 Mae yn cyfnodol i gael gemodol iawn, o gwmd-ddiolio gyda'r gweithio ysgolwyr a'r gweithio ysgolwyr i'r cyfnodol i gael cyfnodol iawn. Yr hyn ymgymell y cyfnodol iawn y debat o ffoto'r 3, 4, 9, 3, o'r llwyddoeth Cymru, o gyflym y cyfnodol iawn, o'r cyfnodol iawn, o gwyllwch i'r byw, ac rwy'n defnyddio cyfnodol iawn i'r debat, I will wait to press their request to speak buttons now or places that are in the chat function. I call on Keith Brown to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes, cabinet secretary. First I would like to reiterate the Government's and Scotland's and I assume such Parliament's unqualified support for Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and unequalifately support for the package international economic sanctions against the Russian invasion. I am sure that the whole chamber will be united in supporting the actions that we are taking to address this flagrant violation of international law by Putin's regime. The people of Ukraine should know that Scotland stands with them in the face of this unprovoked and unjustifiable aggression against their nation, and they can be assured that we will take all possible steps to sever ties to Putin's regime and those individuals who support it. That is why I am seeking agreement of Parliament supporting the legislative consent motion on the Economic Crime Transparency and Enforcement Bill introduced into the UK Parliament on 1 March. The bill has passed its common stages and it is with the House of Lords. The bill brings forward a register of overseas entities and strengthens measures around unexplained wealth orders and the enforcement of sanctions. That will help the UK to counter illicit financial activity from Russia and elsewhere more effectively. The Scottish Government shares and supports those objectives and the provisions in the bill. With respect to the measures in the LCMI in 10, I intend to talk briefly on them separately. Part 1 of the bill creates a register of overseas entities to provide transparency of beneficial ownership across the UK to tackle money laundering. The register applies to all overseas entities that own land in Scotland and throughout the UK who will have to provide information about their beneficial owners to companies' houses. The register is designed to prevent criminals from hiding behind anonymous companies and laundering money in UK property. We will provide more information for law enforcement to help to track down those who use UK property as a money laundering vehicle. Property law and its interface with companies law and the interface with the legal systems of jurisdictions around the world is a very complex matter. Broadly, the split between devolved and reserved powers lies not in the powers in the UK Government bill but between the entities to which it applies. If I can use an example to illustrate this, a registered overseas company would fall within reserved powers but an overseas charity would fall within devolved powers. That means that the ROE provisions legislate to this limited extent for devolved competence. We have liaised with the UK Government over those proposals for a number of years and I especially welcome the engagement over the last week. UK Government ministers wrote to me yesterday to confirm that they will be tabling an amendment to be considered during Lord's committee stage by introducing a statutory mechanism to consult Scottish ministers on regulations made under the sunset clause in the bill. Transparency of ownership has long been a key objective of our land reform policy and the 2016 Land Reform Act included provisions to establish a register of persons with a controlled interest in land. Establishment of the register was delayed slightly by the pandemic but is on track to be launched on 1 April. Although the policy objective of the RCI is to shed light on who is responsible for decisions about property, whereas the ROE is seeking to tackle money laundering by shedding light on who benefits from that property, there is clearly some overlap and, in due course, we will review any duplication. Together, the RCI and the ROE will provide a better understanding of who owns, controls and benefits from Scotland's land, questions that we have been seeking to answer for a very long time. Part 2 of the bill seeks to strengthen the system of civil recovery of property, obtained through unlawful conduct by improving effectiveness of the unexplained wealth order investigative procedures and to assist enforcement authorities in taking action against kleptocrats and criminals laundering funds in the UK. The reforms will assist UWOs and unexplained wealth orders to be sought against property held in trust and other complex ownership structures. In Scotland, the civil recovery unit, acting on behalf of Scottish ministers, can apply to the Court of Session for a UWO. UWOs are just one investigatory tool under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, but it is a powerful tool. It is a court order requiring persons who are suspected of involvement in or being connected with serious criminality or who are politically exposed persons to explain how they obtain certain property, where the value exceeds their known lawfully obtained income. The bill includes provisions that will assist enforcement authorities to investigate the origin of property and thereby recover the assets obtained by unlawful conduct. The bill increases the scope of existing powers in the 2002 act to expand a list of persons against whom an I UWO can be sought, enabling them to be served on persons who are responsible officers and expected to have some control of the asset. In situations where the property holder is not responsible for financing the acquisition, but where it may have been obtained through unlawful conduct, the bill contains an alternative test to the income requirement, which must be currently met for UWOs. That helps to ensure that property held via complex ownership structures falls within scope of the UWO regime. The bill also provides a power for Scottish ministers or the Lord Advocate to seek an extension to the length of an interim freezing order. Those orders prevent a person from dealing with any property subject to an order and will increase the time to a total of 186 days for the civil recovery unit or the Lord Advocate to review material provided to them. The bill also reforms court expenses rules so that expenses are only payable by Scottish ministers or the Lord Advocate in court actions relating to a UWO if they have acted improperly. The LCAM sets out the relevant provisions that require consideration by Parliament and so far as they fall within the legislative competence of this Parliament, where they confer functions on the Scottish ministers so as to alter their executive competence in relation to the devolved matters. Finally, it is worth noting that the bill also seeks to strengthen sanctions measures that fall out with the LCAM in light of Russia's aggression towards Ukraine. I am very grateful to the Government for giving way. It is right that our actions are focused on upholding the rights of the Ukrainian people, but does the cabinet secretary agree with me that it is important that we do not slip into Russophobia, that our target is Putin and his grizzly gang and not the Russian people? I think that that is an important point and one that I do see increasingly made, for example, by sports people who understand that certain sports people have been caught up in sanctions and are not able to compete, which is very dear to them, but I do think that those actions are necessary to undermine Putin's regime, even if they sometimes inevitably catch other people in the middle of that and know that we should not get involved in Russophobia. The Government fully supports the application of sanctions against Russia, because of their aggression against Ukraine, and we will continue to do all that we can to support the UK Government in this regard. I would like to close by extending the Scottish Government's appreciation to the Parliament authorities for their assistance in expediting the LCM at such short notice to ensure that Parliament can vote on it today, and I would ask Members to support the LCM. I rise to move the amendment in my name. As we meet here today, Russia's war in Ukraine enters its 14th day, 14 days of horror at the likes of which we as a European community had said never again. Our thoughts, of course, are with every Ukrainian and every person who has been impacted by Putin's war. Our thoughts are with the Ukrainian armed forces and those volunteers who have taken up arms to protect their sovereignty, their homes and their families. And all words are meaningless if our actions fall short. It's our duty here, in this place, to do everything in our powers to increase the pressure on Putin and his cronies to shorten this war of aggression and to save lives. Over 400 civilian souls and thousands of combatants are already lost and counting. It is right that we are legislating at pace, as the cabinet secretary says, in order to ensure the toughest of sanctions in the shortest period of time, and those benches to abort the legislative consent motion in front of Parliament today. My amendment sets out that there should be no back date on the land and assets which the Russian kleptocracy needs to declare here in Scotland. There is no logical sense as to why we must cut off at the 2014 date, the land and assets that it must declare. The Scottish Government has said as much in its memorandum of response, and SNP members will be good to that word by a backing Labour's amendment tonight. I implore the cabinet secretary to lead in that regard. The people of this land have, I believe, a right to know who holds legal ownership of our common treasury, for which we are but stewards. Too often and for too long, the opaque nature of land registration has made it difficult to enforce proper care for our environment to resolve disputes, to encourage or to enforce development and to deliver redistribution. Our beloved country, where we live and raise our children, cannot be allowed to be a smuggler's cove for capital on the seas of dark money that course around the globe. It may own it, but Scotland belongs to us. We must honour it rather than allow it to be defiled by corrupt gains and blood monies. In achieving this greater good, there will be practical benefits to it, and there are significant technicalities to which ministers must urgently address themselves at this time, which the cabinet secretary began to lay out in his speech. I would appreciate if the minister took on board some of those appoints. Our amendment sought to seek maximum consensus through brevity, but there are other issues to consider. We must ensure that Scottish regulations that the cabinet secretary discussed due to come into force in a few weeks' time do not create an unnecessary twin-track system. The cabinet secretary's intention is that we should move quickly to review that situation. I would suggest that rescinding the regulations to avoid confusion and to defeat the common purpose of those laws—both sets of laws—would be the correct thing to do. Ministers should be looking to take more action on persons of significant control to ensure that the land and assets control from abroad through trusts at home are declared and cannot be used to distort ownership. Take, for example, the Tolkien estate in Murray, Scotland's most expensive sporting estate, owned by Yuri Sheffler, one of the richest drinks producers in the world, who, under the proposed legislation, will not have to declare ownership due to the intricacies of the chain of ownership. It would be effective if regulations relating to persons of significant control could be included in that legislation. However, I understand that there is a second bill coming within the next year, which has been promised at Westminster, and I do believe that it is vital that the Scottish Government makes significant representations on those issues and more to the UK Government. We must also see robust enforcement of regulations from the Crown Office. Currently, regulations are clearly either not working or not being enforced appropriately. While it is, of course, not for government to instruct the Crown Office, it is a point of reasonable inquiry to gain insight into how these regulations are being operationalised. We are told that there are billions of pounds that should have been and perhaps still could be realised in fines for non-compliance. If there is no enforcement, there is no deterrent. Henceforth, let us agree as a Parliament that we will do all we can to maximise transparency in every way so that people can understand who owns the land to which we belong, who is profiting from it and whose influence is physically etched into our country. We are quickly responding to an emerging situation, but we have allowed the situation of untransparent ownership to develop over countless years in an attempt to avert our eyes to protect interests. We have built a secretive landscape of ownership, which does nothing but protect and defend elites. The Government should right now make a forthright commitment to change that. Scotland can no longer be a safe haven to protect Putin's interests. In the spirit of transparency, I refer to my register of interests as an owner of land in the Highland Council region. I begin by associating myself and those benches with the remarks that the cabinet secretary has made about the on-going situation in Ukraine. We share his concern about the profound impact that this invasion is having, first and foremost, of course, on the Ukrainian people but also the Ukrainian community here in Scotland. I met this morning with members of the Edinburgh Ukrainian club and offered my party support and solidarity to them and those they represent. The crisis has led the UK Government to bring forward the economic crime transparency and enforcement bill, the contents of which were originally due to be part of a more wide ranging piece of legislation. As others have said, it may be that there is further UK legislation to come. However, given the situation that we presently face and the need for urgency to target illicit finance, including from Russia, it is right that this particular bill is before us today. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has recommended consent and that it broadly agrees with the robust action that is being taken by the UK Government to reform unexplained wealth orders, powers and introduce a register of overseas entities. I welcome both the tone and substance of the cabinet secretary's speech tonight. There are difficult and complex questions of law about what is reserved and devolved in this area, but it is fair to say that we are all broadly on the same page here. I welcome the support of the Labour Party in Westminster as well. I feel that it shows on issues like this that political unity can achieve positive outcomes, and I should add that we are supporting Michael Marra's amendment today, and I will return to that in a moment. This bill introduces significant and timely changes that will improve transparency and give both the UK and the Scottish Government greater powers of enforcement. The proposed register of overseas entities, ROE, will require anonymous foreign owners of UK property to reveal their real identities and prevent individuals hiding behind secretive chains of shell companies. The creation of such a register will ensure that there is a level playing field with property owned by UK companies who, of course, at the moment need to disclose their beneficial owners to companies' house, and it will impose sanctions for non-compliance. The cabinet secretary also mentioned that the UK Government has committed to tabling an amendment to introduce a statutory consulting mechanism with Scottish ministers on regulations that are within this Parliament's legislative competence. There are some areas of minor contentions, namely that the register will apply retrospectively to property that was brought up to 20 years ago in England and Wales, but here in Scotland only from December 2014. The legislative consent memorandum of the Government says that it has not explored extension to an earlier date, and that is what Michael Marra's amendment attempts to consider. Land registration is, of course, a devolved matter, and we support and have supported greater transparency in land ownership in Scotland. For those reasons, we will be supporting Michael Marra's reasons amendment. On the same subject, as others have also noted, there are overlaps between the Scottish regulations on the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land, RCI, as it is known as, and this bill. The UK Government has reduced the grace period in which foreign owned properties must be registered in this bill down from the initial 18 months to six months, and that is a positive step forward. I wonder whether the Scottish Government believes that the grace period in the RCI regulations should also be reduced from 12 to six months. There is an overlap. The ROE is, of course, directed at money laundering, as the Cabinet Secretary said, not transparency of land ownership, but there may be room for joint working here, if, for instance, overseas entities require to report to RCI should they also have to report to the register of overseas entities. Finally, there is a question of resources here, and it would be helpful to know what further resources the Scottish Government is making available to the Crown Office, who will, of course, be responsible for enforcing these new measures, especially given that the economic crime bill also seeks to strengthen the UWA regime, increase and reinforce operational confidence in using UWA powers and clarify the scope of those powers. One way in which it will do this is by enabling UWAs to be sought against property health and trust and other complex ownership structures. To conclude, the Scottish Conservatives support the Scottish Government's motion. We believe that there is a clear urgency to put the measures contained within the economic crime bill to effect and that Parliament should give consent to this bill. It is right and proper that, as a Parliament, we play our role in making our institutions more robust and to ensure that, where there is illicit financial activity, we have the strongest possible measures in place to combat them. I rise to offer the support of the Scottish Liberal Democrats both to the Government's motion tonight and to Michael Marra's amendment. A terrible human tragedy is unfolding before our eyes. I am sure that each of us was deeply moved in the heroic words of President Zelensky when he addressed the Palace of Westminster last night. It reaffirmed for all of us that we must continue to stand with the people of Ukraine and do everything that we can to sanction Putin for the destruction that he is causing. I should associate myself with the remarks of Stephen Kerr. It is Putin, not the people of Russia, that is causing this. It is his regime and we must not lose sight of that. I am pleased that the UK Government has brought forward the economic crime bill at speed. I am disappointed that it has taken six years and this illegal invasion of Ukraine before the Government decided to take action to put an end to Kremlin-linked oligarchs laundering their dirty money in our country. Last month, Transparency International UK revealed that, since 2016, £1.5 billion of property was bought by Russians accused of corruption or links to the Kremlin. It also highlighted that more than 2,000 companies registered in the UK and its overseas territories and protectorates and crime dependencies were found to be utilised in 48 Russian money laundering and corruption cases, involving more than £82 billion of funds diverted by rigged procurement, bribery, embezzlement and the unlawful acquisition of state assets. Those numbers are stark and they are eye-watering, and it is clear that something must be done. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the economic crime bill goes far enough in ridding us of these links to Russia, not least because there are still measures in the bill that allow the UK Government to exempt an individual from declaring on the register if it relates to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. I am proud of my Westminster colleagues and the Liberal Democrats for tabling amendments to close those loopholes, which undoubtedly allow for exploitation by oligarchs and support all the work that they are doing to get this bill right. The loophole is not, however, the only concern that the Scottish Liberal Democrats have about the bill. As our former colleague in this chamber, Andy Wightman, pointed out over the weekend, the Scottish regulations that come into force next month only go back as far as December 14. That is not good enough. We must not presume that we in Scotland would only have been exposed to the corruption that comes with Russian oligarchs for that short period of time. Just last week, Ross Greer highlighted that Vladimir Lisin, a man whose name can be found on a 2018 US Treasury document of senior political figures and oligarchs in Russia, has reportedly owned a perthure estate totaling nearly £700,000 in agricultural state subsidies since 2005. Under the new rules, none of those individuals or companies will have to appear on the new register. I am deeply concerned that, by not taking action, people like Lisin will be able to continue owning land in Scotland without the proper scrutiny and if needs be penalty. That is why Scottish Liberal Democrats agree with Michael Marra and Labour that part 1 of the bill should apply to all land, owned and registered in Scotland, regardless of when it was acquired. By not extending the regulations so that those properties bought before December 2014 are also included in the new register, we allow ourselves to still have ties to Russian oligarchs at a time, when our message should be clear that we utterly condemn the actions of President Putin and, as far as possible, Scotland will have no ties to his regime. I will close by saying this. We stand in a building that was designed with transparency in mind. When it comes to instruments of legislation, like the one that we are discussing tonight, we must ensure that transparency is at the very heart of them. I fear that, should those new regulations not be amended in the way that we have discussed tonight, its provisions will allow those with ties to the brutal Putin regime to prosper still in our country. It is right to pass this motion and allow Westminster at long last to legislate on economic crime. Note, however, that the bill is only at second reading stage in the Lords and there are some 47 pages of amendments from the Commons alone, so today we debate a motion before the content of the bill is clear and it may well emerge deeply flawed. It shouldn't have been like this. As Oliver Bullock's new book Butler to the World makes clear, the UK has been the hub for international organised crime for years. Worse, it is not simply that we didn't have effective legislation. We've had multiple, particularly Tory Governments, deliberately blocking reform. For example, despite the best efforts of some and it is on the record, the UK Government refused to tackle the criminality associated with Scottish limited partnerships and, in doing so, in effect colludes with economic crime and corruption. Legislation must also address UK banks. How many in this Parliament are aware that, since 2010, UK regulators have imposed penalties, mostly on banks that have over £739 million for anti-money laundering failures. The national crime agency has stated that the amount of money laundering alone is likely to be in hundreds of billions of pounds annually. I've put that fact on the record on a number of occasions in this Parliament. Presiding Officer, perhaps the cynic in me could suggest that the real reason the Tories in London are at last clamping down in organised corruption is that they don't like the competition. However, we must look to institutions in Scotland too. As Oliver Bullock's chapter on the Scottish laundromat reveals, one major Scottish law firm threatened a senior investigative journalist with the withdrawal of advertising from his paper if a story about SLP criminality was published. Said law firm fronted huge numbers of SLPs and the Law Society of Scotland had not done enough to discourage their use as submissions to various consultations make clear. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary whilst appreciating that the regulation resides with the UK Government, if the Scottish Government will consider how the use of SLPs in particular can be discouraged, perhaps by further discussions with the Law Society of Scotland. Presiding Officer, what are a few of the bill's weaknesses? Despite claiming to make business vehicles more transparent, they can declare without challenge that they do not have a beneficial owner. That makes disclosure completely optional. There is to be no disclosure of the beneficiaries of trusts that hold property. There will only be small penalties for mis-deadlines and even for false filings. However, the most startling of all relates to the requirement to register itself. I have thought that secret property ownership by oligarchs and others would be considered a bad thing in all circumstances. However, the legislation allows the UK Secretary of State to exempt individuals from having to register if it is thought to be for our own wellbeing. Perhaps that is a perk for pals of the Secretary of State. I do not know. Of course, we have been promised another bill that is coming along shortly, and that is being referenced by Michael Marra. Despite the track record of Westminster, we are supposed to believe that resources will be made available to agencies such as Companies House to implement the legislation, but that is unlike what happened with the criminal finances bill back in 2017. Of course, I fully support today's motion, but I will have to reserve judgment as to the Westminster's Bill's success. In passing this legislative consent motion today, we are able to express our solidarity with the Ukrainian people, two million of whom have now fled for safety, as their homes and communities have been destroyed in the past few days. There is so much more that we can do and we urgently need the Conservative Government to deliver access to visas, so people returning with family members or people who have made the powerless journey to our borders are able to come here and seek refuge. We stand in solidarity and we have seen citizens protesting in Scotland about the impact on Ukrainian citizens. We have seen donations to the DEC appeal and fundraising initiatives right across Scotland and rallies. In Edinburgh today, people outside the Russian Consulate, artists, movingly reciting poems and singing to make the human connections and using their right to protest and campaign. Today's motion is vital, because it is about tackling the issue of those who have extracted money from the Russian people and its economy and have kept it to make themselves and their families rich. The kleptocrats have not just made money out of businesses but then brought properties and land, which had become more and more valuable over time here, too. We need transparency and we need to end for good the influence of corrupt money. We believe that the bill that is referenced in today's legislative consent motion does not go far enough. It does not stop the dirty money that has flooded into the UK economy, which Alex Cole-Hamilton referenced. There was a promise of action in 2016, but it has not happened. We have seen £1.5 billion flood into the purchase of properties where the investors have been accused of corruption or direct links to the Kremlin, so we are impatient for action. Our UK Labour colleagues attempted to amend the economic crime transparency and enforcement bill to enable the legislation to expand the scope of properties purchased before 2014 in Scotland and elsewhere before 1999 and to keep the current transitional period on properties in order to get a solution to bring them into the scope of the regime being established. As Michael Marra has said eloquently, there is no logical reason why this must be the case. The whole point of our land reform legislation in Scotland has been to increase transparency, increase the beneficial use of our land and increase community involvement and ownership, so the examples that have been given in the chamber today are not acceptable. We need transparency, so people cannot hide their ownership and thereby escape the action and accountability that legislation is intended to deliver. The issue of persons of significant control needs to be addressed now, not in the future. We need transparency on all the land owned and registered in Scotland. The people of Ukraine are suffering now. They need accountability and the action that we can deliver in Scotland to put pressure on Putin's regime. If anyone has been at any of the demonstrations, it is hard listening to their demands for action now, so we need to listen to them and we need to do what we can. I also say to the cabinet secretary that we need an urgent review of the Scotland project to ensure that no one benefits from our seabed where sanctions should be imposed. Ethical concerns have been raised and should be acted upon urgently. I ask the cabinet secretary and his winding up speech to say what action the Scottish Government will take on this issue to address these concerns and deliver transparency. I welcome the cross-party support that we have had today for both the motion and the amendment. I particularly welcome the measured speech that was made by Donald Cameron this afternoon and his support of our party's amendment today. We are not always going to agree in this place and part of democracy is expressing that disagreement, so I agree with the points made by Michelle Thompson about the need for more action. However, I would say in conclusion that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government must pull out all the stops to ensure that transparency is real and that we in this country can do everything that we can to tackle the legacy of historic purchase by oligarchs and those who have cosied up to those in power. It has to stop now. I will try to address as many of the questions as I can within the time available. There were quite a few questions that were raised. I have listened with great interest to the debates and I am thankful to members for expressing their support. The point that was made by Sarah Boyack is a very important one. Those eclectocrats will have got their money from fleecing the Russian people of billions of pounds at a point in their history where they needed that money to serve their own public services and we should bear that in mind. Over the past few weeks, we have been witness to the shocking action of Putin's regime and I take on board again. The point that was made by Stephen Kerr about Putin that we should keep in our sights but that regime has worked against the people, democracy and the sovereign territorial integrity of Ukraine and the chamber stands resolute against that unwarranted aggression. The reforms to which the LCM relates are intended and I would say they are required to help counter the illicit financing of land and property ownership across the UK by those eclectocrats and oligarchs that support Putin's regime. Listening to Michael Marath, I thought that we were about to break into a verse of this land is our land when he made some of his comments. I would say in relation to Scottish regulations and I think he was referring to the duplication, which I refer to in my statement. I think that that will be a matter for the minister responsible, Mary McCallan, to look at as she takes things forward in that regard and she will be paying attention to what is said here today. That would also apply to the point that Sarah Boyack made about seabed as well. Those things can be looked at. As can the issue about 12 months coming to six months, which is a point that was made. Some of the issues about prominent persons are really in the gift of the UK Government, not in the gift of this Government, to deal with. We want to see the maximum transparency. We have the provisions coming forward in our own bill, which was long planned, which will help us in relation to that. That, of course, can be looked at again by this Parliament. There is no inhibition on the Parliament looking at that. In relation to Michael Marath's amendment, I should say just to be clear, the UK Government did not ask to go back beyond 2014. In fact, I think that it is unlikely that they are going to agree to that, but there is no inhibition on us agreeing to the amendment, which I am happy to do. It may be that, given that Donald Cameron has expressed his support for it as well, he can have a word with his colleagues in London, perhaps that would add additional weight to it. I would also say that, in relation to the points that were made by Michelle Thomson, my colleague Ash Reagan is in the chamber and has heard the comments—I think that she will have heard the comments made by Michelle Thomson in relation to the Law Society and SLPs. As I have said, the reforms to which the LCM relate are intended to deal with the illicit financing of land and property— Cabinet Secretary, sorry, could I ask you to take a seat for a moment? I am aware of extended discussions that are continuing while you are speaking, which I am certainly finding distracting. I would be grateful if you could continue. The tragic events in Ukraine have brought those long-standing issues to the fore, and it is undeniable that now is the time. Some people have made the point that it was some time ago to lift the veil of secrecy and shine a light on who owns most of our vital assets as a nation or land and help to call out the corruption and ownership of assets purchased through unlawful conduct. We want to have a Scotland that is and is seen as hostile to anybody who thinks that they can hide assets obtained by unlawful conduct and support the unexplained wealth order provisions that deliver key improvements to the effectiveness of UWOs as part of measures, which will also strengthen the financial sanctions regime that will do more to tackle corrupt regimes, businesses and individuals across the world. On the measures that are included in the LCM relating to our register of overseas entities, the Scottish Government is fully supportive of measures to tackle money laundering and improve transparency of land ownership. Indeed, transparency of ownership has long been a key objective of our land reform policy, and the 2016 Land Reform Act included provisions to establish, as I mentioned, a register of persons with a controlled interest in land. It should be noted that UK ministers have committed to table an amendment to a sunset clause regulation making power in schedule 4 to the bill, which will require consultation with Scottish ministers before any regulations impacting on aspects devolved to Scotland are made. I should say just in passing the take-up the point made by Michelle Thompson that there is a lot further to go in this process, and we are taking quite a lot on trust from UK ministers. I hope that trust is well placed and that the concerns that we have expressed are taken in the spirit in which they are intended and also respected as things go forward. As I have already said in relation to Mr Marra's amendment to the motion, we are entirely supportive of the sentiment behind it, but I would like to highlight that if the bill were to be amended in this manner, as I have said, we would add very little to the transparency regime here in Scotland. That is really due to the nature of how people had to register before 2014, the nature of the records, and the obligations that they would have after this is passed, which they did not have then, which creates complications for taking legal action. I am happy to go into that in more detail, but it is a complex picture. We have, of course, our own register of persons with a controlled interest in land going live on 1 April. That will provide transparency for land and property acquired before 8 December. I am also stressed that time is short and the UK bill needs to progress in an expedited manner to ensure that the register of overseas entities is up and running as soon as possible. As such, while we accept Mr Marra's amendment to the motion, as I have said, we have to recognise that there does not seem to be the time available to the UK Government now to make those necessary changes, but I have made that point already. The Scottish Government, for our part, therefore, is content with all the ROE provisions that extend into devolved competence and recommend that this Parliament gives consent to the UK Parliament to legislate for those provisions. On the forms of the UWO regime in Scotland, the Scottish Government is supportive of those measures that have been taken forward in the bill, and the measures in the LCM will, as I have said, enable enforcement authorities to take more effective action against kleptocrats and serious and organised criminals who will launder their funds in the UK, and it will enable UWOs to be sought against property held in trust and other complex ownership structures such as opaque foundations. I am sure that everyone in the chamber will agree that corruption and the purchase of assets through unlawful conduct are not welcome in Scotland, irrespective of where the perpetrators originate. I urge members to support the LCM, the purpose of which is to say, going back to the song that I mentioned earlier, that this land is our land, this land is not the land of kleptocrats and oligarchs, and I would ask all members to support this LCM. That concludes the debate on economic crime, transparency and enforcement bill, UK legislation, and it is time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motions 3545, 3546 and 3547 in the name of Jackson Carlaw on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on nomination of a pension fund trustee for the Scottish Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. I call on Jackson Carlaw to speak to and move the motions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before moving the motions, I would like to acknowledge, on behalf of the Parliament, the work done by the previous pension fund trustees, Alison Harris, Gil Paterson and Mark Ruskell, looking after our pension scheme. Under schedule 1 part b, rule 8 1 of the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Act 2009, it is for the Parliament to appoint all trustees by resolution on nomination by the SPCB. The SPCB recently agreed to nominate Gordon MacDonald MSP, Murdo Fraser MSP and former MSP Mark Ballard as the pensioner trustee, as fund trustees of the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Scheme to serve alongside Pauline McNeill. I therefore move those motions for the Parliament to approve three new fund trustees. Thank you. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of motion 3488 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on the appointment of the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to speak to and to move the motion. As a member of the cross-party selection panel established by the Presiding Officer under our standing orders, I am delighted to be speaking to the motion in my name to invite members of Parliament to agree to nominate Ian Duddy to her Majesty the Queen for appointment as the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Chair of the selection panel and the other members were Karen Adam, Maggie Chapman, Pam Duncan-Glancy and Megan Gallacher. As members will be aware, the Scottish Human Rights Commission is the national human rights institution for Scotland, and its role is to promote human rights, and in particular to encourage best practice in relation to human rights. Turning to the panel's nominee, Ian Duddy is a senior civil servant and former UK ambassador. From 2011 to 2016, he led the UK team at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, working closely with civil society, governments and national human rights institutions. Ian has worked in Europe, South America and Afghanistan on issues including child safeguarding, gender, education and freedom of expression. Ian is currently the head of the human rights and rule of law department at the foreign commonwealth and development officer. The panel believes that Ian's blend of skills, knowledge and experience will make him an excellent chair, and in partnership with the part-time members of the commission will ensure that the commission fulfills its statutory functions, that positive working relations with stakeholders are built and maintained, and that the office is run efficiently and effectively. Lastly, I would like to mention the outgoing chair of the commission, Judith Robertson, who demits office later this month and to thank her for her many achievements during her term of office, and to wish her all the very best for the future. I move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3526, in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you minister. No member has asked to speak on the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 3526 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of five parliamentary bureau motions, and I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 3527, 3528 and 3529 on approval of SSI, and 3530 and 3531 on designation of lead committees. Thank you minister. The question on these motions will be put at decision time. There are 13 questions to be put as a result of today's business, and the first is the amendment 3491.1, in the name of Humza Yousaf, which seeks to amend motion 3491, in the name of Anna Sarwar, on Millie's law, justice for families, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access digital voting system.