is not the intention, and I am happy to confirm that on the record. The intention is that the guidance will apply to all persons with control over land. However, it will be necessary to have some flexibility in producing the guidance to recognise that, in different circumstances, different groups of persons with control over land may be required to engage. For example, there may be circumstances where, for one piece of land, there is both a land owner and a tenant, each with control over different types of decisions on the land. It will be appropriate, in the case of some decisions, for the landowner to carry out the community engagement but not the tenant. In other circumstances, it may be more appropriate for the tenant to carry out the engagement and not the landowner. The proposed amendment risks losing the flexibility, so I would like to ask her a boy, because she would consider withdrawing her amendment 108. Amendment 39, convener, we welcome absolutely the Parliament's continued interest and involvement in the implementation of the land reform bill once it is passed by the Parliament. The amendment requires that the first part for guidance is laid in Parliament. It will give Parliament the opportunity to consider the guidance as it sees fit, according to its standing orders. We do not think that it is appropriate for Scottish ministers to seek to impose on the Parliament's work programme, but we have brought forward an amendment to require the first guidance to be laid by Parliament, and it will of course be a matter for Parliament, not for Scottish ministers to decide whether the guidance is to be debated or not. Michael Russell, to speak to amendment 81 and other amendments in the group. I hear what the minister says, and I am broadly content with the minister's amendment 37 with a caveat, and she will expect that caveat. The caveat is, in the subsection A, what is given as relevant human rights. There is potential for confusion—not to say conflict in this bill—between her amendment 38 and my amendment 87, as amended by Sarah Boyack's amendment 87A, because that section is a general interpretation section, the amendment 97A. We are having a great morning of this at the moment. My amendment 97A adds to the general interpretation, but there is, in the minister's 38, another definition of relevant human rights, which is whatever the minister and her colleagues think it is. Whilst I have defered to no one in my respect and admiration for the minister's judgment, she may not always be there, and there may be another minister whose definition of relevant human rights is not the same as mine. I will accept that her amendment 37 improves the intention of my amendment 81, and therefore, when it comes to the moment, I will not press my amendment 81. I would seek an assurance that consideration will be given to the conflict between 38 and 97A, amended by 97A, so that we have some clarity in the bill. As far as the rest of the matter is concerned, I entirely see what Sarah Boyack is seeking to achieve. I would have thought that subsequent amendments in this section will do it, but the minister has committed to the issue of consultation. I do think that relying on the goodwill of estates that have shown no interest in this matter up until now is hopeful, if I may use that term. The good estates, which do this anyway, do not need any additional legislation. The bad estates, I think, will frankly think that this is irrelevant, that they can get away with it, and therefore I hope to hear that some actions will be taken, even if it is not in my amendment, that some actions will be taken to have sanctions. It is possible that the ones in the middle might be slightly persuaded by this, but I do not think that there are very many of them. Similarly, I do not think that there are very many really bad estates, but I am not confident that appealing to their better nature will in the end succeed, but let us see what happens. I welcome the clarity that the minister provided over amendment 108, because at first glance it seemed merited, but I am content with what I have heard. I am sorry to take away from the air of consensus that there seems to be here, but I have concerns about the grouping of amendments. I share the minister's reservations about Sarah Boyack's amendment, in that I think that the change from engagement to agreement is much more significant than the wording might suggest. Taking the whole group together, with the exception of amendment 39, which I partly agree, I do think that the amendments seek a move away from furthering sustainable development to a whole range of new objectives that do not align with the policy memorandum and original intent of the bill, simply in the things that are laid out in particular the minister's amendments in front of us. Mike Russell has indicated that he will withdraw his. Unless I can receive some considerable assurance from the minister that this is not moving away from the original policy memorandum and original intent, I would intend to vote against them. I think that perhaps I asked the minister to answer that point, and Sarah Boyack to wind up. I want to take on some of the points that have been raised, or just specifically, Mr Ferguson's— The point that I would say to Mr Ferguson is that the things that we have been adding to this does not move away from the intention of what we are trying to do within part 5 of the bill to further sustainable development. My amendment does not seek to secure community agreement. It seeks community agreement, but it does not secure community agreement. That would be a tougher bar yet again, but it does attempt to ensure that communities are properly engaged. It is tougher than it is in the draft bill, but I think that it would be an important even if it is a small amendment. I am keen to push it, because I listened very carefully to the minister. I take on board the comments that Mike Russell made. It is intended to concentrate the minds of landowners. It is meant to secure everybody's engagement and involvement in a much more effective way. It is intended to strengthen the bill, and I think that it would be a useful amendment. I think that the points that were made both by the minister and Mike Russell about making sure that the human rights are properly incorporated in this legislation are important, and Mike Russell's comments about amendment 97 and 97A are important. When we get to stage 3 or in the period between now and stage 3, we will want to look at where the bill has ended up to make sure that it is consistent throughout the whole bill, and I think that the points that Mike Russell made were absolutely relevant, particularly in the context of the Scottish Human Rights Commission letter to us last week. In relation to amendment 108, I will not be pushing that. It was very much a probing amendment, and I am pleased that the minister has put on the record today. I think that it will be useful in providing clarity to all those who will be expected to implement the bill. The question is whether amendment 13 will be agreed or not. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those who are for the amendment, please show. One, two. Those who are against, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. There were two for and seven against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 37. The name of the minister is already debated with amendment 13. Minister, to move formally. Oh, sorry, formally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. No. It is not agreed. There will be a vote. Therefore, those who are in favour of amendment 37, please show. Those who are against, one. Thank you. The answer is that there were eight for and one against. Therefore, the amendment 37 is passed. I call amendment 81. The name of Michael Russell is already debated with amendment 13. Michael Russell to move or not move. Not moving. Not moved. I call amendment 38. The name of the minister is already debated with amendment 13. Minister, to move formally. Forally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote. Those who are in favour of amendment 38, please show. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Those who are against, one. The amendment was agreed by eight votes to one. I call amendment 108. The name of Sarah Boyack, ready debated with amendment 13. Sarah Boyack to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 37, in the name of the minister, 39, sorry, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 13. Minister, to move formally. Forally moved. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Compliance with guidance on engaging communities in decision relating to land. I call amendment 14, the name of Sarah Boyack, group with amendments 82 and 98. Sarah Boyack to move amendment 14 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I think it's crucial that, where ministers set out a clear process, that process is both applied and adhered to properly. The key issue is that we monitor and learn from experience. I believe that three years is an appropriate time. I think that one of the issues that arose in the evidence that we saw earlier in the year, we found this, for example, in the five evidence that we took. Then talking to communities, the guidance from the previous legislation, the 2003 act, was sometimes difficult for communities to work with and sometimes they couldn't get advice or guidance from officials. I think that that makes the case that we need to make sure that guidance is accessible and helpful because its impact will be determined and how well it's crafted and when there's advice available. I think that we need an honest review process. I would prefer that to be within the lifetime of the next Government, not kicked into the long grass. I very much support the amendments from Mike Russell numbers 82 and 98. I think that they are helpful. They are about ensuring that people implement the guidance that the due process is followed but that there are consequences spelt out. I think that that will hope to concentrate people's minds about what the consequences of non-compliance are. For those reasons, I hope that those amendments will be supported. I call Mike Russell to speak to amendment 82. I have indicated, convener, in my comments on the previous amendments. I think that the section needs substantial strengthening in order to say to those few—I don't think that there are many of them—but those fewer states, both held by charities and held by private individuals, would and should be sanctions for not engaging with communities. I have raised the issue of the difficulties that residents in Carrick Castle near Lochgoilhead have had with the development in their area. One of the weaknesses there was that there was nothing that could force the compliance and irrelevant landowner and was in receipt of substantial sums of public money in order to plant trees. One of the sanctions that is now used in wildlife crime—again, that was difficult to introduce but was introduced—was to ensure that cross-compliance supplies and that public money does not go to people who do not further public objectives. Public objective in this regard would be to ensure that there was effective and meaningful consultation with communities about what the plans were for the area in which they lived. That will be a heavy responsibility for third sector bodies as well. There are quite a number of third sector bodies that own land throughout Scotland, and they will have to make sure that their objectives tie in with the objectives of the communities that they have taken responsibility for. Of course, that is an amendment from a backbencher. It may not be phrased in exactly the perfect way that the Government wishes. Therefore, I would understand it if, in this amendment, there were some difficulties that the Government would want to go away and think about. However, what I am seeking above all is a commitment to ensure that there is a way to enforce that. It is not left for after a review, and I support Sarah Boyack's intentions and views on having a review. However, it is in actual fact something that becomes effective when the guidance is issued and that the Government is willing to act on. I should be interested to see what the minister says. If that can be done another way and in a way that is more commensurate with how the Government believes that the effect can be found, that will be all well and good. I remind the minister that what is in this amendment is not dissimilar from what is in the policy memorandum for the bill. The minister spoke very effectively about that when she gave evidence to the committee. Another minister wants to see those guidelines being effective. Let us find a way in which we can ensure that the very few poorlanders in Scotland who are not willing to engage will engage because they know that they have to. I welcome the intention behind both Mr Russell and Sarah Boyack's amendments this morning, which I understand seek to ensure that the guidance that is developed under part 4 of the bill is as effective as possible in promoting engagement between landowners and tenants and communities on land-based decisions. I absolutely agree with that. Part 4 is fundamentally aimed at improving that better collaboration and engagement between landowners and communities and stresses that there are responsibilities on both sides for communities to be clear on what their needs are and then for landowners to take those needs into account in decision making. The committee's stage 1 report indicated that there was strong support for that in principle. My intention, as I confirmed when I gave evidence to the committee and to Parliament during stage 1, is to develop the part 4 guidance through consultation and in partnership with all parties with an interest now. By bringing everyone together to help to develop the guidance, we will not only make sure that the guidance is as effective as possible, but we will also begin to build the relationships and the understandings between parties that are necessary for the guidance to have the impact design. It is important that the co-productive process is not pre-empted by the Government or by Parliament. How best to develop, review and monitor the effectiveness and ensure that the guidance is considered and followed will be discussed and decided as part of developing the guidance itself. Just to reassure Sarah Boyack, part of developing the guidance will be to consider what support both communities and landowners require to ensure that they can access the guidance effectively. However, I appreciate that Sarah Boyack's amendment seeks to provide reassurance that progress against the guidance that we monitored and assessed and that Parliament will provide an opportunity to consider an assessment of that progress. Although I currently considered three years to be too short a timeframe to allow for real progress to be made and reviewed and that there is a greater need for flexibility than currently provided for in the proposed amendment, I would be content to accept Sarah Boyack's proposed amendment 14 in principle. I think that pending having a further discussion over an appropriate timescale for the review to be confirmed at stage 3. Turning to Michael Russell's proposed amendments, I would again stress that how best to develop, review and monitor the effectiveness of the guidance and ensure that it is considered and followed will be discussed and decided as part of developing the guidance itself. With part 5 applications, I appreciate the desire for greater clarification on what the potential options would be should the guidance not be followed. As we have stated, which Mr Russell has already mentioned, clearly in the policy memorandum that a lack of consideration of part 4 guidance and a lack of engagement could be a factor that ministers consider as part of the evidence in assessing a part 5 right to buy application. As it may assist in evidencing why the transfer of the land to the community body or nominated third party is the only way of achieving that desired benefit to the community. However, I stress that, depending on the final content of the guidance and the circumstances of the particular case, whether the guidance has been considered and followed may or may not be a relevant consideration in determining whether the conditions for consenting to a part 5 application have been met. I would very much welcome the opportunity to work with Michael Russell towards an amendment at stage 3 that makes it clearer on the face of the bill that a failure to consider or follow the guidance can be a relevant consideration in a part 5 application. I think that giving it the most appropriate way to do that would be through an amendment to part 5 rather than part 4. In terms of the future grants and awards, the criteria and the conditions for awards and grants can only take into account factors that are relevant and proportionate to that grant or contract. It attempts to link non-compliance with the part 4 guidance as a factor in assessing grants and awards. It can be expected to be at a high risk of a legal challenge where the link isn't relevant to the purpose of the grant or proportionate in impacting on a grant. In developing the detail of the guidance, we will be able to consider and begin identifying where it is appropriate to add the criteria relating to engagement and consideration of the guidance to future awards and grants controlled by the Scottish ministers and working with others in the public, private and third sectors to encourage similar considerations across all award and grant providers. At that point, it is not necessary to legislate to achieve that, but there are a range of tools that we can use to promote better engagement and ensure that there are clear expectations that guidance should be followed. A range of measures will be considered as part of the development of that policy. For example, the Scottish business pledge has been effective in building stakeholder alliance in support of a policy. Businesses are signing up to make a pledge about paying the living wage and a range of other actions that bring business benefits and inclusive growth. We will consider whether a similar model could be part of the development of the guidance and, obviously, we will be monitoring the implementation of the guidance against our policy intentions. We will return to the issue if we identify failures in the operation of the guidance, but it is important to ensure that we have all the necessary tools that are in place to support and promote consideration of the guidance. I appreciate that colleagues are seeking confirmation on the face of the bill that this will happen. To give the committee and Mr Russell the reassurance around this is it. We are keen and happy to have the opportunity to work further with Mr Russell ahead of stage 3 on a potential proposal to expand the purpose of the review and the report to be produced as a result of Sarah Boyack's amendment to include an assessment of whether there is a need for further action or tools to ensure that the guidance is considered and followed. As I said, I would be very happy if Mr Russell would be agreeable to my offer and therefore ask that he withdraws his amendment and consider the alternative options. I confirm that I would welcome the committee accepting amendment 14 today and would welcome Sarah Boyack's agreement to discuss with me and the committee further whether her amendment could be further amended at stage 3 in relation to the issue of timescales. Sarah Boyack will wind up and move for pressure withdrawal. As I understand it, the minister has agreed to discuss whether the committee is minded to pass my amendment today and whether it might be appropriate to tweak it at stage 3. If that is what she is saying, I very much welcome that. When I was reading it late last night thinking of my speech for this morning, I was thinking that the first part is absolutely crucial that we do have a report that goes to Parliament to assess the effectiveness of the guidance. I think that that is important in principle that it comes to the Parliament. I think that it is also important that the first report would be something off the order of three years after that guidance is laid, which is not going to be immediately when the minister, possibly in the next term, is able to put that into place. I think that the issue about whether it is three years is the appropriate timescale was the timescale that I felt most appropriate when putting this amendment together. If that is the key issue that the minister is thinking about coming back to stage 3, then I would be happy to meet with her and to discuss that. I very much welcome the fact that she thinks that colleagues should support the amendment as it is today. I welcome that. I also welcome the comments that Mike Russell made about cross-compliance and meaningful consultation. I agree with him that the issue is not most or all landowners. The issue is a small number of landowners who, to date, could have done a lot more to work constructively with communities. I hear what the minister has said. The objectives of Mike Russell's amendments are absolutely spot-on. As back-benchers, we always do the best we can to get the perfect amendment. The spirit of what Mike Russell had as an amendment was absolutely correct. I am very keen to see my amendment 14 be accepted today. I am always happy to talk about the detail of it thereafter. I would therefore formally move it and seek the support of the committee today. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 82. The name of Mike Russell is already debated with amendment 14. I will not move. I am not fully satisfied, but I take the minister's commitment to discuss whether, but I reserve the right to bring back the amendment at stage 3. Move to the next group, ability to purchase shooting rights under part 5. Call an amendment 83 in the name of Claudia Beamish in a group of its own. Claudia Beamish to move and speak to amendment 83. Thank you, convener. In this amendment, which is a probing amendment, I am seeking clarification as to whether shooting rights are able to be sold as separate entities in the same way that mineral rights and fishing rights are. I would draw the attention of the committee and the minister to section 38, the meaning of land. I am not going to read out all the meanings of land, but you will be pleased to hear them. The roman numeral 5 refers to the salmon rights and the mineral rights. I seek clarification on that as I say that it is a probing amendment. Any other members who wish to speak on that? I thank Claudia Beamish for this amendment, which is well intentioned and seeks to give communities the opportunity to buy shooting rights. Section 38 of the bill defines what is included as land for the purposes of part 5. The definition of land does not include shooting rights that are owned separately from the land to which they relate. The reason is that those shooting rights may be leased. They cannot be conveyed separately from land, so to clarify shooting rights cannot be transferred separately from the land over which they can be exercised. Where salmon fishing and mineral rights are owned separately from the land in respect of which they are eligible, then those rights are included in the definition of land and an application under part 5 can be made to purchase those rights. However, such rights can only be purchased under part 5 if the community body has bought or is seeking to buy the land under part 5 in respect of which those rights are eligible. Shooting rights that are owned separately from the land to which they relate cannot be included in the definition of land in part 5 of the bill because they are not a right that can be conveyed without the land to which the rights relate. I appreciate the good intention behind Claudia Beamish's amendment. I would ask if she would be willing to withdraw that amendment. Claudia Beamish, to wind up the presser withdrawal. I think that I have the clarification that I need if I have understood the minister's answer about rights and rights and withdraw the amendment. Can I ask the committee if anyone objects to the amendment being withdrawn? Nobody objects. In that case, we move on to the question that section 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We move on to periods in which the application to buy salmon fishing's mineral rights or tenants' interests may be made. I call amendments 40 in the name of the minister group of amendments 41, 42 and 43. The minister to move amendment 40 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Government amendments 40, 41, 42 and 43 are technical amendments that clarify the point of which the relevant period ends for the purposes of determining when an application can be made to buy land consisting only of salmon fishing and mineral rights under section 40 or to buy a tenants' interests under section 41. Sections 43A and 416A set out of the relevant period ends on the date for the part 5 community body or third party purchaser withdraws, if confirmation to purchase a land that salmon fishing's mineral rights or tenants' interests relates to. Amendments 40, 41, 42 and 43 make clear that where the part 5 community body or third party purchaser fails to complete the purchase of the related land for any other reason then the relevant period ends on the date that the related purchase failed. Therefore, I move amendment 40. Thank you. Does any member wish to comment on these? If not, minister to wind up, please. Nothing to wind up. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 41. In the name of the minister. We are ready to debate amendment 40. Minister to move formally. Folly moved. Question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. The question is that section 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 42 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 40. Minister to move formally. Folly moved. Question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 43 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 40. Minister to move formally. Folly moved. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes.aboutwg aeth yw'r ysgolau ar y cymhwyllfa iechyd aeth yw'r cyflawn yr adelec, gan'i ddaw ti'n mynd i'r peirio ar y cyflawnr hynny. Rymd yw'r gyff iddod hi yn yr adelec yn yllafodd Abertafnewid i Gwyrdd Llywodraethod dwyledd pan ddaw i'r cyflawnr hyn a dim ond. Rwy'n rhaid i'ch cyflawnr hyn yn mynd i'r cyflawnr hyn i'r cyflawnr hynny. 90 a 93. Claudia Beamish, to move amendment 84 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. This is the issue around communities of interest, which also came up in the community empowerment bill. I want it to be quite clear in moving this amendment that I have the clear understanding that local communities are indeed at the heart of this part of the bill. Communities want to be in charge of their own future working together. I do, of course, respect this. However, communities of interest, in my view, may also have a small place within the aims of this bill. Communities can be more complex than geographically proximate groups, particularly in rural areas. An example of this came up in committee was the Mountain Bothy Association, where there is not a community because of the remoteness and it could be in the interests of communities more broadly to own land in order to have a mountain bothy for recreational and wildlife watching purposes. Also, the STFA have highlighted communities of interest such as tenant farmers in a somewhat wider geographical area may wish to purchase land in a particular local community working together. Some have also argued that communities of interest more generally, such as walkers belonging to a Scotland-wide organisation, might have an interest. I am simply saying that I am not necessarily in support of that aspect because I respect the local communities aspect, but that has been raised as well. In this amendment states, I quote, that ministers may diso-ply a new word for me, diso-ply the requirement in subsection 9 for a community to be defined with reference to postcode units or to a type of area. Of course, this would only be the case in my amendment if this amendment was in the public interest. There are also two consequential amendments, sorry, there is only one, which relate to communities of interest. That is 93, thank you. Is it both amendments, convener, in my name? No, just the one. Just the first one. Right, just the first one. Thank you, convener. Are there any other members who wish to speak at this point? Alex Ferguson. Thank you, convener. I understand and Claudia Beamish has been very persistent on this issue and I understand entirely where she is coming from, but I do have an issue in how this relates with the final outcome of the community empowerment bill. I know that the minister has previously said that changing the definition to include communities of interest could potentially create further problems for local communities by allowing particular interest groups to compete for ownership of land in the locality. I agree with that and I hope that the minister will stick to that. Where I think there is latitude in this is that it is not beyond the power of imagination or indeed possibility that the type of groups to whom Ms Beamish referred, because it seems to me that all they need is a postal address within the postcode or area being looked at to comply with the legislation. Given that, I hope that the minister will stick to a previous commitment. I would intend to vote against this amendment anyway. Thank you, convener. Mike Russell. Not persuaded by this idea when it was discussed as part of the community empowerment bill and although I do not think that the particular amendment from Claudia Beamish with respect is exactly the right one, I think that this is becoming a more grey area. It is quite conceivable that there are bodies that I know of several that do not have firm community backing or cannot get that as a result of either there being no community in place or community that is not necessarily aligned with the interests of that body. They are restricted from purchasing and taking advantage of this important legislation. I think that there is a need for the Government to look at this again and to find a way forward and perhaps discussion between now and stage 3 might do so. No minister to respond. I am grateful to Claudia Beamish for the group of amendments that has provided me with a further opportunity to reflect on the purpose of part 5 of the bill and the definition of communities within part 5. How land is used in a local area can have a significant and direct impact on people in local communities. Local communities often have very little opportunity to influence landowners' decisions. The bill proposes a right to buy land to further sustainable development specifically to support local communities. Those amendments seek to make provision to allow communities of interest to exercise the part 5 right to buy. The aim of part 5 of the bill is to support the sustainable development of land to benefit local communities and avoid harm to such communities and give them more of a say over what happens in their area. The Scottish Government would not therefore support the widening of the definition term community to include communities of interest. Changing the definition to include communities of interest could potentially create further problems for local communities by allowing particular interest groups to compete for ownership of land in the locality. It would be difficult to see how a community of interest could demonstrate that it met both the significant harm and significant benefit tests in the sustainable development conditions in section 47 of the bill. It may also be difficult for communities of interest to show how the transfer of the land to them is likely to further sustainable development in relation to the land when the community of interest itself may be geographically dispersed now. While I cannot support those amendments, I hope that the committee will recognise that there is nothing to prevent a local community from going into partnership with the community of interest as a third party purchaser, provided that they are satisfied that the community of interest could deliver the desired benefits to the local community and that all the sustainable development conditions were met. I think that the issues that those amendments have been raised by Claudia Beamish are serious ones that demand further consideration. I do not think that they fall within the focus of part 5 of the bill, which is on local communities, but what I can put on record for Claudia Beamish is to say that I will give further consideration to the issue outwith the land reform bill process. It is definitely an issue that we will want to return to in future in order to have a proper look at it and to find a way for it, because there are a lot of issues here along the different types of groups that Claudia Beamish has stated with Mountain Bothys, travelling people and hutters. I am happy to put it on the record that this is an issue that we are very happy to come back to to give it the proper and serious consideration that it deserves. Claudia Beamish, to wind up the presser withdrawal. Right, thank you convener. Is it possible for me to seek some clarification from the minister just before I wind up? It would be helpful to understand in what way it might be possible to look at the issue further if it was not in your view within the spirit and the aims of the land reform bill, just when I am considering whether to withdraw the amendment or not. In response to Claudia Beamish, I would certainly be very happy to have a further discussion with her about how we would do this as part of the next stage of the land reform process. I will be very keen to do that, because those are serious issues that I think deserve us giving it the proper consideration that it deserves. I will be very happy to work with Claudia Beamish around that. I hope that that would give Claudia Beamish the reassurance. In winding up, I completely respect and strongly support the spirit and aims of the bill in relation to local communities. In relation to Alex Ferguson's comment that there might well be competition between different groups within a community or nearby to land, it would not only be about communities of interest that might also have competition with the local community. I apologise. I want the amendment to be at the discretion of the minister. It would have been, in my view, the ability where there was an exceptional occurrence or circumstance for the minister to be able to have the power to make that decision. I tried to make it as narrow a definition as possible because of communities of interest being beyond local communities. To get to the point, having sought the reassurance from the minister and received that, I will withdraw that at the moment. I am not sure at this stage whether I will see it as appropriate to bring it back in a different form in stage 3, but that does depend on the comments of the minister in discussion with myself in the interim. Thank you. Claudia Beamish wishes to withdraw amendment 84. Do we have any other member who wishes to move that? If not, then the amendment is therefore withdrawn. The question is that section 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That section 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We move on to the creation of single register for the exercise of the rights to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land and to buy land to further sustainable development, et cetera. Amendment 44, in the name of the minister group with amendments 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 64, 67, 78 and 71. The minister to move amendment 44 and speak to all the amendments in the group. In section 44, the bill requires a keeper to set up and keep a register to be known as the register of land for sustainable development. That register has to contain information and documents about applications for the right to buy under part 5. In section 74 of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015, in 30 section 97f into the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, amendment 44 requires a keeper to set up and keep a separate register that contains information and documents about applications for the community right to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land. In stage 1 report, the Iraqi committee said that it would be sensible to ensure that one new register of community interest in land be created. In our response, we agreed that amalgamating the two registers might be more efficient and we said that we would give further consideration to that. Amendments 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 64 and 67 now make provision for this. Those amendments will create a new register of applications by community bodies to buy land. The duties on the keeper in respect of the register for the right to buy in part 3A of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 and the register created in part 5 of the bill are very similar. Having one register, it contains information and documents about applications for the community right to buy, abandoned, neglected or detrimental land and for applications under part 5 of the bill will be cheaper, simpler to administer and easier for community bodies to access. Registers of Scotland are content with and indeed want this approach to be taken. amendment 44 amends section 44 so that the keeper is required to set up and keep a register to be known as a register of applications by community bodies to buy land. The register will contain information and documents relating to applications for the right to buy under part 5 of the bill. Amendments 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51 make consequential amendments to section 44. Amendment 52 amends section 97F of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 to remove the requirement for it to be a register of community interests in abandoned, neglected or detrimental land. That amendment requires the keeper to include a part in the register of applications by community bodies to buy land that contains information and documents about the applications for the community right to buy, abandoned, neglected or detrimental land. The amendment also makes consequential amendments to section 97F to reflect this change in amendments to register. In addition, this group of amendments contains one minor amendment relating to the information to be included in the register created under part 5 of the bill. Scottish Government amendments 17 and 71 insert a new schedule into the bill to make minor and consequential amendments to the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. Amendment 71 amends the date for the ballot return required for the community right to buy in part 2 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. That amendment provides that, where the date for the valuation to be provided is extended for longer than 12 weeks for the date of appointment of the valuer, the ballot return must be sent to minister no later than the day after the date that notification of the valuation is given. Amendment 71 also makes consequential amendments to the right to buy in part 3A of the 2003 Land Reform Scotland Act to take account of the amendment 52. Amendment 52 removes the register of community rights in abandoned, neglected or detrimental land and provides the information that would have been included on the register if now included on the register of applications by community bodies to buy land created under part 5 of the bill. Therefore, I move amendment 44. I very much welcome the new register singular because I think one of the challenges is to enable communities to actually track through what's happening with this. If this makes it more straightforward and easier for communities, I think that that's all to the good. Obviously, you'd want to see how it works out in practice, but hopefully this is going to make it more straightforward all round. Any other member wishes to comment? No, if not, minister to wind up. Happy not to. Thank you. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 45. The new minister already debated with amendment 44. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Minor amendments. I call amendment 46 in the name of the minister. Group with amendments 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61 and 68. Minister to move amendment 46. I speak to all the amendments in the group. Now, convener, this is a group of minor government amendments. Amendment 46 provides that, with an application, has been made under part 5 by a part 5 community body that is a Scottish charitable incorporated organisation and scale. The name of the part 5 body, as well as its address, must be included on the register of applications by community bodies to buy land. Amendment 49 applies with a part 5 community body that is a body corporate with a written constitution, has made an application under part 5 and then changes its address. The amendment requires the part 5 community body to notify the keeper of this change of address as soon as it is reasonably practicable. Amendment 53, an application for a right to buy under part 5, the bill, must include or be accompanied by information about certain matters and details of that, which may be set out in regulations. One of those matters is the reasons why the part 5 community body considers that its proposals for the land satisfy the sustainable development conditions set out in section 47. Amendment 53 modifies section 456 to make clear that where the application is to buy a tenant's interest, the information to be provided is about how the proposals for the land satisfy the sustainable development conditions, as it modifies specifically by section 475A in relation to applications to buy a tenant's interest. That is a minor and technical amendment for clarity. Amendment 55 is a minor amendment to correct a cross-reference in section 46 in amendments section 466 so that it correctly refers to the views and responses received in response to an application under section 45 rather than under section 46. Amendment 56, the effect of section 473 F2 is that the procedure requirements are not met if the landowner is subject to an enforceable personal obligation to sell the land, except with the obligation to sell the land to the part 5 community body who made the application to buy the land. Amendment 56 provides that there is also an exception to the requirement where the obligation on the landowner is to sell the land to the third party purchaser nominated by the part 5 community body. Amendment 57, 58, 59 are all minor to comply with the procedure requirements under section 47. A community body must have submitted a written request to the landowner requesting that the transfer of land and the owner must not have responded or agreed to the request. With the community body wishing to buy a tenant's interest and the community body is required to submit a written request to the tenant to buy the interest, but unlike the request to the landowner, the tenant does not have to respond in order for an application to buy the tenant's interest to be made. Section 47, 8b and c allows ministers to make regulations about the responses to the requests and circumstances when owners and tenants are taken not to have responded or agreed to those requests. Amendment 57, 58 and 59 amend those provisions so that they only apply to responses by landowners. Amendment 61 corrects a minor error in section 47. Nine of the bill amends the reference to subsection 42 to refer to section 42. Amendment 68 moves section 65 interpretation of part 5, which is an interpretation provision for part 5 of the bill, to after section 43 where it sits better. Amendment 46, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendments 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51, all in the name of the minister all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 47 to 51 on bloc. Is there any member objecting to a single question that we put to amendments 47 to 51? No. Therefore, the question is that amendments 47 to 51 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendments 52 in the name of the minister all ready debated with amendment 44. The right to buy under part 5 exercisable by third party purchaser. I call amendment 85 in the name of Jim Hume in a group of its own. Jim Hume to move and speak to amendment 85. I move amendment 85 in my name. Amendment 85 seeks to delete section 45 one beef, but it is to say that part five community body can nominate in its application another person to exercise the right to buy that person a third party purchaser. I appreciate that obviously communities should be at the position that they are always in control, so my concern is that community might itself be put in a position where it finds that it's sacrificed truly long term sustainable benefits such as perhaps affordable housing in exchange for perhaps even a cash offer from a third party, which may be too good to refuse. That could have some unintended consequences. There's a danger that this part of the bill community projects could be driven by third party companies, obviously with their own agenda. I think that's contrary to and has a potential to dilute the central aim of the bill, which is of course for local communities to always be the drivers behind their own projects based on their own local aspirations. In moving this amendment, I reiterate the fact that this is to ensure that it's always communities that are driving forward their right to buy rather than third parties, which may of course be large businesses, so I'd be interested in hearing the minister's comments on that. Any other member wishes to comment just now? There's an issue—oh yes, Sarah Boyack, if I'll have you first and then me, why not? Just to say, I think that this section in the bill is actually quite a useful innovation and I think it'd be a great pity to remove it at this stage, so I hear what Jim Hume is saying, but I haven't been convinced that we should take this part of the bill out. Let me say that discussions in the Highlands about areas that were once previously occupied by people are perhaps a subject of this area here. It may be that a community wishes to try and either extend the land that it has or indeed in an area where there aren't houses at this time, so the question about potentially something like Community Land Scotland being that third party could begin to affect a debate about lands that were previously occupied by people and which could be occupied in future. I would agree with Sarah Boyack that this actually opens up an interesting area where we might find means to use this third party approach and I do not believe that the third party approach is one where a community can pass it to some sort of developer at all, so therefore I wouldn't be supporting this amendment. Any other members wish to speak? I am grateful to Mr Hume for raising the issue, which gives us the opportunity to further reflect on the role of third parties in the right to buy under part 5. I also welcome the comments from Sarah Boyack and the convener. The ability for a community body to nominate a third party purchaser to buy land under part 5, for example, a housing association or a local business parter that adds flexibility to the right to buy process. There has been strong support for those provisions from a number of stakeholders, for example Community Land Scotland. The community report at stage 1 acknowledges that it may be beneficial in certain circumstances for a community to be able to nominate a third party purchaser. Enabling communities to access resources and expertise of other parties could help to deliver real benefits to the community at the centre of the application. I understand that a small number of stakeholders have expressed concern that third party purchasers might exercise undue influence in response to the committee's request in its report over what safeguards were needed. We noted that considering a part 5 application, Scottish ministers will have to be satisfied that the sustainable development conditions are met and the procedural requirements are complied with. That will include consideration of the community body and third party purchasers' ability to deliver the proposals in their application. That might include scrutinising the arrangements between the community body and third party purchasers. For example, the legal agreement sitting out for example delivery timescales, rights, liabilities and maintenance arrangements, etc. Ministers would not be able to consent to an application if they were not satisfied that the transfer to the third party purchaser would be likely to deliver significant benefits to the community and that the other sustainable development tests were met. Any concerns that are raised by a landowner or any other person that a third party purchaser was wielding undue influence or any evidence that an arrangement between the community body and a third party purchaser would not deliver the significant benefits or even prevent harm to the community. Necessary to meet the sustainable development conditions would be considered very seriously by ministers when deciding whether to consent to an application. In addition, the Scottish Government already supports organisations such as the community ownership support service to provide support and advice to communities on the issues of asset transfer and land ownership. That means that communities will have access to advice and support from an independent party when they are deciding whether to work with a third party on a right to buy application. In addition, the Scottish Government, we are happy for the record to give a reassurance to Mr Hume that it will not allow part 5 to be used for reasons other than intended. For those reasons, I would ask Mr Hume if he would be willing to withdraw his amendment 85. Jim Hume, to wind up the presser withdrawal. Thank you very much for that. I think that it has been important to thrash this out a little bit and get this on the record, because there are concerns out there. As the minister correctly said, it may be used in certain circumstances, and of course the minister has stated that it would only be considered or given approval volume ministers if it passed the sustainable development condition test. Unfortunately, sustainability has not been fully explained or defined as it is currently in the bill. Obviously, I would encourage local communities to work with housing associations to provide for affordable housing in their communities, so we would not want to stop housing associations to be part of community development. With that in mind, I reserve the right to bring this back at the third stage, but at this stage I would seek to withdraw my amendment. Jim Hume seeks to withdraw amendment 85. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member objects. The question is that amendment 53, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 46. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Consideration of the effect of exercise of the right to buy on owner or occupier of the land. Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 87, 88 and 60. Minister, to move amendment 54 and speak to all amendments in the group. When an application is made under part 5, ministers are required to invite the owner or, as the case may be, the tenant to give ministers information about certain matters. Amendment 54 requires ministers to invite the owner of the land or the tenant, as a case may be, to provide them with information on the likely impact of the proposals in the application on their interests. That includes information about the impact of the application on the current use of the land, the tenant's interests or any intended use. Amendment 54 works in tandem with the Government amendment 60, which will require ministers to take account of any such information provided by the land owner or the tenant in considering whether the transfer of land or the tenant's interests is in the public interest. With amendment 87, I very much appreciate the concerns behind Mr Russell's amendment 87. I think that there are some difficulties that I have with it that it could, in some instances, create a significant restriction to the right to buy that I do not consider appropriate, because any application to buy land under part 5, including an application to buy agricultural land, can only be consented to by ministers if all the sustainable development conditions are met and the procedure requirements complied with. That means that the transfer of land would have to satisfy the sustainable development conditions, including that the transfer is in the public interest and that the transfer of land will likely result in significant benefit to the community and that it is the only practicable way of achieving significant benefit for the community and that not granting the transfer will likely result in significant harm to the community. Those are strong tests and I believe that it is legitimate that agricultural land should not be excluded from a part 5 application where, for instance, a transfer is needed to prevent significant harm to the community, to provide significant benefits where there are no practical alternatives and where it is in the public interest. There may also be circumstances where, for example, buying a small piece of agricultural land could result in significant benefits to a community but have limited impact on the landowner. The test allows for all relevant factors to be considered. The Scottish Government amendment 60 requires that, in considering whether the transfer of land or the assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest, ministers must take into account any information that is provided by landowners or tenants on how a part 5 application would affect their interests. It also requires that Scottish ministers, in considering whether the transfer of land or the assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest, must consider the likely effect on land use in Scotland of granting or not granting consent to the transfer. The amendment 60 therefore addresses concerns about agricultural land that were raised by some of our stakeholders, and it also confirms Scottish ministers' commitment to flourishing and vibrant tenancy sector. Given the reassurances and the points that I have made about not unduly restricting communities' rights to buy for a sustainable development, Mr Russell would consider withdrawing his amendment in this case. I am happy to go on the record as saying that we will always take account of the effect on agriculture of any community buy-out when considering a part 5 application we are relevant. I appreciate the good intentions behind Mr Ferguson's amendment 88, although, with due respect, I am unable to support it. Ministers cannot consent to an application under part 5 of the bill unless they are satisfied that the transfer of land or assignment of the tenant's interest would be in the public interest. Again, I am happy to go on the record as saying that this will involve consideration of the impact of the transfer or assignment on the landowner or tenant. To make this clear on the face of the bill, my amendment 60 requires that in considering whether the transfer of land or assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest, ministers must take into account any information provided by landowners or tenants on how a part 5 application would affect those interests. It also obliges Scottish ministers when considering whether the transfer of land or the assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest to consider the likely effect of granting or not granting consent to the transfer of land or a tenant's interest or land use in Scotland. It is also useful to remember that Scottish ministers could not consent to an application under part 5 if, to do so, it would be incompatible with any person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Amendment 60, which I have already discussed in relation to my amendment 54, and Mr Russell's amendment 87 and Mr Ferguson's amendment 88 requires that in considering whether the transfer of land or assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest, ministers must take into account any information provided by landowners or tenants on how a part 5 application would affect their interests. As I have said before, it also requires the Scottish ministers in considering whether the transfer of land or assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest must consider the likely effect on land use in Scotland of granting or not granting consent to the transfer. Amendment 60 addresses concerns about the agricultural land that were raised by some stakeholders and some members of the committee. I reiterate that amendment does confirm the Scottish ministers' commitment to having a flourishing and vibrant tenant's sector. I therefore move amendment 54. Michael Russell to speak to amendment 87 and other amendments in the group. I am reassured by the minister's amendment 60. I think that it has the same effect. I think that it would be useful to have a specific reference to agricultural land, but I can appreciate the difficulty of so doing. The issue is not just agricultural land, it is agricultural units. It is important that there is reassurance given to those people who fear that they will lose an essential part of a viable agricultural unit. I am not, in any way, trying to remove the purchase of agricultural land from the prospect of community purchase. That clearly is unreasonable and is not something that one would want to see. However, it is important to give not only reassurance to the agricultural sector but also to indicate its importance by saying that there is an understanding in this bill and in government that agricultural units need to be protected from unreasonable activity. I will address my later amendments in 86A, but they also raised some of the issues from the perspective of those people who are trying to earn a living in the countryside and who do not want that to be disrupted but yet have excellent relationships with the community and indeed are part of the community. That is not an amendment that addresses issues of large-scale estate management. It addresses issues of people who work in the countryside, in the long term, who have an interest in being there. We do not want them to be casualties, accidental casualties of the legislation. Amendment 60 is important. I think that it will have the effect. It will be useful to see what the agricultural sector thinks of amendment 60, but at the present moment I am quite willing to withdraw. However, the agriculture sector believes that there is further strengthening required, so I have no doubt that we can look at that as we approach stage 3. Thank you, convener. I would very much echo the comments that Mike Russell has just made in reference to my own amendment 88. I have no problems with amendments 54 and 60 in the name of the minister, but I do believe that this whole group would be greatly strengthened by the addition of both amendments 87 and 88. It does not seem to me to strike a reasonable balance when the transfer of land is considered in terms of significant benefit or harm to the community without giving equal consideration to any significant harm to the owner or previous owner or the likely previous owner of that land. My amendment 88 would make the consideration a key test. While I accept entirely that, it is partly recognised in amendment 87, which seeks to protect farmland, my amendment would give similar recognition to other rural land uses such as forestry, heritage, tourism, outdoor, recreation, etc. I want to reiterate the point that Mike Russell made that the minister has mentioned twice. She has mentioned the effect on land use in Scotland and she has also mentioned the use of agriculture in Scotland. However, it is not about Scotland-wide issues, it is about the impact on that particular unit, be it a farm or be it another form of rural business. It is important to recognise that. I am reminded of the committee's visit to an example of community ownership in Fife. I think that it was Kinghorn, thank you very much for reminding me of Kinghorn in Fife. It was a splendid example of community engagement, community empowerment and community benefit. The people involved were keen to purchase extra ground of a neighbouring farm and we were told that it was extremely difficult to engage with the farmer. It later transpired that that individual was more than happy to engage but was not happy to give up the land in question because it amounted to some 50 per cent of his farm. In Dumfries, I questioned the minister on what would happen in a 50-50 situation. I believe that the Kinghorn situation might well do that because I think that the community application, if they were to make an application under this legislation, might well fulfil the tests that have been laid down in front of them. However, the landowner or the farmer in that case would have a very strong case to make against it. In a 50-50 situation, it has become quite clear from the minister's answer in Dumfries that the community application would be favoured in that circumstance. I think that Mike Russell's amendment 87 and indeed mine 88 provide that additional protection that is required. I am disappointed that the minister cannot see a way to accept them or indeed have further discussions to see what extra protection to be given before stage 3. I will see what she says in winding up and decide whether to press or withdraw. Any other member wishes to comment just now? If not, minister, would you wind up please amendment 54? Thank you, convener. I begin by reassuring Mr Ferguson that the impact on the landowner will be relevant in the public interest test. Amendment 88 works differently from the test in section 472d, because it is not softened by reference to likelihood. Ministers would need to be satisfied that the transfer would not result in significant harm to the owner or tenant. To make this work, ministers would need to be able to require not just request information from landowners and others about the potential harm to the landowner or tenant. In terms of the points that were raised by Mr Russell, I can reassure that specifying consideration of the impact on the landowner and the tenant would include consideration of the impact on the agricultural unit where it is relevant. Just to reiterate, convener, amendment 60 ensures that where the landowner or tenant is an agricultural business or where the land is subject to the part 5 application is agricultural land and any potential impact on the landowner or tenant or the effect of any potential change in use of the land will be considered. Thank you. In that case, the question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 55 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 46. Minister, to move formally. Question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Question is that section 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Period in which a further application to buy the same land under part 5 may not be made. I call amendment 86 in the name of Michael Russell group with amendment 86A. Michael Russell, to move amendment 86 and speak to both amendments in the group. This is very much a probing amendment. At the start, it is intended to be so. There is a concern, and I know of a couple of cases, that applications could simply go into a rolling cycle of application. The failure of a community to succeed in an application, even under previous legislation, would simply mean that they would return to a later date. No harm in that. However, there are some people who would be significantly harmed by that, particularly those who have land that might be sterilised by this process for a long period of time. I am just interested in the views of the Government about this matter. There is precedent in the school closure legislation, in a rather different way, that local authority cannot return to the matter of a school closure within five years, if it fails to put forward an argument that is successful in closing a school. I would be interested to know what the Government's view is and what protection can be given in those unusual circumstances. It will very much be a matter of ministerial judgment, but unusual circumstances where there appears to be potential harm done by a repeated application. The Serobiox amendment certainly improves the wording of my amendment. I have no doubt about that, but I do not think that I will be pressing this amendment as long as I know that there is an issue within the Government that will require some consideration. Serobiox is right to say that the issue is probably refused consent rather than application. Serobiox act to move amendment 86A and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I very much understand why Mike Russell would want to test this issue, but having read his amendment, I wanted to make sure that it did not create an additional problem. My amendment aims to make sure that we do not get the unintended consequence of preventing submission from community groups. For example, if an application had been withdrawn at the early stage in the process, potentially for a very legitimate and technical reason, the reason that I wanted to move the amendment to Mike's amendment was that there is experience of such circumstances with his previous right to buy legislation. It is making sure that we get the nuts and bolts right. Had Mike wanted to move the amendment today, I could see why he was wanting to do that, but I did not want it to create a new problem. I will be interested in the minister's response. I appreciate the intentions of Mike Russell's amendment 86A and Serobiox's amendment 86A to amend Mr Russell's amendment. I absolutely accept that the idea of repeated right to buy applications could be a matter of concern to some people. I can reassure the committee that the Scottish Government will certainly be closely monitoring part 5 applications to make sure that the system is not being abused in any way. I would like to point out that there does not seem to be any evidence that existing right to buy powers is giving rise to fixatious applications or that the system is being abused. We cannot foresee what circumstances might arise in the future. There may be occasions where it would be useful to be able to consider an application in the five-year timeframe that was suggested by Mike Russell and Serobiox. In fact, having to wait a further five years could lead to significant harm to communities under some situations. It could also be abused as a way of preventing communities from applying within the five-year period. In the rare instance in which a landlord might encourage a poor buy-out application with a view to preventing further applications, in addition, for some communities, a first application may well prove to be a learning experience and it would be wrong to bar them from a further opportunity within a five-year period. Given the points that I have made and my reassurance that the Government will monitor part five applications, I would ask Mike Russell and Serobiox not to move the amendments. We have to hear wind-up first of all from Mike Russell and then Serobiox will wind up and will deal with her amendment 86A first. Mike Russell to wind up. I am constantly in awe of the reasons that can be given to refuse amendments, but I do think that the idea that a landowner would be encouraging a poor buy-out in the hope that that would sterilise the issue forever perhaps is on the far end of that spectrum. That having been said, I do understand that the issue has been tested. I do think that there are, I can certainly think of one circumstances in which this is an issue, but the minister's assurance on the record that the applications will be scrutinised and studied in that way and that that is a commitment that is now entered into on the record is helpful, and I hope that, if there was any evidence of malpractice of any sort, including the manufacturing of poor applications in order to prevent good ones, that would be a matter for action. Serobiox act to wind up on amendment 86A and press or withdraw. On the basis that Mike Russell is not moving his amendment, I will not move mine. I do not think that I have actually moved it, but if I think that I need to withdraw it, I will. Serobiox act wishes to withdraw amendment 86A. Is any other member object to this amendment being withdrawn? No, nobody does. Thankfully we have not moved into that. We move on to amendment Michael Russell to press or withdraw amendment 86A. Not moved. Amendment 86 has been withdrawn by Mike Russell. Does any member object to that? No member does object to that. We call amendment 87. The name of Mike Russell already debated with amendment 54. Michael Russell to move or not moved? Not moved. Question is that amendment 1 is sustainable development conditions, etc., including factors to be taken into account in determining significant benefit or harm. I call amendment 6, in the name of myself, Rob Gibson, grouped with amendments 109, 89, 111, 112, 63, 62, 91, 92, and I call on myself to move amendment 6. Here we go. The point about much of the strength of the argument for communities and tenants to be able to buy is underlined by our increasing reliance on having a greater involvement of human rights in that process. As we have gone through this bill, we have cited many useful aspects of human rights, which we hope that the Government will make use of. In the debate that we had at stage 1, it seemed to us that there were areas where the present criteria for community right to buy as set out in the section is so demanding that it could be making communities unsuccessful for applicants and, consequently, provision may not achieve the desired diversification of land. There are a number of areas in here that are being suggested by people to try and tackle that. I am merely tackling one small part, which, in section 47, 2C2, suggests that the only practicable way to be approached for the benefit of the transfer of land is to be changed to only or most practicable way. That allows the ministers to underline the fact that the human rights behind the issue are ones that will not be impeded and that the potential community rights will not be impeded by the first phrase, only practicable way. I prefer that the minister would accept only or most practicable way, and I urge her to do so, and I leave other members to speak to different bits of the group. I move amendment 6 in my name. I call on Dave Thompson to speak to amendment 109 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The amendment is to provide marginal additional flexibility to the community and, indeed, to the minister in relation to the right to buy issue. The amendment still leaves considerable protection for the owner of the land and retains a high challenge for the community to demonstrate that, without transfer, it would likely be harmed to their sustainable development objectives. Those objectives would, of course, have to be regarded as bringing such significant benefits as to overtake the interests of the owner and his retaining ownership. I look forward to hearing the minister's comments in relation to this matter. Mike Russell to speak to amendment 89 and other amendments in the group. The two amendments that I have in this group address the question of human rights and definitions. Amendment 89 mentions international covenant of economic, social and cultural rights, and I make sure that it is applied within the issue. The further amendment is one of the list amendments. We seem to have had several of them in this bill in which a list of issues is presented within the bill. I have taught all those lists to insert the two issues—the realisation of human rights and the furthering and giving effect equal opportunities. To be fair, they occur in some lists but not in others, so a bit of consistency within the list would be helpful. The overall view, and I think that it has been supported by the committee and the minister previously, and I hope that she will support it on this occasion, is to insert in this bill wherever possible the concept of human rights and equal opportunities and to make sure that the understanding of human rights is well defined, not exclusively defined in a way that would stop other things coming into it, but to be defined according to what the key documents are. That is an obligation on this Parliament, because there is an obligation on this Parliament to look widely and to look at what the international agreements are and the international best practices, and that would allow us to observe international best practice. We will see an effect of that, an accumulative effect of that over the years in which we see human rights being integrated into everything that we do, and that can only be beneficial. Thank you. I call on Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 63 in other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I am very keen that we look in relation to what ministers have to consider the likely effect of granting or not granting the transfer of land, that we look at some health inequalities, and that is what my amendment refers to at this point. I refer to the written submission to the committee of NHS Health Scotland, whose role is, I quote, to work with others to put into action knowledge about what works and what does not work to reduce health inequalities and improve health. The inequalities may be created and or maintained within a community if the proposed development of the land benefits and or excludes a particular population group. On that basis, I would like to ask the minister and the committee to consider health inequalities as one of the issues that should be taken into account when determining significant benefit or harm. In relation to amendment 62, that relates in a similar vein to an addition to the list to be considered. That is to refer to, to include in the list, the Equality Act 2010. That would take account of the nine protected characteristics and look at gender and age and a range of the range of other ones that I will not list at this stage, but those two are particularly important. That could also relate to socioeconomic issues and socioeconomic disadvantage. I would also like to speak to my amendment 91. I should declare an interest in relation to that as a member of the co-operative parliamentary group and the Scottish unco-operative party. I would like to see in the same list that I have already referred to co-operative development added as a consideration. Co-operatives, as we know without going into a lot of detail, rely on the same principles as are at the heart of the bill—solidarity, mutuality and transparency—and benefit to communities and local economies. They are owned by members, and I believe that it is a strong model for community engagement and chimes with community empowerment envisaged in the bill. I would like to see that included in the list as well. In the same group, I would also like to speak in support of Mike Russell's amendment 89. Sarah Boyack has already put the case as has Mike Russell for having regard to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. I am not going to cover those points again, but Sarah Boyack and I both think that it is essential that the amendment recognises the need for Scottish ministers to, and I quote from the amendment, have regard to the covenant. I quote when considering an application to by-land under section 45. I would also like to speak in support of Rob Gibson's amendment as well. I would like to support of Dave Thompson's amendment, but I have not put a note on that, so I apologise. Any other members who wish to speak at the moment? No, if not, minister, please respond. I am content to support your amendment. If the committee is minded to approve it, I would like to point out that its effect in practice is minimal. However, when deciding whether to consent to an application under part 5, the ministers must act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Even if the sustainable development conditions are met and the procedure requirements complied with respect to an application, the ministers cannot consent to the application if to do so would be incompatible with any person's rights under article 1 of protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. One of the tests of compatibility with article 1, protocol 1, is whether the transfer of land is the least intrusive way of achieving the benefits to the community as you guard the landowners. If amendment 6 is agreed to, it means that the ministers will be able to consent to an application on the basis that it is the most practicable way of achieving the desired benefits rather than the only practical way of achieving those benefits only if they are satisfied that the transfer of land is the least intrusive means of achieving those benefits as you guard to the landowners article 1, protocol 1 rights. There may, in theory, be circumstances convener when ministers can consent an application for transfer of land where that transfer is the most practical way of achieving the desired benefits but not the only practical way of achieving those benefits. However, I have not yet identified any such circumstances but we are happy to support amendment 6. In terms of amendments 109, 111 and 112, convener, although amendment 112 is not immediately next to amendment 109 and 1111 on the list, 112 is consequential on amendment 109, so I propose to speak to all three together now. I very much welcome Dave Thomson's amendments, which seek to ensure that the tests and processes for an application for the right to by-land to further sustainable development are as effective as possible. I also appreciate that there may be some concern that the sustainable development conditions and in particular the requirement under section 472d to show that not granting consent to the transfer of land is likely to result in significant harm to the community may be difficult to meet. However, where provisions provide for land to be transferred against the landowners wishes then it is fair that there are high thresholds to ensure that this is the right thing to do. What Dave Thomson's amendments will mean is that ministers may be able to consent to an application in circumstances where the conditions in 472a to c were met as present, but we are not transferring the land. It would not be likely to result in significant harm to the community but instead resulted in significant harm to the community's sustainable development objectives. The amendment does not define what is meant by the community's sustainable development objectives and so it is not certain how to assess whether or not transferring the land would be likely to result in significant harm to those objectives. In addition, any such objectives may not be publicly available, which would mean that a landowner may not even be aware of them. One aspect of the test for a provision being compatible with article 1 protocol 1 is that it is sufficiently clear and certain in its effect. Given the lack of clarity or certainty as to the meaning of the amendment, the Government is concerned that accepting the amendment would mean that the sustainable development conditions would become too uncertain to meet the requirements of article 1 protocol 1. I am not persuaded that the amendment 109, as it is currently drafted, would be within legislative competence of the Parliament and so I cannot support it. However, I recognise Dave Thomson and stakeholders' concerns over whether the element of the test sets too high a hurdle for communities, while at the same time wanting to provide appropriate clarity for communities about the tests that need to be satisfied before ministers can consent to an application under part 5. Should Dave Thomson be willing to withdraw the amendments 109, 111 and 112, I certainly would be very much welcome the opportunity to meet Mr Thomson and discuss the issue further with a view to returning with the Government amendment stage 3 after considering it. I think that we need to look at it quite carefully. If there are other potential ways that this part of the test can be adjusted in order to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that it respects the needs and rights of both communities and landowners, I would therefore ask Dave Thomson if he would consider withdrawing amendments 109, 111 and 112 in this instance. As a Government, we are community giving effect to international human rights treaties in a way that works for Scotland. The international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights is an international human rights treaty that sets out certain rights that state parties agree to recognise as well as aspirations to work towards. The creation of the part 5 right to buy to allow communities to buy land to create significant benefits to their community and to avoid significant harm to their community can be regarded as a step that will assist with ministers' obligations under the international covenant. Amendment 89 would place a responsibility for testing and directing Scotland's approach to the international covenant at the door of the courts, even though the international covenant's wording does not easily translate into clear, enforceable rights. The terms of that international covenant have not been drafted in a way that lends itself to interpretation by the courts. Nevertheless, I very much agree with the sentiments behind Michael Russell's amendment. I am very happy to accept the amendment on the grounds that the Government will consider further ahead of stage 3 to ensure that the best possible wording is used to give effect to the intentions behind the proposed amendment. Amendment 92 would appreciate the sentiment again behind Mr Russell's amendment. I am uncertain whether the wording of the amendment provides the sufficient clarity and would have the desired effect. I am not convinced that section 47.10 of the bill is the right place to insert the reference to equal opportunities and the realisation of human rights, especially in light of the acceptance of amendment 89 to make reference to human rights elsewhere in the section 47 test. Obviously, Ministers cannot consent to an application under part 5 unless they are satisfied that that transfer of land would be likely to result in significant benefit to the community and that failure to transfer the land would be likely to result in significant harm to the community. The creation of part 5 right to allow communities to buy land to create significant benefits to the community and to avoid significant harm to the community could be considered evidence of Scotland's commitment to taking into consideration economic, social and cultural rights. Just to reiterate, Scottish ministers, unlike their UK counterparts, already have explicit duties to comply with international law, including international treaties under the Scottish Ministerial Code, which includes the human rights instruments such as the international covenant. Obviously, human rights are inevitably intertwined with the factors already listed in section 47.10, such as social wellbeing and public health. I am happy to support Michael Russell's amendment in principle and I hope that in doing so, it would also satisfy part of Claudia Beamish's concerns around equal opportunities. However, the Scottish Government will have to consider the issue further to ensure that that amendment still provides the test set out in section 47, with its sufficient clear meaning required to ensure that the test is effective and within competence. It may be necessary to return with a further amendment at stage 3, with a view to altering the wording of the amendment to provide any additional clarity that is necessary or to remove the wording altogether if an effective solution cannot be found. In that instance, I would be happy to meet Michael Russell and Claudia Beamish to discuss the issue of human rights and equalities in part 5 of the bill. We also need to try to get some clarity around an overview of what has been agreed on in the human rights provisions in the bill. In terms of amendments 62 and 63, I really appreciate the tension behind those amendments, which are similar to Mr Russell's amendments 92. I expanded on the consideration of human rights in relation to Mr Russell's amendment and would offer some further thoughts on the issue of equal opportunities. Health inequalities are inevitably intertwined with the factors already listed in section 4710, such as social wellbeing and public health. In addition, ministers cannot consent to an application under part 5 unless they are satisfied that the transfer of land is in the public interest. If the transfer of land would be detrimental to the furtherance of equal opportunities, including the protected characteristics under section 4 of the Equality Act 2010, that would be a relevant factor for ministers to consider, and ministers already have important statutory duties under the 2010 Equality Act to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not and also to reduce socioeconomic inequalities of outcome. Scottish ministers are already required under section 4710 to consider the impact of the application on the lives of people in the community by reference to economic development, regeneration, public health, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing when considering what constitutes harm or benefit to the community that is seeking to buy land. For example, in the case of a community that is based in an economically deprived area with poor health outcomes, an application from that community that showed how a part 5 buy-out would significantly improve its economic position or its health outcomes would be considered under the economic development and public health considerations in section 4710. Given the commitment to accept amendment 92 in principle and to consider the issue further, I would like to ask Clary Mhenish if amendment 62 and 63 would be withdrawn. Finally, convener, in this group, I would again thank Clary Mhenish for this amendment. I think that similar considerations apply to this amendment as for amendment 92, 62 and 63. I know that any inclusion of the term co-operative development for the purposes of subsection 4710 would need the term to be defined in the bill as it applies in this context. I think that its inclusion is unnecessary to the extent that, if it can be shown that co-operative development can positively and significantly improve the outcomes for the people in a community with reference to economic development, regeneration, public health, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing, it could certainly be a consideration for ministers. Therefore, while I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, I think that it is unnecessary and the effect is unclear, so I cannot support amendment 91. I am going to wind up on behalf of amendment 6 and intend to press it. I am glad that we have the Government to think more about the fairness of the tests with regard to the right to buy for communities and so on. I recognise the proportional nature of the need to act so that A1P1 is met, but I also recognise that there is a strong public interest in diversifying land in Scotland, and I would ask the ministers to make sure that, in all their dealings, they bear that in mind as the reason why we are trying to evoke the human rights clauses that we have been debating in this section. So I wish to press amendment 6. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 109 in the name of Dave Thompson, already debated by the amendment 6. Dave Thompson, to move or not move? Not move, in light of the minister's assurances, and I look forward to meeting with her, convener. I call amendment 88 in the name of Alec Ferguson, already debated with amendment 54. Alec Ferguson, to move or not move. Given the minister's comments, I will seek not to move that, convener, with the provision that I might bring back at stage 3. Actions by the owner to prevent sale of land. That would call amendment 110 in the name of Dave Thompson and a group of its own Dave Thompson to move and speak to amendment 110. Thank you, convener. The amendment is designed to try and close a potential loophole that an owner could use to seek to circumvent the community right to buy provisions. The amendment seeks to clarify that the provision would apply unless it could be shown that the owner is only prevented from selling by virtue of something done deliberately by the owner with the aim of defeating the application. That would be difficult to show, but at least the amendment provides for a case to be made about this if the circumstances warranted it. I think that it is important to close this loophole, and if the amendment is not of itself sufficient, I would encourage the minister to come back at stage 3 with a better option. Otherwise, I would hope that the minister might be able to accept this amendment, so I look forward to the minister's comments in relation to this. Thank you. Any other member who wishes to speak? No, minister to respond. Community rights to buy and especially the right to buy land to further sustainable development under part 5 of this bill are novel ground-breaking provisions. It is, of course, possible that, as those provisions begin to be used in practice, there may be issues that arise as we learn from experience. I greatly welcome the proposed amendment from Dave Thompson. I thank him for bringing this important loophole to our attention. I acknowledge that there is need to further consider whether the current provisions in section 472f could be used by an owner to deliberately try and avoid an application under part 5. While I am very sympathetic to the aim of the proposed amendment, as is currently drafted, there are, however, a number of potential flaws. For example, the amendment only considers efforts to use 47f1 to avoid consent being given to a part 5 application. It does not address the potential use of personal obligations under f2 to achieve the same aim. It understands that stakeholders have indicated that they also have a concern over the potential use and impact of options agreements, which would potentially fall under f2 rather than f1. Secondly, it is difficult to see how a community body could prove that something had been done by the land owner with the deliberate aim of defeating an application. There are, obviously, potentially significant legal issues that we need to work through. Removing the application of section 473f would mean that a person who is prevented from transferring land is forced to do so or forced to act in breach of an enforceable personal obligation to sell the land. Whether an appropriate mechanism that was compatible with a person's ECHR rights could be developed to deal with this would need to have very careful consideration. We would also want to consider further whether that is an issue for other rights to buy. I would ask if Dave Thompson would be willing to withdraw amendment 1110 at this time. Instead, I would very much welcome the opportunity to work with Dave Thompson, the committee and stakeholders, further on its issue to see if it is possible to identify the problem and whether an effective solution to the loophole that has been quite well identified by Dave Thompson can be found ahead of stage 3. Dave Thompson to wind up, press or withdraw. Thank you very much, convener. Again, in light of the minister's comments, I would be happy to not to move the motion or withdraw the motion. Dave Thompson wishes to withdraw amendment 1110. Does any member object to it being withdrawn? No objection, so therefore the amendment is withdrawn. Therefore, I call amendment 56 in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 46. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 89 in the name of Michael Russell who is already debated with amendment 6. Michael Russell to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I am intended to take the very shortest of comfort breaks just now and try and move on to half-pass 1 with as much as we can fit into that. So if anyone requires a comfort break, this is a four-minute warning. We will start again now. I call amendments 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 57 to 61 on block. I ask whether any member objects to a single question for 57 to 61. No one does, so therefore no member objects. The question is that amendments 57 to 61 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 90 in the name of Claudia Beamish who is already debated with amendment 84. I will call amendment 90 in the name of Claudia Beamish who is already debated with amendment 84. Claudia Beamish to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 111 in the name of Dave Thompson are already debated with amendment 6. Are Dave Thompson to move or not to move? I call amendment 112. Is Dave Thompson to move or not to move? I call amendment 63 in the name of Claudia Beamish who was already debated with amendment 6. Claudia Beamish to move or not to move. I don't intend to move, convener, in view of the minister's comments about the possibility of discussion alongside Mike Russell. So, not moved. Call amendment 62, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 6. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. The same. I'm not moving for the same reason. For the same reason. Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 91, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 6. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. I don't intend to move, convener, for a different reason because of the assurance given to me by the minister about how co-operative development is an important part of the way forward for Scotland. Thank you. Not moved. So, amendment 92, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 6. Michael Russell to move or not move. Move. Move. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Good. Call amendment 93, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 84. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Sorry. There's types of community body permitted. Right. Not moved. Not moved. The question is that section 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 49 to 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Good. We call amendment 64, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 44. Minister to move formally. Folly moved. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The question is that sections 53 to 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The exercise of the right to buy under part 5, compensation. I call amendment 65, in the name of the minister, group with amendment 66 and 113. Minister to move amendment 65 and speak to all amendments in the group. Can we now these amendments modify section 58? That's amendment 65 and 66 concerning compensation where an application has been made under part 5 of the bill in order to create a fairer balance in the payment of compensation. Where an application nominates a third-party purchaser and the application is approved by ministers, then those amendments ensure that it is a third-party purchaser rather than the community body who is liable to pay compensation for losses or expenses incurred by a person in complying with the requirements of part 5. With amendment 113, the compensation provisions set out in section 58 of the bill as currently drafted match the compensation provisions for the right to buy abandoned, neglected and detrimental land in section 9070 of part 3A of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. Compensation in cases where a part 5 application has not been refused by the Scottish ministers can be claimed by any person in circumstances set out in subsections 1 and 2. Compensation in cases where a part 5 application has been refused by the Scottish ministers is only payable to owners or tenants of the land subject to the part 5 application. Mr Ferguson's proposed amendment would not change that. At present, the obligation under subsection 4 is only to the owners or tenants of land subject to the part 5 application. In the recognition that such persons would likely have incurred loss or expenses in the application process up to the date of the minister's decision to refuse the application, it is not considered that other persons will have incurred significant loss or expenses in those circumstances should they have chosen to engage in the application process. I am happy to confirm, given it on the record, that the entitlement to compensation under section 58 1 and 2, where the Scottish ministers have not refused a part 5 application, would extend to owners or former owners of land adjacent to the land subject to the part 5 application, with the other conditions for entitlement to compensation are met. However, as subsections 1 and 2 clearly state that any person can be entitled to compensation with the conditions set out are met, there is no need for any further clarification. Mr Ferguson's amendment has no practical effect. Given that, I would therefore like to ask if Mr Ferguson would be willing to withdraw amendment 113. I move amendment 65. Thank you, Alex Ferguson, to speak to amendment 113 and other amendments in the group. I will be very brief. The amendment I have tabled simply seeks to ensure that any financial impact of a failed part 5 application on the owner of land that is adjacent to the land in question is brought into consideration where compensation is applicable. It seeks to provide, I feel, a degree of fairness in a possible situation. I entirely agree that it is only a possible one and would be very few. I think whereby a part 5 application of founders, the owner of land subject to the application is compensated for associated case costs, but the owner of adjacent land, who may also have incurred such costs, is not. It is to quote the minister on perhaps another part of this bill, I think, a question of fairness. However, I accept that the purpose of tabling the amendment was purely on a probing basis. If I pick the minister up rightly, which I think I have, the issue that I've tried to raise is largely covered by the bill as I think she's laid out, so I will probably not seek to push that amendment. Thank you, minister, to wind up. I'm just to thank Mr Ferguson for not pressing his amendment. In that case, the question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 66 in the name of the minister. Are we already debated with amendment 65, minister, to move formally? Farley moved. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 113 in the name of Alex Ferguson. Are we already debated with amendment 65, Alex Ferguson to move or not move? I'll withdraw in the hope that I did understand the minister correctly. Thank you. I'm not moved, in other words. I'm not moved, sorry. So the question is that section 58 be agreed to, are we all agreed? And the question is that section 59 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment 67 in the name of the minister. We're already debated with amendment 44. Minister to move formally. Follie moved. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. The question is that section 60 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. The question is that section 61 to 64 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. We move to reversion of land bought under section 5. Call amendment 114 in the name of Alec Ferguson group with amendment 118. Alec Ferguson to move amendment 114 and speak to both amendments in the group. Other members may wish to come in after that. Thank you, convener. Amendment 114, along with 118, is intended to address a recommendation of this committee's stage 1 report, which was to amend the bill to require applications to be reconsidered post-approval where the original purpose is not being fulfilled or is departed radically from that original purpose. It would only be applicable, I believe, in a very few cases and I would ask members to note in particular that the amendment does not simply suggest that the ownership should revert to the previous owner. It is specifically worded to ensure that following any such reversion, the stated objectives that were approved in the application as being in the public interest are actually delivered. It surely makes sense that if land is acquired to further sustainable development but which, after a suitable period of time, is not deemed to be doing so, steps should be taken to ensure that that sustainable development is put back on track. Amendment 114 simply sets out that a former owner can apply for the resumption of land and that Scottish ministers can only consent if certain strict conditions are met, one of which is that at least three years should have elapsed since consent was given to the application during which time, no work towards the stated aims has taken place. Community Land Scotland seems to have taken particular umbridge to this particular amendment, which it claims and I quote, seeks to establish within a bill designed to extend community rights to buy land, a private interest right to buy community-owned land with the presumption in favour of a particular party. I would contend that it does no such thing. It simply seeks to ensure that the original objectives of the transfer are delivered and it seems strange to me that Community Land Scotland would object to the being some form of accountability in a transaction that ministers have previously concluded is very much in the public interest. Community Land Scotland then goes on to suggest that ECHR implications could come into play as the community would be, and I quote again, deprived of its right to enjoy its property and that the proposal would be neither justified nor proportionate as a response to any concerns of a single private party. To that criticism, I would simply say that it is not the concerns of any private party that are being engaged here. The provision would kick in only, and I stress only, when the community had failed to deliver the sustainable development, which three years previously had been deemed to be in the community's interests. In the interests of time, convener, I will not say any more at this stage, but, other than, in short, to say that paraphraser previously often used a phrase in this whole debate, good community landowners need to have absolutely nothing to fear from this particular amendment, which I am pleased to move. Then any other member who wishes to comment at this stage, but I think they have commented, minister to respond. Convener, while I welcome Mr Ferguson's engagement on part 5 and his efforts to help to ensure a fair and effective process, I cannot agree with the intentions behind this proposed amendment. There are strong reasons for giving community bodies who are accountable to their local community powers to by-land in specific circumstances, and there is no precedent for giving unaccountable private persons a right to by-land, which is what the provisions amount to. When a right to by-application under part 5 has been approved and the land has been transferred, the former landowner no longer has any right to land and will have been compensated for the loss of the land. To make provision for the reversion of this land to the former owner without making provision for the repayment of any of the value received at the time of the transfer or to compensate the community body for the loss of ownership of land would potentially amount to a significant win-fall for the landowner. Evidence to date suggests that community ownership in general tends to be successful in delivering better outcomes for communities, and there does not appear to be a body of evidence to support the need for provisions to take land back from communities. Finally, in addition to my concerns, convener, over the objectives of the proposal, there are a number of practical issues that are not addressed by the amendment. The amendment also relies on a very broad regulation making power. If this amendment is to be voted upon, I would urge the committee to reject this amendment. To apply a standard to community ownership, which requires them to demonstrate within a very short period of time that everything that their other ambitions have been fulfilled and that the whole issue is going splendidly well, I think is a little unfortunate. If you were to apply that to private estates in Scotland, you would be taking huge swathes of them into public ownership or removing them from their owners. I do think that this is not an amendment that can be supported. I would agree. I think that this takes us backwards rather than forward. It undermines the implementation of the bill, because communities are already going to be working really hard to make the best use of land if they have been successful in going through the process and to constantly be looking over their backs as to whether there is going to be a challenge to them. I do not think that that is going to help community relationships in those areas where communities are pursuing right to buy. I think that the intentions of the amendments are being misread by colleagues on the committee, because there is no intention within the amendment that this should apply where not all of the sustainable development aims have been achieved over that period of three years. It would only apply where no action has been taken whatsoever and the application is effectively founded, as I said in my opening statement. I find it extraordinary or sad that we could be encouraging a situation where a community puts in a perfectly good application, which is agreed, and for reasons outwith their control, the thing found us. It goes wrong, nothing happens, and we end up with an area of land that is being used for no useful purpose whatsoever. I think that needs to be corrected. It was a recommendation of the committee that it should be considered, and I would intend to push my amendment when asked to do so. Okay. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there will be a vote. Those in favour of amendment 114, please show. The question is that section 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call of amendment 68, the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 46, minister, to move formally. Okay. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Now, if we can keep this next section short, then in the next four or five minutes we could deal with this. That would be very helpful because people have commitments after that, but, since he has been very patient, I would call protection of commonities and common land, call amendment 115, the name of Patrick Harvie group with amendment 127, Patrick Harvie to move amendment 115 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and nice to be back with you again. I move amendment 115 now and I'll speak to both. Those two amendments are attempts to increase the protection of common land in Scotland and are both in keeping with recommendations from the land reform review group. 115 calls for the repeal of the division of commonities act, which, as members will be aware, dates from the pre-democratic age and was used depressingly successfully to enclose and privatise a great deal of common land in Scotland, but not entirely to do so. There are still pockets of land that are commonities in Scotland, and although that legislation has not been used for many years, it does seem odd that it remains on the statute book. The land reform bill appears to me a very successful and appropriate way of addressing that in the immediate instance. Amendment 127 addresses the wider protection of common land and introduces the idea of a protective order for common land. Again, common land is not as widespread as once it was, sadly, in my view, but there are many surviving parcels of common land, and there is a continued threat to their existence, principally through and on domino dispositions and the recording of the title. In common sense, I think that most people would recognise that no legitimate basis exists for granting that title. In addition, the fact of the Scottish Government's very welcome intentions to complete the land register over a relatively reasonable timeframe, which I think most of us and myself included very much welcome, could potentially increase the risk of such dispositions being used to gain title unreasonably to existing common land. There is an additional incentive given that intention to complete the land register that we include some kind of protective order. That amendment is an intention to do that. I see that there is a press release that has come out last night, just after midnight, from the Scottish Government addressing both of those issues and signaling an intention to ask the Land Commission and the Law Commission to look at those issues. Given that that has been put out, I would like to ask the minister to address a couple of specific questions. First, is it the explicit intention of the Government to legislate to achieve the effects that my amendments here are intended to achieve? If so, on what timescale does the minister think that that can be achieved, given that the Land Commission and the Law Commission will have to undertake their work, the Land Commission, in the context of having to set itself up and begin a great deal of other work that the committee agrees is necessary, and then a suitable legislative vehicle would have to be found in the next session of Parliament? I would also like to ask why we are in the position of proposals that are not new and have not come out of a clear blue sky, but are included in the land reform review group, which the Scottish Government established to consider those and many other issues. That report has been with the Scottish Government for well over a year and a half. Now, hours before today's meeting, a press release has put out signaling an intention to address those matters. It seems to me that the Scottish Government has had a long time to consider those matters. What view was taken as to the Government's intention when that report was published and why we are now not using this bill as the appropriate vehicle to address those two matters? I do hope that the minister will be clear on the answers to those questions. The committee will be in a position to know what is going to happen when about those outstanding matters. I thank Patrick Harvie for explaining his amendment 115 and his other amendment. We do not think that there is merit in removing the right from the owners of commentaries through amendment to the current bill. It is also worth highlighting that there has not been any consultation on or consideration of the issue during the development of the bill, and there has been no opportunity for the Government or the committee to take or consider evidence on the potential impacts of such a repeal. However, as Patrick Harvie has said, the Government will ask the Scottish Law Commission to look at the act as part of its next tranche of work on statutory repeals, where the commission makes recommendations for the repeal of obsolete legislation. In line with the usual practice, the commission would carry out research on the 1695 act and on other legislation that is proposed for repeal. There would then be a consultation with interested bodies, and if there are no objections, the repeal of the 1695 act could then be included in the next statute law reform bill that is setting out what the actual process would entail. As Patrick Harvie has said quite rightly, the 1695 act is clearly antiquated. For example, there is a specific provision on the division of mosses and aconti, and what happens when the said mosses cannot be conveniently divided? Asking the Scottish Law Commission to consider the repeal of the 1695 act ensures that the purpose of the act will be fully analysed and views from key bodies are sought before the act is repealed. I have obviously set out what the Scottish Government is doing. I invite Patrick Harvie to consider withdrawing his amendment. On amendment 127, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the establishment of a common land protection order. I understand where Patrick Harvie is coming from this amendment. There can be concerns where land used by a local community, perhaps generations, where ownership may be common or is unclear or is undisputed, is subject to a non-dominal disposition by private individuals. In many cases, it may be appropriate for the land still to be used by the community for the benefit of all. The Scottish Government does, however, have considerable concerns about the detail of that amendment. The only condition for applications is that land is not registered in either of the property it registers. However, there may still be an owner, because some property in Scotland may have been acquired before the General Register of Saisons was established in 1617. In addition, land that is not claimed generally falls to the crown. Another concern is that the amendment does not provide a definition of common land. Therefore, an order under this amendment could be applied for in relation to any land that was ownerless. The provision also appears to exclude land that is owned in common, which might be the type of scenario that the amendment is designed to cover. That amendment might cut across a non-dominal disposition aimed at completing title to a property. Often, those kind of dispositions are used when, for example, it is clear that a house is owned, but there is some uncertainty about the associated garage or outhouses or the precise extent of the garden. Those are not areas of common land, but it seems that the amendment would be wide enough to cover them. Furthermore, there would continue to be uncertainty about the ownership of the land. If there should be any concerns about the land, there would continue to be a lack of clarity on who would take any responsibility. That might cause problems if any statutory bodies, for example the local authority or CEPA, needed to take any action in relation to hazards. As long as the order remained in force, it would be impossible to register title and, consequently, to complete the land register. It might also not assist issues with abandoned or neglected land to have that type of additional obstacle to registering the owner. When I stress the previous amendment, there has been no full consideration and consultation on the detail of Patrick Harvie's amendment. The committee has not taken any evidence on the amendment, but having outlined our concerns about the specifics of the amendment, I acknowledge the fundamental point that has been made by Patrick Harvie. I agree that, as a general rule, the land that is used and enjoyed by the local community should remain available to them, unless there is a very good reason to take a different approach. The Scottish Government recognises the need to ensure that common land remains available to local communities. That is why, in light of the amendment, the Scottish Government is proposing to ask the new Scottish Land Commission when it is established to review the issue of common land generally. The bill section 22 enables Scottish ministers to refer matters to the commission. Although it will be for the land commissioners to determine their own programme of work, it is considered that this is an area in which the land commissioners will be keen to consider in exercising their functions. That reflects our concern, which is shared by Patrick Harvie, that there may be insufficient protection for common land in Scotland. That is why we propose that the bill could also cover the issue of common good land that is held by local authorities. The Scottish Land Commission would also give an opportunity for wider consultation to take place. In response to Patrick Harvie's direct questions, it is our intention to ask the Law Commission and the Land Commission to consider the issues to determine whether it is necessary to legislate and how best to do that. If legislation is necessary, we would look to take that forward at the earliest opportunity. In terms of the recommendations, we bring them to consider all recommendations. We have a wide long-term programme for land reform, and it is reasonable that we consider certain recommendations before others. Given the commitment that I am giving to Patrick Harvie this afternoon, I would ask the member not to press amendment 127. I have to admit that we are a bit disappointed by the response there. Not only is there still quite a lot of ambiguity about the time that this would take, which raises the possibility that we could be looking at legislation not coming into force for another two or three years, perhaps, given the length of time that we know that things often take. That is a substantial chunk of the period of time that is available for the completion of the land register. The additional risk that common land could be subjected to attempts to use and on domino dispositions, given that ambiguity. The minister's comment that there has been no time to consult on that. I say again that both of those amendments relate to measures that the land reform review group proposed at part 2, section 7, paragraph 8. The group considers that the register of Scotland should ensure that the land registration process protects what might be considered genuine commons. A few paragraphs later, the question is the continuing appropriateness of the 1695 act, allowing the division of a committee at the instigation of one party. The minister seemed to echo the position that the Government took during the discussion of the land registration bill, in which the EET committee at the time was told that it is not desirable to remove that right division of committees from the owners of the committee. The minister today seemed to imply that that remains the position of the Scottish Government and that we need to look at what the original purpose of the division of committees act was. I think that it is fairly clear that the purpose of that act was to legitimise theft of land. The committee should not accept that we need to ask ourselves what the original purpose was, we should simply sweep it away. I would like to press amendment 115, although if the committee decides not to agree that, I will continue to engage with the Scottish Government on its process, hopefully swiftly, to move to implementing what I am trying to do at a later time. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Is there any votes for? There are no votes for. The amendment 115 was rejected by seven votes with two abstentions and none for. I now call amendment 127 in the name of Patrick Harvie, who has already debated before. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. There will be a vote. Those in favour? No. Those against? Seven. Those abstaining? Two. So the amendment is not carried. We will end the discussion of the bill at this stage and pick up on group 17 next week. I would like to thank the minister and our officials for their fortitude and to members of the committee the same. Future meeting of the committee at the next one, we will continue our stage two consideration of the land reform bill and consider draft correspondence to the Scottish Government on the wildlife trimaneal report 2014 in private. I now close this meeting.