 Y Fawr Cymru Cymru, cyn yw'r ddod o'i gweithio ar gweithio ysgol yn cymhwynt, frontwyr i'r unrhyw ddod, mwy fyddan nhw? Fodd o'r ddod ar gyfer hynny, mae'n gweithio ar gyfer hynny, a ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod i gwybod ysgol yw gweithio ar gyfer hynny. Gend item 1 is the decision on taking business in private. This relates to item 5, which relates to agreeing to take our consideration of a draft letter on the Scottish Government on wildlife crime in private at a future meeting, and the Crown estate issues, which we have to send to the Devolution Further Powers Committee. Are we agreed? We are agreed, so we will move to deal with those matters in private agenda item 2. The second item today takes evidence on the microchipping of dog Scotland regulation 2016 draft. I very much welcome the cabinet secretary. Sorry that we are slightly late, but I am sure that we will not be detaining you too long. Richard Lochhead is joined by Dr Beverly Williams, Andrew Vos and Andrew Campbell. I ask the cabinet secretary to speak to the instrument and then we will move to some questions. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to speak to you about the proposed microchipping of dogs Scotland regulations 2016. As the committee may hopefully be aware, compulsory microchipping has been a matter of much campaigning on the parts of animal welfare stakeholders, most particularly the dog trust, and it has also been a topic of debate in the Scottish Parliament in May 2014, and it has been an issue to our attention by many constituents, I am sure. On 4 March 2015, I announced that Scotland would be taking forward mandatory microchipping and would aim to do so in line with the timetables of England and Wales, in other words, by April 2016. That followed a Scottish Government public consultation in response to which 83 per cent of respondents supported making microchipping mandatory. So the regulations before you were drafted under powers in the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 and were laid before Parliament on 10 December last year. The Scottish Government has long recommended microchipping as best practice in the identification of dogs in our codes of practice for the welfare of dogs. We very much recognise the useful role it plays in reuniting lost pets with their owners, where the dog has also been registered on a microchip database and where details relating to the dog in question have been kept up to date. Although it is thought that around two thirds of dogs of Scotland were already microchipped on a voluntary basis, it is also estimated that there are over 8,000 stray dogs in Scotland each and every year. The cost of dealing with them is estimated at not far off £4 million a year, with the largest financial burden falling in animal welfare charities. The Scottish Government considers that these figures and the successful reuniting of dogs with owners could be improved by making it mandatory that all dogs are microchipped and owners and animals are registered on a database and that details are kept up to date. Bringing in a legal requirement to microchip would also provide the opportunity to require standardised types of microchips, standardised information to be kept on the databases and appropriate access to the data held, all of which would further improve the efficiency of reuniting dogs with their keepers. The ultimate objective, however, is to ensure that legislation secures the welfare of all dogs in Scotland. There are potentially wider benefits to microchipping, for example identifying an owner in an animal welfare incident or identifying an owner relating to an attack, of course the general objective of promoting responsible dog ownership, as well as other benefits such as deterring dog theft and helping to trace those breeding or dealing dogs illegally. The proposed regulations presented here are intended to help to achieve those aims, so I hope that the information provided by my officials and all the companies, all the draft regulations has proved useful to you all and of course I'm happy to do what I can to answer all your questions today. I just want to explore the costs around this for individual dog owners. We're told in the papers in front of us that the cost to an individual dog keeper would be between £10 and £30 for microchipping with possible fees of between £10 and £16 for registration and keeping details on a database. I wonder if you could explain the range of possible charges that we go from £10 to £30 rather than a fixed fee. Thank you. Clearly, the majority of responsible dog owners have already registered their dogs and microchipped them, which is a responsible thing to do. As I said in my remarks, part of the code of best practice for the welfare of dogs promoted by the Scottish Government. The range of costs that you have quoted are correct and they are arranged because there are commercial providers of the various services. On the one hand, if you are lucky enough to be able to attend a dog trust event, you can get the microchipping carried out free, whereas if you want to go to your own vet, as I had to do a few months ago with her pet dog, you pay a fee to the private vet as I did in Elgin because there was no event at that point in time where I live, so it depends what route you choose to have your dog microchipped. I had urged people between April to go on to the websites of the animal welfare charities, particularly the dog trust, and find out where those free microchipping events are taking place. I attended one a few weeks ago in Elgin. There is a long queue of people from all over Murray and Aberdeenshire attending that to take advantage of having it done free. The other costs, of course, are updating the database if there is a change of circumstances, a change of owner, so there may well be a fee for the database company. In some cases, it is a one-off fixed fee for on-going updates over the life of the dog. Other database companies charge a fee each time you update your records, so that is why there is a range. I think that there are a number of members in the Parliament who have hosted these dog trust events in their constituency and they are very good, but can I just develop a little further? I have been approached by the owner of a rehoming and retraining centre raising a concern. It may not be a valid concern, but I want to air it and get your views. Moving forward, this is mandatory. Is there any concern that we may get to a point in the future where dogs are being microchipped and those providing the service could hike the fees? I realise that you would have a choice about who you went to, but is there a danger that further down the line, what is a reasonable charge at the moment of being between £10 and £30, could it become much more substantial? Is that something that you are conscious of? That situation applies to many things that we pay for in life. At the moment, we have six database companies, so there is competition, and hopefully that will help to keep down the prices over time. Likewise, the animal welfare charities will pay attention to the issue and have an on-going role, hopefully, and should the prices ever increase to an unreasonable level, I am sure that the animal welfare charities would know that it is stepping in to help with that. That applies across commercial life, so we will stop. Just a quick follow-up on that. You said that the dog's trust is free, and the other private sector people will do it. Do you have any plans to assist further? The dog's trust might be financially or maybe in other ways, so that the dog's trust can expand what it does across more parts of Scotland, so that more people will benefit from the free microchipping? We will certainly keep a very close eye on the progress of the voluntary microchipping up to April, and what happens thereafter. We will pay close attention to that, but the animal welfare charities require a lot of praise and I commend what they have been doing, particularly in terms of running some of those events for free microchipping. It is good to see them occasionally going into more rural areas, and I continue to encourage that. Ultimately, if you choose to own a dog and you wish to be a responsible dog owner, it may come with the cost, whether it is feeding your dog, vet bills or whatever that may be. It is a fee that many responsible dog owners have and are willing to pay at their own pockets over many years for those who voluntarily microchipped their own dogs. It is a small point of clarification on what I feel very positive about as a regulation. In regulation 10, I see that the new keeper has to update the organisation that holds the records for obvious reasons. Have I missed something or is there somewhere where the regulation states that, if the present owner changes his address, they also have to inform the database? I just could not spot that and it would just be reassuring that that is there. That is in regulation 6, paragraph 7, which says that from 26 April 2016, every keeper of a dog that has been implanted with a compliant microchip must notify any change to the details that are to be recorded in the database. That is an on-going obligation to update the database. As to whether the cabinet secretary or his officials have spoken to local government about the administrative implications of that and whether there are notional costs that you expect them to shoulder in implementing those regulations? That is a good question. Yes, we have been speaking to local authorities and, as part of consultation process, officials at specific events or meetings with the relevant local authority officers. In terms of the financial implications for local authorities, we anticipate savings to local authorities because the quicker they can reunite dogs with their owners in terms of stray dogs, for instance, the less costs they have to pay towards the kennel costs, so there could actually be savings from this. There is a quite a large degree of support among local authorities for making this compulsory. I understand that there are 84 officers who are either dog wardens or animal welfare officers currently working within our 32 local authorities. Over and above that, I understand that there are around 100 authorised officers who can also fulfil some of the duties. The staff are doing a job at the moment. I understand welcome the fact that this is going to be a law to support their good work in promoting responsible dog ownership. Hopefully, over time, there will be a saving for local authorities. There should hopefully not be too significant an increase in costs in the short term, because the officers in most cases are there doing their job. Welcome. I suppose that the issue would be about the cost of chipping provided by local authorities. Have you got thoughts about notional costs for that? What would be fair to charge? I just clarify the question about local authorities carrying out the microchipping. Yes, they are involved in that. What would be the notional cost that you would think would be acceptable? Well, I do not pretend to know much about the local authorities own direct role in microchipping. Is that something just for vets or groups like the Dogs Trust? I think that, primarily, that is a role for individual keepers to go and get their local vet to do the chipping or the animal welfare charities. Can I raise a point about reclaimed fees, which is dealt with? It shows a very wide range from £125 to perhaps zero. This is local authorities having to charge people for reclaiming their dogs. Does it, in some ways, penalise people who cannot afford to pay the reclaimed fees? Perhaps poorer people would find themselves having their dogs euthanised rather than reclaimed, because they could not afford some of those fees. The range from North Lanarkshire 125 to Glasgow City's 25 and so on seems to me that the order does not deal with that in any specific way, but we want to raise that to SNOW, because we are concerned that, with the best will in the world, even once dogs are all microchipped, it is going to be quite an uneven experience for people if a dog goes astray. If the committee feels that as an issue, I would be happy to look into it further. At the moment, local authorities clearly have the statutory duty to deal with stray dogs. In terms of reclaimed fees, they have the right to claim back some of the costs of the curtain kennel costs, or whatever the other costs may be. That is no doubt why the costs are variable, because each local authority approaches it in a different way, however they choose to do so. Although the regulations do not deal with the reclaimed costs, it is not really an issue that has been brought to my attention in the past, and therefore that is not being addressed at the moment. That is up to each individual local authority. In some cases, they will charge and in some cases, they will not charge. It is up to the discretion to approach each case as they see fit. Indeed. I thought that it was worth raising just now, because it seems to me to be quite an anomaly for many people around the country that they could be paying such varying amounts. Any other questions? If not, we will move on to the debate in agenda item 3. This is to take consideration of motion S4M-15056, asking for the committee to recommend approval of the microchipping of dog Scotland regulation 2016 draft. The motion is that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the microchipping of dogs Scotland regulations 2016 draft be approved. Now only members can speak, and the cabinet secretary, and I invite Richard Lochhead to speak to and move the motion. In moving the motion, I want to thank the committee for their support, and the people of Scotland, I certainly believe, support this legislation as well. Of course, it is happening elsewhere in the UK, and it is very much seen as a modern approach to promoting responsible dog ownership, as well as helping to reduce the heartache of people who have been separated from their dogs and their pets and want to be reunited as quickly as possible. That should be a lot easier if their dogs are microchipped and the information is up to date. In those few cases where there is irresponsible dog ownership, it will help the authorities where they have that information to hold those to account who have not been responsible dog owners. I would like to make a couple of quick points on the motion, which I feel very positive about. I thought that it was heartening that 86 per cent of people consulted were positive about the new regulation. We have also discussed previously about costs, and one of the costs that would be limited for people once the order comes into effect. As I understand it, it would be that they would not necessarily have such a heavy cost if they have lost their dog, because they could be reunited with their pet much more quickly. The only other point that I wanted to make was just to commend the dog's trust and those vets across Scotland who have offered a free service and advertised it well in order to support those people on a lower income in moving towards April. Just to reiterate Claudia Beamish's point that is part of the overall consultation that we had a year or two ago, in terms of responsible dog ownership, there was a huge amount of support for that particular measure. Indeed. Thank you very much. We come to the question on the motion. The question is that motion S4M-15056, in the name of Richard Lochhead, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Thank you very much. We will note that and pass on the information. Thank you to Richard and his officials. It will be a brief suspension to change over at panels. We now move to agenda item 4, which is to consider amendments to the Land Reform Scotland Bill. Today we will consider amendments from part 1 up to no further than part 5, apart from chapter 3 of part 2, which we will consider after part 10. I welcome Dr Aileen McLeod, Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and her officials Fiona Taylor, Kate Thompson McDermott, Rachel Reiner and Ian Young. I note that the officials are not, of course, allowed to speak on the record in these proceedings, and I expect that they will be joined later by two other members with amendments to Anne Lamont and Patrick Harvie. I have to say for the benefit of people what the process is just now. This takes a wee while, almost as long as some of the explanations, no doubt, will get from the minister. However, everyone should have with them a copy of the bill that was introduced, the marshaled list of amendments that sets out the amendments in order in 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 to 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 wind-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. 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 a vote or to withdraw it. If the member wishes to press ahead, I will put the question on the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, I will check whether any other member objects. If any other member does object, the amendment is not withdrawn and the committee must 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, audibly. Any other MSP present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, however, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are 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 have not reached the end of part 5 today, we will stop at an appropriate point and pick up where we are left off in day 2 next week. I hope that that is all clear to everybody. We now move to the marshaled list. The first item on the marshaled list is relation to the purpose, content, effective land rights and responsibility statement and key definitions. I call amendment 15 in the name of the minister, group with amendments 16, 16A, 72, 17, 75, 78, 96, 97, 97A and 117. Minister, to move amendment 15 and speak to all the other amendments in the group. Amendment 15, which I am proposing, will change the definition of the land rights and responsibilities statement from being a statement of the Scottish ministers objectives for land reform to being a statement of principles for land rights and responsibilities in Scotland. The land rights and responsibilities statement, as we know, will provide a context in which we as a nation can consider the development of rights and responsibilities around land. It is also an important part of our on-going programme of work to ensure that the full public benefits for land in Scotland are realised. The land rights and responsibilities statement will set out our vision for the relationship between the people of Scotland and the land of Scotland. It will provide a set of principles to guide the development of public policy on the nature and character of land rights and responsibilities in Scotland. The statement will interrelate with other relevant policies, including the Scottish Government's economic strategy, the land use strategy, the Scottish biodiversity strategy and the national planning framework. Collectively, those documents will set out a consistent and holistic approach to how the land of Scotland should be used, controlled and managed. The amendment clarifies the focus of the statement as providing a set of high-level principles on land rights and responsibilities in Scotland and aligns the name of the statement more clearly with its purpose. Amendment 16 requires Scottish ministers in preparing the land rights and responsibilities to have regard to the desirability of a range of factors. Those are a. Promoting respect for and observance of relevant human rights. B. Encouraging equal opportunities. C. Furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which results from socioeconomic disadvantage. D. Increasing the diversity of land ownership. E. Furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to land. The Scottish Government has signalled its commitment to the encouragement and promotion of each of those factors throughout stage 1 and in the policy memorandum. The amendment reiterates the commitment. That is part 1 in the human rights. The first part of the amendment requires Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of promoting respect for and observance of relevant human rights. Relevant human rights are those rights that Scottish ministers consider are relevant to the preparation of the statement. Ministers consider that the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and the food and agriculture organisation of the United Nations voluntary guidelines on responsible governance of tenure are highly likely to be relevant to the preparation of the land rights and responsibility statement and so would be relevant human rights for the purpose of this amendment. The international covenant requires appropriate steps to be taken by states towards achieving certain rights to adequate standards of living including adequate food and housing. Those rights are linked to the use, control and ownership of land. The voluntary guidelines set out principles and internationally accepted standards of responsible practices for the use and control of land, fisheries and forests, which are of relevance to land policies in Scotland. The amendment will mean that ministers will have regard to the desirability of promoting respect for and observance of the human rights contained in these documents when preparing the statement. Other human rights instruments may also be considered relevant human rights. Those instruments may include the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. The amendment and use of the term relevant human rights avoid the difficulties that could arise from using a definitive list of instruments relating to human rights. It also allows for future developments in relation to human rights to be taken account of. That approach will allow ministers to take account of future discussions on how human rights obligations interact with the land rights and responsibilities in Scotland, which may take place as part of the consultation process required on the first and future land rights and responsibilities statements. Part 2 is equal opportunities. The second part of the amendment requires Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of encouraging equal opportunities. Equal opportunities in this context means the prevention or elimination of discrimination on various grounds, including grounds of social or racial origin, as defined in section L2 of part 2 of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. That will involve consideration of how encouraging equal opportunities applies in relation to how our land is owned, used and managed and who it is owned by. Part 3 is the reduction of inequalities. The third part of the amendment requires Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which results from socioeconomic disadvantage. The potential impact on reducing inequalities is essential consideration for Scottish ministers' decision making across all policy areas. The amendment recognises the importance of land to people's wellbeing, opportunities and identity and recognises that the land is key to the success and development of our people, communities and our economy. Ministers will consider how the statement can best encourage in relation to land rights and responsibilities the reduction of inequalities that exist in our society in terms of access to social justice, health and welfare by individuals and communities. The fourth part of the amendment requires Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of increasing the diversity of land ownership. Scottish ministers consider that increasing diversity of land ownership means encouraging diverse patterns of ownership in terms of who owns land, how much land is owned and for what purposes land is owned. Part 5 in sustainable development, the fifth and final part of the amendment requires Scottish ministers to have regard to furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to land. In preparing a land rights and responsibilities statement, one of the Scottish ministers' aims is for its policies relating to the use, management and ownership of land to be designed to promote the sustainable development of Scotland's land. The amendment ensures that the desirability of the aim is considered by Scottish ministers when preparing the statement. On amendment 16A, I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing forward the amendment that seeks to include fostering community resilience, which ministers would also have regard to. It is a very helpful addition, and it adds to amendment 16, which requires ministers to have regard to furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which results from socioeconomic disadvantage when preparing the land rights and responsibilities statement. In light of that, I would be happy to support Sarah Boyack's amendment 16A. That is very similar to the Government's amendment 16, and it seeks to achieve the same purpose, albeit just with slightly different wording. Under amendment 16, Scottish ministers must, when preparing the land rights and responsibilities statement, have regard to the desirability of A, promoting respect for and observance of relevant human rights, B, encouraging equal opportunities, C, furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which results from socioeconomic disadvantage, D, increasing the diversity of land ownership, and E, furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to the land. In those respects, our amendment goes further than amendment 72 from Michael Russell, because it also requires ministers, when preparing the statement, to have regard to the desirability of furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which results from socioeconomic disadvantage. Through that, ministers will consider how that statement can best encourage in relation to the land rights and responsibilities, the reduction of inequalities that exist in our society in relation to access to social justice, health and welfare by both individuals and communities. The Government's amendment also uses different language to that. In Mr Russell's amendment, our amendment talks about encouraging equal opportunities rather than achieving equal opportunities. The definition of equal opportunities is used in both our amendment and Mr Russell's amendment, section L2 of part 2 of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which means the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on various grounds. The language of encouraging rather than achievement is probably more helpful in acknowledging the statement that can only be one part of the aim. I say to Mr Russell that I understand the sentiments behind his amendments, and I hope that he will agree that, as our amendments are seeking to achieve the same purpose that he would agree not to move your amendment and to support amendment 16, amendment 17 requires that the Scottish ministers to ensure that the land rights responsibility statement takes account of and is integrated with all the Scottish ministers' other strategies, including the Scottish Government's economic strategy, the land use strategy, the Scottish biodiversity strategy and the national planning framework. The Government considers that amendment is not necessary because, throughout stage 1, we have stated the Scottish ministers' intention to ensure that the land rights and responsibilities statement is consistent with and takes account of existing policies and strategies. We intend for the statement to interrelate with existing policies, including the Scottish Government's economic strategy, the land use strategy, the Scottish biodiversity strategy and the national planning framework. I think that taking together as a whole those will set out a fairly consistent and holistic approach to how the land of Scotland should be owned, used and managed. It is also important to recognise that there is a wealth of ideas and views to be considered in detail when we are taking forward the statement. The consultation process will ensure that all options and interests can be considered, including the strategies and policies that are listed in amendment 17. I highlight a list of strategies that the land rights and responsibilities statement must take account of and be integrated with. That can run the risk that other relevant strategies receive less attention or may be considered to be of less importance. By way of example, I am talking about housing policy, our national performance framework or historic environmental strategy for Scotland. Those strategies and other policies may just be as interrelated with land rights and responsibilities as those that are listed in Graeme Day's amendment. Amendment 17 would require Scottish ministers to ensure that the land rights and responsibilities statement takes account of and is integrated with all of their other strategies, regardless of whether they are relevant to the statement, which would be unworkable. Scottish ministers always take into consideration other relevant policies when developing a new policy or strategy. That does not require a legislative duty to be imposed on the face of every piece of legislation that creates a new Government policy or strategy. As a result, given Scottish ministers' commitment to taking account of the policies and strategies that are listed in amendment 17 and more, which are not listed there when preparing the land rights and responsibilities statement, I would ask Graeme Day not to move the amendment. Amendment 75 requires Scottish ministers to further the objectives that are set out in the land rights and responsibilities statement. As we have changed the description of the land rights and responsibilities statement from objectives to principles, we will accept the amendment in principle and look to see if any other fair changes in wording need to be made at stage 3. In terms of amendment 78, that deletes the definition of equal opportunities and equal opportunity requirements from section 9, and amendment 96 inserts the definition into part 11. Those amendments are consequential on Mr Russell's other amendments 72, 77, 81 and 92, while I have absolutely no objection to the definition. I think that those amendments are unnecessary, because our preferred approach is to define the terms equal opportunities and equal opportunity requirements within the body of each section in which the terms are used due to the infrequency with which the terms appear. As we have already defined the term in each section, restating the definition at the end is unnecessary, so I would ask Mr Russell not to move those amendments. In terms of amendments 97 and 97A, Mr Russell's definition of human rights and amendments 97 provides that this includes economic, social and cultural rights as referred to in the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and such other international covenants, conventions, agreements or EU documents, as the Scottish ministers consider to be relevant. Amendment 97A extends that definition to include economic, social and cultural rights contained in the voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of 10 years of land, fisheries and forests. Although that is a wide definition, it is still in a list form and is therefore problematic. Although it would be impossible and impractical to list all the relevant obligations, I think that listing some international obligations such as the international covenant and the voluntary guidelines would probably raise questions over why others are not included by name. Although the list goes on to give the Scottish ministers a fairly wide discretion to consider other instruments, it is the economic, social and cultural rights that are highlighted. There may be other rights, including civil and political rights, which are equally relevant. For example, the voluntary guidelines that relate to the economic, social and cultural rights, but they also target the promotion of other fundamental rights. Those guidelines seek to improve, as we know, the governance of land tenure in the context of food security, because our land is central to realising human rights and eradicating hunger and poverty. The rights that the guidelines drive at are wider than economic, social and culture rights. They are fundamental rights of everyone to survive. Although that definition does not preclude ministers from considering such fundamental rights, it does not include them, which gives them less prominence and may suggest that they are of less importance. Amendment 97 also imposes a duty on Scottish ministers to consult with the Scottish Human Rights Commission when considering which other instruments are relevant, which is unnecessary. Scottish ministers can consult with any bodies or persons that they consider appropriate without being required to do so by legislation. Indeed, it is Scottish ministers' policy to always consult on matters of importance to the people of Scotland. The Scottish Human Rights Commission also already has the power to provide advice in connection with the promotion of human rights and the encouragement of best practice. It could seek to do so certainly when Scottish ministers are considering human rights in the context of land issues. We have brought forward amendments 18 and 21, which require Scottish ministers to consult on the first land rights and responsibilities statement and as part of the review process of the statement. There is already a similar requirement on Scottish ministers in section 37.4 to consult before issuing the guidance to be created under part 4. Requirements in Scottish ministers to consult in both parts 1 and 4 of the bill will be with such persons as ministers consider appropriate, so I can confirm that that will include the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Scottish ministers will seek the expertise and knowledge of the Human Rights Commission when it is considering what rights are relevant to both the preparation of the land rights and responsibilities statement and to the part 4 guidance. The Government amendments 16 and 38 bring forward the Scottish ministers' own definition of relevant human rights. Those definitions avoid the difficulties that arise from using a list of instruments relating to human rights and allow the Scottish ministers the discretion to consider other relevant rights as appropriate. The approach also enables the possibility of future debate on what is relevant and how human rights obligations interact with land issues in Scotland. For all the reasons that I have just said out, I would ask Mr Russell and Sir Boyack not to move amendments 97 and 97A into support. The approach to human rights has been set out in amendments 16 and 38. On amendment 117, I would say to Boyack that should start the definition of sustainable development in the bill. I can understand where Sir Boyack is coming from as an amendment, but I think that amendment is unnecessary. It is potentially harmful because it is an exhaustive definition. Sustainable development in the bill can mean only development, which is consistent with those principles, not all of which may be relevant to how sustainable development is used in the bill. For example, it is unclear how using sound science responsibly is relevant to the Scottish ministers' decision making under section 472A. As I have said throughout stage 1, and as the committee acknowledged in the stage 1 report, the term sustainable development in relation to land is widely understood and widely used in other legislation, in particular the other right to buy legislation. The courts have been able to interpret that term in relation to other legislation. In the policy memorandum, we are very clear that sustainable development is development that is planned with appropriate regard for its longer term consequences and is geared towards assisting social and economic advancement that can lead to further opportunities and a higher quality of life for people whilst protecting the environment. It is an advantage for the term not to be defined in the bill. By not defining sustainable development, the term is left deliberately broad and Scottish ministers and, where necessary, the courts are able to determine what sustainable development means in a particular case, as they have done in relation to other legislation. Defining sustainable development by reference to principles in a framework document is also not appropriate. Although it is a vitally important document that demonstrates the commitment of the UK Government and other devolved Administrations to work together to meet our shared goals of sustainable development, it has no legal effect or standing. The principles in the framework were drafted with a view to forming the basis of sustainable development policy, and not for being used in legislation or interpreted by the courts. It is also possible that the document may change in the future, which could render the reference to it in the bill obsolete, so I would ask Sarah Boyack not to move the amendment. Amendment 15, amendment 16A, and other amendments in the group. I listened with great interest to the minister's opening statement and there was a huge amount of information in it. I will pick up a couple of her points, convener, as I talked to my own amendments and others in the group. One of the key debates that we had in evidence stage 1 was the importance of being clear about the objectives of the bill, because we are all conscious that the bill will in the future become an act. When it gets implemented, what was on the face of the bill and what was said in committee or in the chamber will be interpreted by people in the future. The decisions in the future will be affected by what we say and what is on the face of the bill, so it is quite important that we get real clarity on it. I am very much welcome amendment 16 by the minister. It provides a range of objectives. It puts them on the face of the bill. That is really helpful. I wanted to add the issue of fostering community resilience. It is important to emphasise both individual human rights and collective human rights. That is where I was seeking to use the term community resilience. It is very much in line with our other most recent land reform bill, the community empowerment act. I am very glad that the minister is happy to accept my amendment to her amendment. I think that our job is to test the words used by ministers at this particular process. I wanted to do that in particular in relation to human rights, because again the implementation of the bill will stand or fall by the strength and the intentions, the clarity of definitions and then the political will that follows from this bill. I welcome much of what is in the minister's amendment. I think that what is in amendment 97 by Mike Russell is absolutely crucial in providing that wider framework. There was one section in the minister's amendment that I certainly hesitated over, which was in 16 to be right at the end, where the minister is suggesting that human rights mean what the ministers think is going to be relevant in terms of preparation of the statement. We all received yesterday a letter from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which was not happy with the Scottish Government's response to our stage 1 report in relation to human rights. It makes the point that the Scotland Act does specifically call on Scottish ministers to observe and implement international obligations, including the rights found in the ICESCR. I think that their views need to be addressed by the minister as she speaks today. They also make the point that our community empowerment act also specifically refers to the ICESCR in schedule 4. I think that it is important that we make sure that human rights are fully expressed because this is new and this is potentially radical legislation. The strength of what is in Mike Russell's amendment is clearly an adopted statement. It is something that we would all hope to see applied. Indeed, it is in the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, so I cannot really see why we must not have it in here. In supporting Mike Russell's amendment, I also wanted to specifically add the voluntary guidelines on responsible governance of tenure, and that is because they specifically refer to land fisheries and forestrys in the context of national food security. I was very keen to have that up front on the face of the bill. We know as a country that we are increasingly importing food, and food security is hugely important not just for us as a nation but for individual communities, and I would be keen that that is taken on board. I think that there will be subsequent amendments that we made debate today about agriculture, but I felt that that would be an important point to make sure that the human rights of communities and those who depend on land fisheries and forestry were part of the decision-making process. The minister is asking for flexibility, but I think that what in 97A and 97A are consistent with what the minister says are her objectives. One of the points in the Scottish Human Rights Commission criticises the reference in the stage 1 response from ministers where it suggests that I C E S E R is aspirational and not matters which can be enforced by individuals. They dispute that and they comment that the First Minister has been very strongly in support of human rights in this bill. I cannot see why it is not acceptable. There was major evidence led at the stage 1 debate, particularly by Megan McInnes and Community Land Scotland, so I hope that the minister will be prepared to accept that on reflection. My amendment to sustainable development 117 is very much a probing amendment. I was partly reassured by what the minister said. I accept that we do not define sustainable development in every bill where it is relevant. The point that I particularly want to put to the minister is the concern raised by the Scottish Environment Link, where it is concerned about the definition that is in the policy memorandum attached to the bill, which it believes does not apply the three pillars of sustainable development, the social, the economic and the environmental equally. It suggests that the way that it is worded in the policy memorandum would suggest that there is more weight to be given to economic and social aspects of sustainable development. I hope that the minister will put on the record that that is not her intention and that that is not how the bill is intended to be implemented. I think that it is a really important point about the three pillars being equal, so that the environment is part of the consideration process and it is not seen as something that we think about afterwards. It has to be part of that whole consideration. I could have picked the Bruntland definition. I picked one from the UK Government that all the different Governments of the UK had signed up to, so that is a particular point that I would like the minister to raise in her summing up. I would also want to support Graham Day's amendment number 17 at this point. Again, this was something that we all discussed in our stage 1 report. I do not see it contradicts what the minister said that she is trying to achieve. It suggests that there are particular statutory government documents that must be considered in the context of the bill. I think that the Economic Strategy, the Climate Change Act and particularly the land use strategy or biodiversity strategy in the national planning framework are documents that will greatly strengthen the work of the future in terms of land reform. I do think that Graham Day's amendment certainly adds something that helps in this proposal. Michael Russell to speak to amendment 72 and other amendments in the group. Can I first of all thank the minister for the major step forward in amendment 16? She asserts that it is better than my amendment 72. I would not say better but equally good, I think, is probably what I would define it. However, it does go in at the very beginning of the bill and I think that that is extremely important because this bill now says what the land statement will do and it says what the objectives of land reform are and what the commission will do. I think that that is extremely important. At the very start of the bill we know that land reform is about human rights, it is about equal opportunities, it is about the reduction of inequalities, it is about diversity of land ownership, and it is about the achievement of sustainable development. Those are really vital things and it is very welcome to see them in the bill expressed in this way. Therefore, I will not press 72 and I could express it in a different way because I think that 16 is a very good start. However, the nub of this argument comes, I have to say, in my amendment 97 and Sarah Boyack's amendment 97A. I am pleased that the minister is going to accept my amendment 75, as she indicated, because I do think that it is important to—no matter—I do not question the bona fideas of any Scottish minister of past, present or even future, but it is important that the bill ties them down to actually achieving the things that this Parliament says that it wants to achieve. However, the nub of this comes in what human rights are. I think that it is very important to pay attention to something that Sarah Boyack has quoted, which is the letter that we all saw yesterday from Alan Miller about human rights. The minister said in her statement that she would pay attention to the advice of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and seek to do so. I am sure that that is absolutely true. Every minister will do so, and the advice of the Human Rights Commission is very important. That advice is here now because the letter gives that advice. What the letter says, yesterday's letter says, with specific reference to the international convention, for example, is that the international convention should have legal force. It should be included in legal documentation. It should be that guiding document. It also says something very important, and it quotes the First Minister. It talks about those views being a floor, not a ceiling. Regrettably, what we have heard today is about those being a ceiling confining the Scottish Government. The amendment that I am talking about, this particular amendment, does not confine the Scottish Government. It gives the basis on which the Scottish Government can build a whole set of activities, but it makes it very, very clear what the Scottish Government should be considering and the Land Commission should be considering in terms of taking forward issues of land in Scotland. I do think that Sarah Boyack's amendment, if I may return the compliment, is an important addition to it, and I would certainly support that. I do hope that the minister—it is a while before we come to vote on this particular amendment—will get to it today, it is towards the end of the bill. I hope that the minister will reconsider that, because it is designed to be helpful. It is certainly not designed to be constraining. It is designed to say, look, here are a range of things that we can consider. Here are some opportunities to have international best practice, and here is, exactly as Allen Miller says, here is the floor from which we should operate. So I think that far from being something that should be resisted because it is too specific, it is something that should be welcomed, because it gives very clear guidance to where you start from, but it does not constrain the issue of human rights. It is immensely welcome that the minister has said, absolutely clearly, as she did, and led the way in this in the community empowerment bill, that human rights is central to land reform. Now we need to embed into the bill that whole issue. The Scottish human rights commission has given its advice. It will go on giving that advice, and I think that this committee should heed that advice, as recently as yesterday, that this is what we should be doing, this is what we should be trying to do, and we have got an opportunity to do it. I move my amendments. I will come to those in a moment about the movement. Graham Day speaks to amendment 17 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and I will be brief. This amendment seeks to make absolutely clear the interrelation, which I think that the minister has acknowledged exists, between the land reform and the other Scottish Government land-related strategies and policies, namely the economic biodiversity and land use strategies and the national planning framework. That was, essentially, a probing amendment, and to that extent, given the minister's confirmation that those strategies and policies will be taken account of, it has achieved its purpose. Whilst I welcome the support voiced by Sarah Boyack, I think that we have a commitment on the record, which is what I was looking for at the very least. When the time comes, I would be minded not to press this. Are there any other members who wish to speak on this point, or on any of those points? First of all, Alex Ferguson, then Jim Hume. Thank you, convener, and can I just start by saying that I'm very disappointed that Graham Day is not going to move his amendment, because I also would have supported it. It is an issue that was raised with us from day one, and I very much welcomed it when I saw it had been tabled. I'm very sorry that he won't move it. I think that the bill will be weaker because of it. I'm very largely supportive of this group of amendments, but there are a couple of points that I would be grateful if the minister could address when she's winding up. I'm a little concerned about the phrase of relevant human rights, because that seems to me to suggest that ministers can, if you like, pick and choose what human rights are applicable in this piece of legislation. I find that a difficult concept to get my head around. From very early on, in the community empowerment bill, I've raised concerns about the status of the covenants and agreements and documents that are referred to in amendments 97 and 97A. While I can absolutely understand that there would be a desire to put them there so that they are brought into consideration, I'd be grateful if the minister could confirm that, when it comes to their legal status, the overarching convention that must be applied to all Scottish legislation is the European Convention on Human Rights. That is the one I believe I'm right in saying that has legal status in a way that those mentioned in 97 and 97A do not. I don't intend to oppose those amendments, but I'd be grateful if the minister could address those points in her summing up. I was just going to talk and reiterate some of what Alex Ferguson has said about amendment 17 in the name of Graham Day. I appreciate the minister stating that the listing sums, strategies, etc. could exclude others. I don't think that it needs to exclude others. Listing sums ensures that strategies are taken into account and, of course, other strategies that come in the future can be taken into account. Therefore, if Graham Day had been minded to push amendment 17, I would have supported it. I also want to say that I'm disappointed that Graham Day has withdrawn his amendment because I understand the points that he made about the reasons for withdrawal, but it does say in his amendment 17, including in particular, and I think that in relation to the future of our land in Scotland, those are exactly the strategies and documents that should be referred to. I'm not going to list them again, because they've been listed already, but I think that it is really significant and important that those are on the face of the bill. Otherwise, I would just want to identify myself with the points that were made by my colleague Sarah Boyack and Mike Russell in relation to human rights, and I believe that the human rights identified by them are absolutely essential to be on the face of the bill. Thank you very much, convener, and I appreciate all the comments that have been made by committee members. I hope that my opening statement and amendment 16 are very clearly responded to some of the concerns that have been raised by the committee through the stage 1 report, but also in relation to the issues that have been helpfully raised by the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Certainly, the Scottish Government welcomes the progressive approach of the Scottish Human Rights Commission to our wider human rights framework now. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to giving effect to human rights in a way that works for Scotland. That obviously includes in the context of land reform. As Mr Russell quite rightly said, the fact that human rights are being embedded within land reform. We acknowledge that there is a wide range of human rights, including those that have not been incorporated as a matter of domestic Scots law, which are also relevant to the land reform debate, including those that are contained, as I said before, in the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, on our voluntary guidelines, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. I think that it is worth pointing out and putting on the record that the Scottish ministers, unlike our UK counterparts, have explicit duties to comply with international law, including our international treaties, under the Scottish Ministerial Code, which includes human rights instruments such as the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. I will say to Mr Boyack's amendments 97A and Michael Russell's amendments 97A. Given the fact that we will accept an amendment later on in the bill, if I am right, Mr Russell is in part 4 around international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. I would be happy to accept both amendments 97A and 97A, and I think that that will send a very, very strong signal, I hope, around the just the whole importance of ensuring that central to our land reform is our promotion and realisation of human rights. I think also in terms of Sir Boyack's comments on the sustainable development and the concerns that were raised by Environment Link, what I can say is that all three pillars on the social, economic and environment, I am happy to see on the record that they are equal and that they will receive equal attention, and I hope that that goes some way to giving reassurance to Sir Boyack around the sustainable development amendment. On Alex Ferguson's point, Scottish ministers, as I said, have to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and with international law. As I said earlier, that is set out in the Scottish ministerial code. It is also important to remember that in terms of the ECHR, that legislation must be compatible with and be within competence as is provided for by the Scotland act. We will now move to the position regarding amendment 15. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are all agreed. I call amendment 16, in the name of the minister. I have already debated with amendment 15, minister, to move formally. I call amendment 16A, in the name of Sir Boyack, already debated with amendment 15, Sir Boyack to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 16A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Do you wish to press 16? Yes. Okay. In that case, the question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Thank you. I now call amendment 72, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 15. Michael Russell to move or not to move? Not moved. Not moved. Does anyone wish to move it instead? Welcome to do so. We remind you of that process. Nobody does. Okay. Thank you. Call amendment 17, in the name of Graham Day, already debated with amendment 15. Graham Day to move? Not moved. Not moved. Alex Ferguson wishes to move this. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No. Have a vote. Those in favour of amendment 17, please show. Those who opposed the amendment, please show. The answer is that the number of votes for was for. The number of votes against the abstentions is not, so therefore amendment 17 is not agreed. We move now to land rights and responsibility statement, consultation procedures, etc. And I call amendment 18, in the name of the minister, group with amendments 19, 20, 73, 21, 7, 74 and 100. The minister to move amendment 18 and speak to all the amendments in the group. The purpose of my amendment 18 is to make a requirement for Scottish ministers to consult with such persons as they consider appropriate on a draft of the First Land Rights and Responsibility statement. The amendment also requires Scottish ministers when laying the statement before Parliament to lay a report on the consultation process. The report will set out the consultation process, which was undertaken and the ways in which the views expressed in the consultation have been taken into account in preparing the statement. Alternatively, if no account has been taken of such views, that would have to be stated in the report. Amendment 18 is linked with amendment 21, which requires ministers to consult as part of the review of the statement and imposes a similar reporting requirement following the review. Amendment 18 requires ministers to consult with such persons as they consider appropriate. It is intended that Scottish ministers will publicly consult on the First Land Rights and Responsibility statement. Given the wide range of parties interested in land rights and responsibilities, public consultation will be necessary to ensure that the statement is credible and effective. The consultation will assist ministers in drafting and finalising the statement, which will then be laid before Parliament. If ministers decide not to take account of views given through the consultation, then the amendment requires that the statement is set out in the accompanying report. It is envisaged that the statement may apply, for example, in circumstances where views received were not of relevance to land rights and responsibilities. Parliament will then have the opportunity to take evidence on and to debate the first statement, which may include consideration of the consultation process undertaken and the views received. The amendment will ensure that the statement is subject to appropriate levels of public scrutiny through consultation, and it will provide information that will aid parliamentary scrutiny of the statement. Amendments 19 and 20, together with amendment 21, set out the process for reviewing the land rights and responsibilities statement. Amendments 19 and 20 provide that section 1.4 only sets out the timing of the first review of the statement. The first review of that statement must take place within five years of the first statement being published, and the duty to review the statement following the first review and the timing of subsequent reviews is set out in section 15, as amended by amendment 21. In terms of amendment 73, I absolutely understand the spirit and intention behind Mr Russell's amendment. However, as I have stated, the land rights and responsibilities statement is intended to set out a vision for the relationship between the people of Scotland and the land of Scotland. It is not the type of document that is easy or even possible to be able to assess the achievement of. However, as we have clarified to the committee in our response to the stage 1 report and by bringing forward amendment 15, it is not intended that the statement will contain objectives for land reform, but rather that it will set out the principles for land rights and responsibilities in Scotland. Those principles will guide the development of public policy on the nature and character of land rights and responsibilities in Scotland. Those principles are high-level in nature, and their purpose is to guide other relevant policies. As a result, it is not possible to assess the extent to which the statement has achieved those principles. I have brought forward amendment 21, which requires ministers following review to lay before the Scottish Parliament a report on the consultation process. The reasons why they have considered it or, as the case may be, it is not appropriate to revise the statement. The reporting requirement in amendment 21 is a more realistic and accurate representation of what reports concerning the statement can assess. I would ask Mr Russell not to move amendment 73. As mentioned, amendment 21, together with amendments 19 and 20, set out the process for review of the land rights and responsibilities statement. Amendment 21 replaces section 15 and sets out the process for the review of the land rights and responsibilities statement. That amendment requires Scottish ministers to carry out the review of the land rights and responsibilities statement to consult with such persons as they consider appropriate. That consultation will ensure that there are appropriate levels of public engagement in reviewing the statement. There is no requirement for Scottish ministers to publish a draft statement prior to consultation as part of the review process. It is intended that the consultation on review will ask for opinions on the principles contained in the statement and whether any changes are required. That is different to the position for the first statement when it would likely be useful for the public to see a draft prior to providing views. It has sight of the intended format and structure of the statement. Publishing a draft in advance of the consultation is part of the review process and would not be appropriate, as it is the consultation itself that will help ministers to consider whether a revised statement is necessary. The amendment provides that, following a review of the statement, Scottish ministers are not required to publish a revised statement, but if they choose to do so, it must be laid before the Scottish Parliament. If the Scottish ministers decide not to revise the statement following a review, they must lay a report before the Scottish Parliament setting out the consultation process undertaken and the reasons why they considered that it was not appropriate to prepare a revised statement. Ministers may decide not to revise the statement, for example, where the responses to the consultation have indicated that the statement remains an up-to-date presentation of the appropriate principles for land rights and responsibilities. If the Scottish ministers consider that it is appropriate to prepare a revised statement, when that revised statement is laid before the Scottish Parliament, it must be accompanied by a report that sets out the consultation process that has been undertaken and the reasons why ministers considered that it was appropriate to prepare a revised statement. The first review of the statement must take place within five years of that first statement being published. The amendment requires that subsequent reviews of the statement are to take place within five years of the date on which ministers last laid before the Scottish Parliament either a revised statement or a report where the statement has remained unchanged. As a report will always be laid before Parliament following a review, it is considered that this is a clear and a certain point from which the review period should run. Finally, the amendment states that the consultation and reporting requirements that are detailed in amendment 21 apply on each subsequent review of the statement. In terms of amendment 7, I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing forward her amendment 7, the purpose of which is to require the Scottish ministers in preparing or reviewing a land rights responsibilities to consult such persons as they consider appropriate. However, as I hope Sarah Boyack would say, we have brought forward similar amendments to hers, amendments 18 and 21, which collectively impose statutory duties on Scottish ministers to consult on the first statement and as part of the review process for the statement and report on the results of those consultations. I would say that, with amendments 18 and 21, they are more extensive than those of Sarah Boyack's, and because they impose further requirements on Scottish ministers to lay a report on the consultation process undertaken before the Scottish Parliament. Our amendments are also much more detailed, because they replace and clarify the whole review process of the land rights and responsibilities statement. I hope that Sarah Boyack will agree that, as our amendments capture the purpose of her amendment more fully—as I say, I very much welcome the intention of Sarah Boyack's amendments—but they capture it more fully as part of comprehensive provisions on the process of the review of land rights and responsibilities statement and the fact that they go further by imposing a reporting requirement. I would ask that she may wish not to move her amendment. On amendment 74, Mr Russell's amendment 74 is similar to my amendment 21. Amendment 21 provides both where ministers decide that it is appropriate to revise a statement and where they consider that it is not appropriate to revise a statement that ministers must lay a report on the consultation process and the reasons for their decision to revise or not to revise that statement. As a result, our amendment goes further than Mr Russell's, which only imposes a requirement to lay a report when a revised statement is laid before Parliament, even though that may not always be the result of the review. I hope that Mr Russell would agree that amendment 21 also captures the purpose and spirit behind his amendment. I also suggest that it would enable Parliament to undertake greater scrutiny of the review process as it affords Parliament information to enable it to scrutinise both the consultation process undertaken as part of the review and the ministers and of ministers reasoning as to why they have decided to revise or not to revise the statement. In light of that, I would also ask Mr Russell not to move his amendment and to support amendment 21 in its place. In terms of amendment 100, I greatly appreciate the sentiment behind Clory Bimysh's amendment 100 and the desire for there to be greater parliamentary scrutiny of the land rights and responsibilities statement. I suggest that there is already appropriate wording in part 1 to allow for parliamentary scrutiny of the statement without the need for further amendment, because the spirit of Clory Bimysh's amendment is largely captured within our amendments 18 to 21. One of the differences between my amendments and amendment 100 is that amendment 100 requires ministers to publish a draft statement as part of the review process, while amendments 18 to 21 only require a draft to be consulted on for the preparation of the first statement. It is intended that the consultation on review will ask for opinions on the principles contained in the statement and whether any changes are required. Publishing a draft in advance of the consultation in the review process would not be appropriate, because it is the consultation that will help ministers, as I have said before, to consider whether publishing a revised statement is appropriate. For similar reasons, it is also inappropriate to require ministers to lay a draft statement before Parliament as part of the review process. It is, as I said, the review process that will inform whether that statement is to be revised. Parliament will have adequate opportunity to scrutinise the first statement and any revised statement when it is laid before Parliament. In the event that ministers decide that it is not appropriate to revise a statement, we will lay a report that will include our reasoning for not revising the statement, which will allow Parliament effective and appropriate levels of scrutiny of their decision. Another difference is that amendment 100 restricts ministers from completing their preparation or review of the statement for a set period of 60 days. That is not counting days where Parliament is in recess or where Parliament is dissolved. The requirement risks undue delay to the creation and review of the statement, which ministers would wish to see drafted as soon as possible to ensure that there is continuing consideration of land rights and responsibilities in the creation of public policy. As I said earlier, I really do appreciate the sentiment that is behind Claudia Beamish's amendment, but I would submit that amendments 18 to 21 try to strike the appropriate balance to enable appropriate levels of both public and parliamentary engagement with and scrutiny of the statement. In that regard, I ask Claudia Beamish not to move her amendment and to support the amendments 18 to 21. I think that amendment 21 deals in the greatest part with the concerns that I had with the issue. For two different reasons, amendment 73 has indicated that it would tie down what is a high level statement further than it should be tied down. I accept that. It is possible to review a high level statement and to see what progress has been made with it, but it is important that the Government emphasises, as the bill goes forward, the nature of the statement and the high level nature of the vision in the statement, because otherwise there will be constant views that it should be a bit more detailed and it will end up being. I accept that amendment 73 is inappropriate. I also accept that amendment 74 is no longer necessary because amendment 21 part 4e covers what I was trying to achieve here. I am therefore grateful that the minister has brought forward those changes, which are significant changes. It is important that there is some indication or progress from statement to statement. It is important that there is some indication of how the vision has developed and built. It is important that there is an understanding of what the Scottish Government and the Land Commission are attempting to do and the policies and principles on which they are operating. For those reasons, I have to say that I think that amendments 18 and 21 now do greatly improve the situation, and I shall not be pursuing my amendments. I will speak to amendment 7 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Mine is a relatively small amendment, but it was to make sure that we did have proper debate and discussion and review of the land responsibilities and rights statement. I will not be pushing my amendment. I will want to see where the bill ends up following the votes of the committee today, because we have got quite a range of different amendments in front of us. Claudia Beamish is quite an accessible alternative amendment number 100, so I am very much welcome that the ministers put their amendments in today. I will certainly want to see how it all stacks up once we have gone through our votes later on today. There may be other issues that we might want to tidy up when we get to stage 3. Claudia Beamish speaks to amendment 100. The initial rights and responsibility statement and subsequent reviews are very significant documents for Scotland underpinning our future ownership of land use. I recognise what the minister has said about her amendments 18 and 21, focusing on the issue. The detail of my amendment brings further clarity to the process, and I think that it is important that the bill is on the face of the bill. I think that it is very important that a draft is published initially with each review. Those reviews are only every five years, and for the public to be able to consult on the changes and put in other suggestions, I think that it is important. I think that it is important that, if the amendment is agreed, as I say in it, that a copy of the draft is laid before the Parliament, and that the Scottish ministers must not complete their preparation or revision of the statement until the period of parliamentary consideration has expired. I think that the 60 days is a reasonable amount of time, considering that it is only every five years, and that this is a very important document for underpinning our future with the land in Scotland. The other points that I acknowledge are in the minister's amendments and about the report setting out the arguments for the need for the report, and the consultation process is acknowledged in the amendments as well. I think that it is important that there is the possibility of a draft, and I think that the length of time is also appropriate. I want to keep my amendment there at the moment. Members wish to comment on this at the moment. If not, minister to wind up. I thank Mr Russell and Sarah Boyack for not moving their amendments, but I am happy to take on board some of the points that Claudia Beamish has raised around her amendment 100. We are quite happy to reflect further on that. In that case, we move to the question that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 19. The name of the minister has already been debated with amendment 18. Minister to move formally. The question is that the amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Call amendment 20. In the name of the minister, we are already debated with amendment 18. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Call amendment 73. In the name of the minister, Michael Russell. Already debated with amendment 18. Michael Russell to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. Does any other member wish to move it? No member does. So we don't need to do amendment... Call amendment 21. The name of the minister. We are already debated with amendment 18. Minister to move formally. Formally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. Call amendment 7. In the name of Sarah Boyack. Already debated with amendment 18. Sarah Boyack to move or not move? Not moved. Any other member wish to press this? No. Thank you. We move to tall amendment 74. In the name of Michael Russell. Already debated with amendment 18. Michael Russell to move or not move? Not moved. Any other member wish to move? No. Okay. Then I call amendment 100. In the name of Claudia Beamish. Already debated with amendment... Amendments earlier 18 and so on. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Not moved. Convener in view of the minister's comments, which I appreciate and look forward to hearing back on. Thank you. Does any other member wish to move this? No. If not, then we move to call amendment 75. In the name of Michael Russell. Already debated with amendment 15. Michael Russell to move. I move. You move. So the question is that amendment 75 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. The question is that section 1 be agreed, are we all agreed? Well there's only nine other sections to go. We move to Scottish Land Commission title. Call amendment 101 in the name of Sarah Boyack in a group of its own. Sarah Boyack to move and speak to the amendment. I want to add the term reform to the Scottish Land Commission's title, because I wanted it to reflect where the commission has come from. The commission is being proposed effectively after three pieces of land reform legislation, the initial land reform act, the community empowerment act of last year, and the bill, which will hopefully become an act later this year. We've already debated at length the importance of having the objectives set out on the face of the bill, but I do believe that it's important that we record that it's more than just the physical land, how rights are used and how the land is used for the benefits of communities needs to be captured. If we are to regenerate our communities to increase the resilience, the job of the commission is going to be absolutely crucial. So it seemed to me that it was symbolic, if nothing else, that the word reform is actually in the title of the Land Commission, and I'd be interested to hear colleagues and indeed the minister's views on that issue, because this land commission, or as I'd hope it could be called, the Land Reform Commission, it will be there to steer change, to identify change and to add impetus that goes beyond the mere fact of having our third land reform bill. We've already debated the importance of ministerial documents such as the economic strategy, the land use strategy, the national planning framework and the biodiversity strategy. The commission will obviously have regard to those and many other documents produced by the Government, but it will have a different purpose. It will have an additional purpose, and its purpose will be to drive change. Its purpose will not be to manage the status quo, so for all those reasons I thought it would be important to add the word reform to the Scottish Land Commission's title, so that it lives up to the billing that we are giving it in this bill, which I hope will become an act. I move the amendment to my name, convener. I wish to talk on this. Mike Russell. I wasn't initially sympathetic to this, but I take the opposite view from Sarah Boyack. I think that the time has come to see the word reform as being something in the past, as a continuous process of making sure that land in Scotland is treated as an asset, and is modernised and developed as time goes on, so I think that we should be quite proud of the title of land commission, and therefore reluctantly, because I think that there was an argument for it and I can't support it. Any other member wishes to speak? No. Minister, would you care to respond? Thank you, convener. I am extremely grateful to Sarah Boyack for what she has said about her amendment 101. The job of the Land Commission is crucial to add impetus and change. It is an asset that will ensure that the focus is maintained and that it underlines our commitment as a Government to land reform by putting an end to the stop-start nature of land reform that has limited progress in Scotland. However, I would like to clarify the rationale behind the title of the Scottish Land Commission and why the Scottish ministers decided that it was a better title than the Scottish Land Reform Commission. Since the public consultation on the proposals for the land reform bill, we have had the agricultural holdings legislation review group have published the report recommending the establishment of a tenant farming commissioner. Given that the Scottish Government policy is as far as possible to minimise the creation of new public bodies, Scottish ministers took the decision to establish one new public body comprising the five land commissioners and the tenant farming commissioner, named the Scottish Land Commission. It is considered that the title is more suitable given the broader remit of the body. It certainly no way signifies that the Scottish Government is not committed to the land reform bill. Sarah Boyack to wind up and press or withdraw. I take the point that the minister makes that the objective of the Land Commission is now intended to be broader with the issue of the tenant commissioner and the agricultural holdings bill. I hope that it is on the record that this is to be a radical group, that it is not just there to administer the status quo. The fact that it is taking to the third of our land reform bills before we have a land commission actually makes it not just symbolic but makes it a real potential driver for change. I will seek to withdraw my amendment at this stage and see what other strengthening moves might emerge in advance of stage 3. For that, if Sarah Boyack is seeking to withdraw the amendment with the agreement of the committee, does any other member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No, they don't. The amendment is therefore withdrawn. We move on. In the case of the question is that section 2 be agreed, are we all agreed? The question is that sections 3 to 5 be agreed, are we all agreed? We move now to section 6. The Scottish Land Commission's strategic plans and programmes of work and call amendments 8 in the name of Sarah Boyack group with amendments 9, 22, 26 and 27. Sarah Boyack to move amendment 8 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. We have already debated the importance of the land rights and responsibility statement and the fact that there should be debate, discussion and wide consultation. However, when it comes to the work of the Scottish Land Commission, it is absolutely crucial that its strategic plan is also properly consulted on, because this is going to be the nuts and bolts of how the commission moves forward. It is important that there is effective consultation. It is important that the work programme, as I mentioned in my amendment 9, is also consulted on. It is particularly important in the early days that there has been a huge amount of debate across the country about the importance of the land reform bill. The early days of the commission needs to draw on that energy, that enthusiasm and, to be honest, the ideas that have come from across the country with different communities and different stakeholders. That is important. Other amendments in the group also make reference to the fact that there is a need for consultation and that there is a need for submissions of revised programmes of work. I think that that is important. My main aim in moving those amendments, and I would like to formally move amendment 8, is to ensure that there is accountability and there is consultation that comes with the work of the land commissioners and that their work is open and transparent to all that might be interested, whether it is a stakeholder, whether it is a landowner or whether it is a community group that has a strong interest in seeing the work of the commissioners progress. Minister, to speak to amendment 22, another amendment in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 22 will add a further subsection to section 7 of the bill to give the land commissioners the freedom and flexibility to be more responsive to emerging issues in relation to land reform by enabling them to submit a revised programme of work to the Scottish ministers. The amendment also ensures that there is a duty on the commission to publish any revised programme of work and to lay a copy before the Scottish Parliament. Amendment 26 is a technical amendment to section 181b to ensure that, in preparation of the annual report, the commission is able to fully reflect every and any strategic plan that might have had effect within a given financial year. The precise wording did not necessarily provide for a scenario in which the strategic plan changed in the course of a financial year, and I think that amendment 27 clarifies that. Amendment 27 is a technical amendment akin to amendment 26, and it makes the same provision for the land commissioners programme of work. Amendments 26 and 27 have been made following a review of the bill's provisions in light of the stakeholder evidence that was given to the Racky Committee throughout the stage 1 process. I thank the other members for giving very careful consideration to part 2 of the bill and the process provided for in the bill in respect of the strategic plan in section 6 and the land commissioners programme of work under section 7. I can confirm that we intend that the commission consults the persons that they think are appropriate before submitting a strategic plan and the programme of work. There is nothing in the bill that would prevent this, so we consider that those amendments are unnecessary and therefore not to be accepted, so I would ask Sarah Boyack to consider withdrawing her amendments 8 and 9. I am glad that I have prompted the minister to put in her own amendments, and she has more firepower to draft perfect amendments. I am glad that the sentiment of my amendments has been taken on board. I look forward to the work of the commission being widely consulted and published. I withdraw amendment 8 with the permission of the committee and I will not move amendment 9. In that case, Sarah Boyack is seeking to withdraw amendment 8 with the agreement of the committee. Does any other member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member objects, so the member amendment is withdrawn. The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Section 7, amendment 9 in the name of Sarah Boyack, ready to debate with amendment 8. Sarah Boyack to move or not move. Sarah Boyack is seeking to withdraw the amendment and she is not moving it, so that is fine. I do not need to say that. The question is that amendment 22 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 8, will the minister move formally? The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The question is that section 7 be agreed to, are we agreed? We are agreed. We now move to the Scottish Land Commission re-appointment of members. I call amendment 5 in the name of Jim Hume, group with amendment 76. Jim Hume to move amendment 5 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Yes, my amendments, I feel a simple amendment, would mean that a commissioner could serve no more than two terms maximum. At present the bill could be read that a land commission member could be re-appointed at infinitum, so the purpose of this amendment is to restrict the ability of ministers to re-appoint a member or a person who has been a member to once only, i.e. two terms. One former member could therefore only be appointed twice to the role in total, and that is therefore serving no longer than a potential maximum of 10 years as a member. That would ensure, of course, new blood in order to meet the challenges of the plan and programmes of work, which itself is subject to review and update. I will also prevent entrenchment or long-term domination of views or approaches by particular individuals. It is also a sufficient period of time, so it is not to create any difficulties, of course, with the smooth operation of the commission and delivery of its objectives. With that in mind, I am quite happy to move my amendment number 5. I would like to speak to amendment 76 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I will be very brief. I support Jim Hume's amendment number 5 but I seek simply to, through amendment 76, to impose the same conditions on reappointment of commissioners as are already imposed on appointments. I do not really think that I need to say more than that. Any other members wish to comment? Thank you, convener. I have a slight concern about the two amendments 5 and 76. It may be that, for instance, early on in someone's commitment to land reform and land issues that they are appointed and could be reappointed. Later on in life, they may have other experiences and other involvement for different reasons and may wish to reapply with that experience. I would not want that experience to be lost, so I am highlighting that concern at the moment. We welcome John Lamont to the committee. Thank you very much. I am not sure whether that is an appropriate place to have an amendment in this, but it strikes me round membership and disqualification from membership, which I would ask the minister to reflect on. I notice that, along with members of the House of Commons, Scottish Parliament, European Parliament and so on, we are excluding any employee of any local authority. I just simply flag up the point that in many of our remote rural and island communities, disproportionately, people rely on employment from a local authority. It would perhaps mean that we are excluding people from the possibility of being involved in the commission because they might be working within a local authority when that is a more likely to be a place that they would get work. Related to that, are there issues around, for example, if you were a care worker employed by the council, you would be excluded, but you are doing the exact same job that you contracted out, you would not be. I wonder if that is perhaps something that we should reflect on if we want to make sure that we are harnessing expertise within our communities around the whole land question. Thank you. Is there any other member who wishes to comment? Thank you very much, convener. I am grateful to Jim Hulme for the background to his amendment 5. The Scottish Government does not consider that amendment 6 is necessary. We would like to assure Mr Hulme that the public appointments process will be regulated by the commissioner for ethical standards for public life in Scotland. The commissioner's code of practice for ministerial public appointments allows for reappointments as long as there is evidence of effective performance and the member meets the skills that the board requires at the point of reappointment. The code of practice does not state how many times a member can be reappointed, instead it caps the total period that a member can serve at eight years. The bill would allow for the Scottish ministers to adhere to that, as the bill allows the Scottish ministers to determine the length of appointments up to a maximum of five years. That approach would leave flexibility to address the issues that Claudia Beamish raised, and the very good points that Johann Lamont made. We would be happy to reflect and consider that further. As I said, it is important to retain flexibility within the public appointments process in a hypothetical scenario in which an applicant had been a member for two appointment rounds and there were no other suitable applicants. We would not wish to prevent an appointment of a member to the commission who had met the standards within the code of practice. We think that the scenario is unlikely to arise in practice, but if it did, we would certainly not wish there to be any statutory impediment that may prevent the land commissioners or the tenant farming commissioner from exercising their functions. On the back of what I have just said, I would invite Jim Hume to consider withdrawing his amendment. On amendment 7 to 6, I thank Alex Ferguson. For this amendment, it is the policy intention for subsections 2 and 3 to apply to a reappointment of any member of the commission, as well as a first appointment. I can confirm that the Scottish Government supports the amendment, since it would make that intention clearer. It is a proportionate statutory duty to place on Scottish ministers. Jim Hume has a chance to wind up now. If I could perhaps ask a question if that would be okay to the minister of what I think is, in my perception, an anularity place to. Sorry, minister, if I have got you correct, the commission for ethical standards code of practice states that there should be a maximum of eight years. Of course, with this legislation, we have five years' terms. Therefore, two terms of five years is ten years. Is that an anomaly for this bill that we could perhaps address at stage three? Or would you be seen a commission serving two terms of five years, which would be the ten years, or stop people after eight years? The bill is up to five years, so it makes sure that there is a flexibility there that is already built into the bill. Up to five years, but for a reappointment, that would just be for a further three years, therefore being in line with the commission's ethical standards code of practice that should be maximum eight years in all, or would you foresee a commissioner having two years of two terms potentially of five years? It would be looked at in a case-by-case basis, or ministers would have the flexibility to look upon that as I say on a case-by-case basis, because it would be the flexibility would be there because I say it's up to the five years. At the moment, I shall not move my amendment, but there may be some clarification before we get back to stage three and I may consider bringing it back to stage three, or a slightly amended amendment, if that is okay with the rest of the committee. Jim Hume is sought to withdraw amendment 5, and with the agreement of the committee, do we agree? Does any other member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No? Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. We now move on to amendment 76, in the name of Alec Ferguson. We are already debated with amendment 5. Alec Ferguson to move or not move? Formally moved. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. The question is that section 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The Scottish Land Commission expertise or experience of members. I call amendment 23, in the name of the group with amendment 77. Minister to move amendment 23 and speak to both amendments in the group. I thank you, convener. Amendment 23 responds to the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Government gives further consideration to how the commissioners collectively would have general land management expertise and experience, and expertise and experience of understanding, working with and empowering communities. In our response to the recommendation, we committed to bring forward an amendment at stage 2. Amendment 23 inserts land management and community empowerment to the list of factors that Scottish ministers must have regard to the desirability of the commission, taken as a whole having expertise and experience in. This amendment will add land management and community empowerment to the list that already includes land reform, law, finance, economic issues, planning, development and environmental issues. In terms of amendment 77, I thank Mr Russell for bringing forward this package of amendments in relation to the Land Commission through amendment 77. His amendments seek to strengthen the bill in respect of the commission. I am pleased to note that the amendments that the Scottish Government is taking forward in relation to part 2 seek to achieve very similar aims. I certainly hope that Mr Russell will support the proposed Government amendments on this part of the bill. As I said, amendment 77 seeks to achieve a similar aim as a Scottish Government's amendment 23, which adds land management and community empowerment to the list in section 9-1, in response to the committee's specific recommendation on the issue. I emphasise that the list in section 9-1 is non-exhaustive. To make too many additions to the list could increase the complexity of the appointment process and potentially lead to delays in setting up the commission. As stated by the committee in the report, what is of utmost importance is that the commissioners are people of integrity, principle and vision that are respected and trusted by the people of Scotland. The members of the commission will be supported by the expertise and experience of the staff of the commission and will be able to request advice and input from a range of other experts in carrying out their functions. Under section 8-2, Parliament must also approve the appointments and, in doing so, will be able to assess whether the Scottish ministers have complied with their duty under section 9-1. In relation to the points that Mr Russell has raised on human rights, I can say to give the member some reassurances that the Scottish Government would be happy to bring forward an amendment at stage 3 to introduce human rights to the list. I hope that people will take some comfort and some reassurance about the seriousness with which we approach human rights in relation to land reform. I hope that Mr Russell can be persuaded of the merit in the approach that has been taken by the Government on this issue. Michael Russell, to speak to amendment 77 and other amendment in the group. I think that again we are seeing significant progress in this item and I am grateful to the minister for it. I think that there was a widespread view at stage 1 that this section required to be expanded to not to be exhaustive and certainly not to be exclusive, but to indicate the areas in which the commission would have to have expertise if it was to successfully take forward the objectives that are now laid out at the very start of the bill. As those objectives include human rights, I think that it is important that human rights is referred to. I think that most of the others dovetail in, and maybe some of the words are slightly different, but the intention is there. The missing element in the list as amended by the minister's amendment 23 is human rights. As the minister has indicated that she is prepared to consider either her own or possibly somebody else's amendment to substitute human rights within 9.1, I am prepared not to press my amendment on that understanding. At stage 3, we will get human rights in there and that will add a further lock-in of human rights as a key issue in land reform in Scotland. Sarah Boyack, can any other member after that indicate, please? Sarah Boyack, thank you very much. I welcome both the minister and Michael Russell's amendments because I thought that they broadened out the experience that we would seek from those commissioners who are going to have a huge range of experience given what is on the face of the bill already. However, it is important because when we went out at stage 1 to consult, there was a clear issue about experience from the First Land Reform Act about the barriers to community development, about the barriers of community actually making the most of the legislation. The issues in relation to human skills and inequalities are actually quite important. It is obviously in the hand of Michael Russell that it is his own amendment, but I would seek not just the human rights issues to come back at stage 3, but I would like to know from the minister's perspective why not equal ops, why not social and community development and why not sustainable development, because it seems to me that these are the barriers that have made it hard for communities to make the most of the first legislation that we had in place. Our comment that it might just lead to delays because of the complexity of the process we do want a robust process, but we have to get the right outcome from it. When you are appointing people, it is not just to take the box exercise, you are looking at the range of skills, you are looking at people's experience and you are looking at the potential to do a job of work. I would see that Mike Russell's amendment is strengthening the range of the types of people who are after here, so I would be very interested to hear the minister's comments, and I will certainly look at the amendments at stage 3 in detail. Just a quick addition to the comments so far on Michael Russell's amendment 77, I would be concerned if the list was, as the minister has highlighted, at stage 3 to include human rights if equal opportunities were then excluded. That does not seem to be right to me. Of course, equal opportunities fall within human rights remit to some degree, but taking account of equal opportunities in relation to the bill is extremely important in view of the protected characteristics and also socioeconomic issues. I would have had difficulty supporting Michael Russell's amendment simply because I can see where it is coming from and I can see where people what the arguments that other members are putting forward. I wonder if we are not becoming in danger of becoming a little bit too prescriptive over who gets eventually appointed to this very wide-ranging position. I think that we need to be a little bit wary even at stage 3 of becoming too prescriptive in terms of who can and can't be appointed. What I would say is that I welcome all the contributions in the debate on this part of the bill in terms of some of the comments that have been made around equal opportunities. I remind members that, in section 9 of the bill, it talks about appointing members to the commission, the Scottish ministers must encourage equal opportunities and, in particular, the observance of the equal opportunity requirements. In addition to our addition of community empowerment, we saw that achieving the same aim as adding social and community development. However, we also make sure that all public bodies do adhere to equal opportunities. The question is whether amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We call amendment 77, the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 23. Michael Russell to move or not move. No move. The caveats have made. Indeed. Michael Russell seeks to withdraw amendment 77, so he has not moved it. We move on to another section. Scottish Land Commission, one member to be garlic speaker, called amendment 24. In the name of the minister group with amendments 24A and 25, minister to move amendment 24 and speak to all the amendments in the group. The amendment 24 has also been lodged to address a recommendation made by the committee. The committee recommended that one of the land commissioners should be a speaker of the Gaelic language. In our response to stage 1 report, we stated that we would amend the bill to ensure that Scottish ministers are under a duty to have, excuse me, the desirability of one of the commissioners being a Gaelic speaker. The amendment will ensure that, in the public appointments process, all the reasonable steps are taken to ensure that at least one of the commissioners members is a Gaelic speaker alongside other relevant skills and qualifications. In terms of the amendment 24A that has been put forward by Angus MacDonald, I would like to put on the record a very much welcome Mr MacDonald's amendment and to reiterate to him our desire to see a Gaelic speaker as a member of the land commissioner. I hope that he will see that the Scottish Government amendment 24 also demonstrates our commitment to this. Amendment 24A seeks to amend our amendment 24 to require that the Scottish ministers take every reasonable step to ensure that one of the commissioners is a speaker of the Gaelic language. I am very happy to say that we will be accepting Mr MacDonald's amendment. Amendment 25 is a very minor and technical in nature and simply replaces and with 2 in order to take account of the intersection of the new subsection by amendment 24A. I call Angus MacDonald to move amendment 24A and speak to all amendments to the group. I certainly take on board the minister's view and welcome the Government's position, but by way of an explanation as to why I submitted the amendment to amendment 24, I feel that the stage 2 amendment, tabled as it was by the Government, was not entirely in the spirit of the assurance that it received from the minister in the chamber during the debate on 16 December. I am glad to hear that the minister is willing to accept the amendment to the amendment. I remind the committee that there is also a stipulation that there should be a Gaelic speaker on the land court and also on the Crofting Commission. I see no reason why every effort should not be made to ensure that there is a Gaelic speaker who understands the complexities of the issues of land use in the Highlands and Islands to serve on the new land commission. I would move amendment 24A. Any other members wish to discuss this? If not, minister to wind up on amendment 24. There is nothing we need to wind up, convener. I am quite happy to accept the amendment 24A. Okay. Angus MacDonald, thank you very much. How are you going to press or withdraw 24A? I am pression to amendment 24A. So the question is that amendment 24A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The minister to press or withdraw amendment 24A. So the question is that amendment 24A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 25, the name of the minister, ready to be debated with amendment 24. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 25A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 78, the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 15. Michael Russell to move or not move. I do not know whether there is a point of order, because there is a confusion about this. The minister has accepted the amendment 97 in what she said, which will not be voted on until much later, which inserts essentially this definition at the end of the bill. I do not know whether it would therefore be difficult not to remove this or to remove it. I think that it is a technical issue whether it should be removed here or whether it can remain here, because she has now accepted that it is inserted elsewhere in the bill. Indeed, it is possible for you to reflect on that so that it is discussed at stage 3. You have to decide now whether you move or not move. Is there any assistance that the minister can give me in making that decision? Well, we can in this circumstance. What can the minister tell us? I am very happy to have a further discussion with Mr Russell around on amendment 78, just to make sure that we have a technicality around that. In that case, I will not move it at this stage, simply because I think that we have to clarify whether it should be or not. Mike Russell, any further advice? No. Mike Russell is seeking to withdraw the amendment, and he has withdrawn it. The question is that section 9 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Question is that sections 10 to 17 be agreed. Are we all agreed? A call amendment 26 in the name of the minister. We are already debated with amendment 8. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Call amendment 27 in the name of the minister. We are already debated with amendment 8. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The promotion of community benefit societies as a form of land ownership. We call amendment 102 in the name of Joanne Lamont in a group of its own. Joanne Lamont to move and speak to amendment 102. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for your welcome. I can also take the opportunity to thank the clerking team both for the speed with which they were able to produce a suitable wording for amendment, which I really appreciated and facilitate me getting here on time. I think that maybe we should declare an interest to as a Labour and co-operative member of the Parliament and also member of the Scottish co-operative party. The Scottish Port of Party is particularly interested in the question of land reform and in the promotion of community benefit societies and are very interested in it as the bill progresses through the Parliament. The amendment is, which I now move, a really straightforward one that seeks in the annual report of the Land Commission that there would be a review of progress in the promotion of community benefit societies as a form of land ownership. I am keen to see the opportunity of land reform to see the development of community benefit societies as a form of land ownership. I would certainly argue that the community benefit societies option has clear strengths in sustaining communities and creating economic opportunities. The purpose of asking for that to be reported on is to give a focus and expectation to what the bill quite rightly does, which is to promote community benefit societies. We would hope that that would not be a theoretical right and that, by asking for an annual review of progress, the implication is that it is important to secure support for communities who would want to develop those options in terms of land ownership. It is a bridge between the right and the reality for communities who are able to exercise that right. The report is a mechanism for focusing activity and expectation on the commission that they have an active role in the development of community benefit societies as a form of land ownership. I hope that the minister would see that as a small but important means by which the rights that we have expressed would actually be giving real opportunity in those communities. Is there any comment on that? Yes, Alex. There is a verification from the mover, if I may. There are many types of vehicles to further community ownership, and I wonder why Ms Lamont is singling out bed and comms, as I think we have called in this. We will give you a chance to come back after Sarah Boyack. Very much, convener. I just wanted to support my colleagues' amendment here. I think that it goes back to the issue about resilience of communities, qualities and the promotion of benefits being captured within community areas. The point that Joanne Lamont made about the bridge between having a right and a reality is actually quite an important one. I do not think that we are seeing this as the only form of community structures, but it is one that has potential benefits that has maybe been underdeveloped in the past. We have seen quite a lot of community renewables that might be co-operatively owned or might have a community ownership, but far less in terms of food co-operatives. If you think about the farming community in Europe, a lot more farming communities are involved in co-operative structures at the local level. There are opportunities for urban and rural communities that are not being exercised. I want to add on the record that, potentially, the work of co-operative development Scotland could be helpful here in developing new opportunities that will come from the implementation of the bill. I ask the minister to comment on the community empowerment bill, which talked about various vehicles for communities to take over. In the spirit of that bill, this was one of those vehicles. I thank Joanne Lamont for her patience in waiting as long as she has for her amendment to be discussed and debated. I thank her for bringing this amendment forward. I am grateful to her for explaining the context of her amendment. I would like to stress that the Scottish Government encourages all types of land tenure and supports community benefit societies as well as other land ownership vehicles. The community empowerment act expanded the structures that community groups could use in terms of the community right to buy to include the community benefit societies, the Bencoms and Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisations skills. The decision in what format in space suited to a particular community group is a decision for each group to take themselves, and the Scottish Government will promote all forms of structure to help to achieve our target of achieving the 1 million acres of land in community ownership by 2020. Part 5 includes community benefit schemes. It is one of the bodies that can make an application. I would also say that we have the short-life working group on the 1 million acres, which looked at how best to support communities. There have been a number of recommendations that have been made around that. I would be more than happy to have a further discussion with Sarah Boyack and Joanne Lamont on recommendations on how they might best give support to community benefit societies. Section 18 sets out what the annual report must include, and the annual report is concerned with the running and corporate governance of the commission. It is not in place to measure the progress or promotion of any type of land tenure in particular, so I would consider this amendment not appropriate in the context of section 18. I would invite Joanne Lamont to withdraw the amendment, but to say that I am very happy to have a further discussion with her and Sarah Boyack on the short-life working group strategy and the recommendations that they are looking at in terms of how best to support communities. Joanne Lamont, to respond. Okay, thanks very much. It is not often that I have been commended in my patience, so I am grateful for that, and it actually found very interesting to simply tune in to the debate about the whole question around land reform. To answer Alec Ferguson's point, I do not think that it was intention to single it out, but it was to recognise that both through the Community Empowerment Act and in this bill, which is highlighted in the benefit of these organisations, the focus was really around making a right, real, and this was a mechanism for it. The purpose of the amendment is to explore how, if not through the mechanism of the annual report, we can do more than simply have Scottish Government policy and a right in action, but we have to make that real in terms of what that means in terms of the support that would be required. The point that Sarah Boyack makes about the role of community development in Scotland is important, because that is something that we might want to reflect on further, because I think that it could perhaps be active agents in that. I welcome that the minister has offered further discussion and that there is a question of whether it is properly cited here, and I think that that would be something that we want to take up. I would not intend to press the amendment at this time, but I would be very keen that what we are looking at between now and stage 3 is a means with which communities are properly supported to make real those rights, because we know that they are so important in terms of the social and economic benefits, not just in rural but also in urban areas. Johann Lamont seeks to withdraw amendment 102, with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? Nobody objects that the amendment is withdrawn. Question 18, we agreed to. Are we all agreed? Question 19, we agreed to adopt it, we agreed. Thank you. The functions of the land commissioners, I think that we will try to deal with this section, then have a short comfort break. So, call amendments 10, in the name of Sarah Boyack group, with amendments 11, 12, 79, 80 and 28, and Sarah Boyack's to move amendment 10 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Having read the bill, I just wanted to partly test, but also to expand some of the options that would be available to the work of the land commissioners, and I felt that this was the best place to amend the bill. Amendment 10 is really focusing on how we highlight the importance of reviewing whether a lack of law or policy might have had or might have had in implementing the functions of this bill. I can think of numerous occasions where new legislation has been brought forward, and it has been recommended by commissioners, or short-life working groups, or groups set up by the Scottish Government. I just felt that to make sure that we keep the issue of the legal framework or policies in review in the future, it was important to flag that up as a potential job of the land commissioners to take on board amongst all their other functions that they will be given by the Scottish Government. To always have that question at the forefront of their minds, is there more that needs to be done? Is there more that can be done? We are talking about new legislation here, but it does come in the back of two previous bills. I think that I will be looking for the land commissioners to come up with practical suggestions and not to feel hidebound that just because there is not currently a law on something that it is not their job to recommend it. From that point of view, it is about developing our future legal and policy framework, and to see that the land commissioners are having an active role in that respect. I wanted to highlight the importance of working with other stakeholders. One or two of us have mentioned that already this morning. The work of the land commissioners will be absolutely key, but there will be a whole range of other parties and community groups that will be able to help them in that process, that will be able to add value and will be able to improve the work that we see in terms of land reform going forward. I particularly wanted to highlight that as a function. I did think that, again, the amendment from Mike Russell on number 79 is a reinforcing amendment about our international obligations. I did very much welcome the amendment 80, because, as convener of the cross-party group on international development, there are some times when we can learn from other communities in other countries where we would least expect it. In terms of land reform, there are many examples across the world that are worth drawing on. Sometimes, as I said, there are unlikely experiences in communities that may be less well-developed economically than our own, but there can be important human lessons that can be learned. I very much welcome that amendment, and I think that it is definitely worth adding to the discussion that we are having today. I think that the reference made in amendment 28 by Graham Day to the important climate change act in terms of the land use strategy is an important amendment to slotting at this point, because it concentrates the mind, and I think that the connectivity between those two pieces of work is important. I would at this point formally move amendment 10. Thank you very much, Mike Russell, to speak to amendment 79 and other amendments in the group. I think that the amendments from Sarah Boyack and myself are broadly similar, and I think that they are designed to say that we need some reassurance about what the commission will actually do. I have been looking to the minister to accept that those amendments, although she will find them as unnecessary, are unnecessary because the commission will do those things and she will be placing on the record the fact that those are things that can be done and should be done. For example, the issue of international rights and obligations is very important in terms of human rights legislation. The opportunity to look at issues elsewhere and to consider legislation that does not exist is very important. Graham Day's amendment is of a different nature, and that embeds the climate change Scotland act within the legislation. The committee does not need to know from me—most members have been on this committee longer than I have—the difficulty of persuading others to embed the climate change act in their actions and in their practices. That gives an ideal opportunity to embed it and to put it on the face of the legislation and to say that the land commission, this important new body, will be fully mindful of the climate change act and will ensure that that is at the forefront of its thinking. Whilst I am happy to formally move my own amendments, I do not expect to press them if the assurances on the minister are there. I do hope that the minister will be listening in terms of Graham Day's amendment because it takes forward a very crucial issue and puts it right at the heart of the work of the commission. Graham Day, to speak to amendment 28 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The justification for the amendment is, I think, quite clear-cut, as both Mike Russel and Sarah Boyack have articulated. The part of the bill that refers to defines the commissioners' functions in the area of matters relating to land in Scotland is including ownership and other rights in land, management of land, use of land. I think that it would be valuable not to say and tell me appropriate to add reference to the land use strategy prepared under the Climate Change Act, which is, of course, in the process of being refreshed and is, without doubt, going to be a hugely important policy. The revised strategy, currently out for consultation, proposes to, and I quote, further consider the relationship between current land-related policies and the potential advantages of a single policy statement about land that deals with ownership, use and management. I contend that we have here an opportunity to establish clearly the obvious tie-up between the bill, the work of the land commissioners and the strategy. I think that the minister has previously commented on and it is an opportunity that it should be taken. I think that the fact that the amendment places mention reference to the Climate Change Act in the bill in relation to the work of the land commissioners is a further merit. I think that, as we have seen over recent months, once going forward, tackling climate change and land use and management are inextricably linked, are they for move amendment 28? Any other members wish to speak on these matters? Thank you very much, convener. Yes, I would wish to support Graeme Day's amendment. I think that the point that you made is absolutely relevant and I think that it is very important that this legislation be tied into the Climate Change Scotland Act. I am somewhat bemused by both amendments 10 and 11, because it strikes me that the commission will be looking at existing legislation and its impact. By looking at existing legislation and its impact, you are per se also looking at the lack of legislation. Therefore, I really do not see that amendment 28 can do anything to improve the situation that will exist once the commission is in place. I also have reservations about amendment 11 in that it becomes unnecessarily bureaucratic and cuts down on regional flexibility that needs to be a part of the land commissioners functions. I will listen with interest to what the minister has to say, but I am not sure that I can support those particular amendments if they are pressed. I would like to thank Sarah Boyack again for giving careful consideration to part 2 of the bill. We have given full consideration to amendments 10, 11 and 12, which give the land commissioners additional statutory functions and duties. However, we consider that those three amendments are unnecessary. I say that because amendment 10 inserts an activity that is already covered by the function of recommending changes to law and policy in section 21b. Amendment 11, similarly, is already covered by the drafting of section 21f. Further more, throughout stage 1, we have emphasised that the land commissioners should have operational independence. At the same time, we also fully anticipate that they will be open and consultative in their approach to their work, just as both the land reform review group and the agricultural holdings legislation review group were. Therefore, we do not consider amendments 11 or 12 that are necessary or appropriate. In relation to amendments 79 and 80, they have been brought forward by Michael Russell. I can provide Mr Russell and the committee with reassurance that the land commissioners are able, under the current drafting of section 20, to consider relevant international obligations and rights in exercising their functions on matters relating to land in Scotland. I absolutely agree with the sentiments of those proposed amendments, because they are things that, as Mr Russell quite likely says, they can and should be done. I can again reassure you that there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the land commissioners or the commission from giving consideration to law and policy outwith Scotland when they are conducting research work. It is anticipated that, in exercising their function under section 21d to carry out research, they will inevitably look at matters in other jurisdictions. I thank Mr Russell for bringing forward, as I mentioned, the opportunity to clarify this on the record. In relation to amendment 28, which has been brought forward by Graham Day, I would like to thank Mr Day for his amendment 28 to section 25 of the bill. It would insert an additional paragraph to section 25 to add the implementation and monitoring of the land use strategy prepared under section 57.1 of the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 to the list of what is included in the definition of matters relating to land in Scotland, which is relevant to defining the scope of the land commissioners' functions. I absolutely agree with the comments that have been made by Mr Day, with Michael Russell and Sarah Boyack. I have listened very carefully to the comments that have been made around this. I want to reassure him that we absolutely should be embedding a climate change act with the land reform bill. I think that our land commissioners will be fully mindful of the act in tackling our land use and management, and climate change is inextricably linked to that in mind. I am happy to accept Mr Day's amendment 28. Thank you very much, convener. I have got the clarification on the record that I was seeking, which is about the opportunities for the commissioner if they did not feel that the law of policy was adequate and that they would not feel held back from arguing for change. I am very much welcome to the fact that the minister is minded to support Graham Day's amendment, because I think that it is a really important message to put on the face of the bill. I understand that Mike Russell has probing amendments. I would like to have seen both of those issues on the face of the bill, but I think that we have at least got some good words on the record that people can come back to in the future. I seek permission to not move amendment 10. Sarah Bax seeks permission to withdraw amendment 10 with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member does. Call amendment 11 in the name of Sarah Boyack, ready to debate it with amendment 10. I do not move amendment 12 in the name of Sarah Boyack, ready to debate it with amendment 10. I do not move amendment 79 in the name of Michael Russell, ready to debate it with amendment 10. It was a probing amendment. I am grateful for the minister's comments, which are now on the record. Thank you. I will move it. I do not move amendment 80 in the name of Mike Russell, ready to debate it with amendment 10. Mike Russell, to move or not move? Similarly, not moved. Not moved. Call amendment 28 in the name of Graham Day, ready to debate it with amendment 10. Graham Day, to move or not move. Question is that amendment 28 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. Question is that section 20 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Question is that section 21 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Right, we will start again in five minutes time. A short break, as is necessary. Suspend us now. I will bring the committee back to order, please, and we move to the next debate on transparency of information about control of land, completion of the land register, information about persons with significant control, restriction of ownership to EU entities, et cetera. I call amendment 103 in the name of Sarah Boyack, group with amendments 104, 29, 30, 30A, 105, 106, 106A, 107, 36 and 69. Sarah Boyack, to move amendment 103 and speak to all the amendments in the group that she chooses to. Thank you very much, convener. Well, this is a key section of the bill, obviously, given the range of amendments that we have in front of us this morning and given the ambitions and the hopes of everybody who is supporting this bill, it's really important that we get the right amendments passed today. In some ways I feel it's been a bit of a bizarre debate because we've been teasing out the Scottish Government's position as we go and every day the Scottish Government has moved a little bit further, so I hope that by the end of today's discussions we'll be in a stronger position. I think that at the stage 1 debate, we were all clear and in our report, the committee was very clear that we got the maximum transparency, and I think that that has to be delivered as much as we can. I think that the amendments that we have in front of us are all seeking to do that. It's clear that the ministers have been prepared to go further, and when we had our private meeting the day after we saw their response to our stage 1 report, it was clear that there is thinking going on, but that debate was not held in public, so that's why I think all the amendments that we have in front of us today are absolutely crucial in terms of teasing out the maximum position that we can have in this bill. I think that increasing transparency is where we all are as a committee, and I think that it's where the Parliament should be. My amendment 103 sets concrete dates for the completion of the land register. It's clearly a big task, and that point was made to us when we visited the registers of Scotland, and it needs resources if it is to happen. I want to concentrate ministers' minds to make sure that all publicly and land is entered into the land register by 2019. That sounds like a long way away, but it's not. That's an important date to have, but that all other land should be registered by 2024. That is eight years. It's a longer way off. Again, it's a big task, but it will concentrate the minds, both in Government and in terms of those who should be registering. I don't support Alex Ferguson's motion 104. I don't think that people should have to give a reason as to why they want to know who owns land. Surely, whether it's research, analysis or just wanting to know who owns land in an area, because somebody might be seeking to buy it, there are a whole myriad of reasons why people might want to know who owns the land. The amendments that we have moved at the earlier part of today are all about greater transparency and enabling people to exercise their human rights. Surely, one of them is to know who owns the land, potentially where they live. The amendments that we have in front of us by both Graham Day and Patrick Harvie are two solutions to the aspiration to deliver the transparency on this bill that we clearly need to deliver. I think that they both have strengths, so I'll be very interested in hearing them both speak to their amendments today. I have moved amendments to each of them because I felt that there were areas that needed to be strengthened and clarified. I know that work that's been done with Community Land Scotland and I think that Graham Day's amendment is a huge improvement on where the bill was when it was introduced to us. I think that in our private session in January ministers offered to work up ideas for stage 3. I'm not clear exactly how far ministers have got to that, and this is our chance to test the detail today. We don't know exactly where ministers are going to go between now and stage 3, so this is our chance to tease through the elements of both Graham Day and Patrick Harvie's amendment. The idea of having a register of persons of significant control who lie behind or hide behind, depending on your interpretation of the various legal entities, do own a big chunk of Scotland. I'll be interested to see how Graham Day's amendment is moving forward. It was clear in our discussion on wildlife crime last week that the police think that who is in charge of land is important when it comes to investigating potential criminality. We should be in no doubt that both those amendments are important. My amendment to Graham Day's amendment was that I worried that there was potentially a loophole in the amendment as it is framed. I was suggesting that the amendment that I've put will close that loophole and strengthen the amendment that Graham Day has put forward. I don't think that it's acceptable that owners can argue not to have their proprietorship made public. My amendment 30A suggests that that should be in exceptional circumstances, otherwise there's a danger that it becomes a get-out clause. I was trying to think about what the circumstances would be, and I couldn't really think of what routine circumstances would be, so I don't know if Graham Day has got thoughts himself—certainly something that would be worth teasing out here. In terms of Patrick Harvie's amendment 105 and 106, the use of the route that was suggested by the land reform group and the rural affairs committee was very interested in that as a way to ensure that we secure transparency, accountability and that it would link into a wider agenda on people paying their taxes, surely all things that we would want to support. What we don't really have, we had the stage 1 response to our report from the Scottish Government, which did not give us a strong argument as to why it did not think that that was the competence of the Scottish Parliament. I am going to be listening very carefully today to hear what the Scottish Government's arguments are. The reason I say that is because some of the arguments that were in their stage 1 report, when we met in private the next day after we had the time to read it, ministers had already moved from that. I don't know if ministers are moving again today or what they are going to say in public. I think that it is really important that this is transparent because there is an irony that the discussions that we had as a committee were not held in public. Those who have been campaigning for transparency were not able to see the discussions that we had. That is a problem in terms of how we are discussing this. Ministers told us that they would give us a response on the detailed reasons why they did not think that it would be proportional to have the EU entity's issue on the face of the bill. They said that we would have a response in due course. I hope that today is that time so that we can all reflect on the record and take a judgment. I do not want us to have to wait until stage 3 and the debate in stage 3 and the amendments in stage 3 where we have that detail. It is absolutely crucial that the land reform group did an excellent job and it is our job to test that. Ministers previously suggested that the opportunity of the free movement of capital would be a reason why it is not to use this vehicle in terms of EU entities. In terms of our public debate, we need to be assured that there are objective reasons and that this is not just being dismissed because it is complex and difficult. I do not think that it automatically goes beyond what is reasonable and what is necessary to achieve transparency of ownership. What the ministers say in front of us today is hugely important not just for us as committee members or indeed members of the Parliament but for members of the public. My amendment to Patrick Harvie's amendment is to seek to make sure that there is clarity on the legal and financial penalties that the Scottish Government would establish to implement the proposal, because we need to concentrate people's minds so that there are consequences for not abiding by the laws that we pass in this Parliament. My amendment 107 aims to provide clarity that there should be contact details with the clear registration on the proprietorship section of people's title sheets. Where an entity is incorporated or established outwith the UK, I think that it is vital that there is a legal point of contact in the UK that is named on the title sheet. One of the problems that we have had in the past is that if a community either wants to discuss with a landowner or in the future would like to buy that land, who do they actually speak to? I think that it is really important that we have clarity in this point. I do not think that it is unreasonable. In fact, I think that it is a way of ensuring that the bill can be implemented effectively. That is all about assisting transparency. It is all about ensuring that contact with owners or legal representatives can be achieved and delivered wherever somebody is seeking to have information or discussion about how the land in question might be used or there might be a discussion about land ownership in the future. I think that one of the points that I want to make here is that this is to assist communities to deliver the objectives that the ministers have set out in moving this bill. I am not thinking of it as a probing amendment at this stage. I am very keen that the ministers actually give us a commitment on this, because I think that it is hugely important. Finally, Graham Day's proposal to delete section 5 and 36. I can see that it makes sense. In our committee report, we all felt that, as it stands, sections 35 and 36 were not fit for purpose and need to be improved. I will be interested in hearing Graham Day's comments in the light of his amendment, which I think provides one way forward and Patrick Harvie's amendment, which provides another. I want to say in the record that I do not think that they are mutually exclusive. It is very difficult to have this discussion without knowing exactly what the ministers think. I respect the fact that the minister has been keen to work with the committee and has been keen to move. It is very difficult to do that when we are discussing actual amendments. We want as much as possible on the record today, because that will influence how we vote in those amendments. I am very keen to support the ambitions behind Graham Day's proposal and Patrick Harvie's proposal. I want to make sure that, when we get to stage 3, that we have as much clarity as possible in public on the thoughts that we had behind this. I am conscious of that, given that previous legislation has fallen, because either it was not clear enough at the drafting of the legislation stage or, I think, as members of the Parliament, we want to be clear. We want the maximum transparency. We want that effective. We want as much of that on the face of the bill. We want the bill to be transformative, but, crucially, we want it to pass future legal tests. I move the amendment in my name. I am keen to hear other colleagues' views on that. I think that this is probably going to be the most important debate that we have this morning. We need to get this right. We need to get both the aspirations right, but we need to get the detail right. Our discussion today is, hopefully, how we secure that for future communities who will want to use these radical powers to the best effect, to improve and to make their communities more resilient. I move amendment 103 in my name. I thank you for that. I thank Alex Ferguson for speaking to amendment 104, and other amendments as he chooses. Thank you very much, convener. I think that it is important to put on record that this subject is one that has been total agreement right across the board, not just on the committee and amongst all political parties, but amongst all stakeholders involved in this issue as well. I think that it is important to get that on the record. In that light, my amendment 104 does not in any way seek to be a barrier to openness and transparency, but it does not take a huge amount of imagination to visualise a situation where the request, the intentions of the request are not altogether benign. I believe that in 99.5 cases they would be, but there will be instances where there is some mischief behind the possible request for details of ownership and benefit. I have tabled this amendment simply to introduce a little balance to the situation, because I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask a requester to give a simple reason for that request. The amendment simply does what it says on the tin, frankly. It asks for the reason to be given when a request about ownership is being made, and I intend to move it. When it comes to the rest of the amendments, frankly, I agree with an extraordinarily important debate. It is not going to be held this morning, because we are already holding it this afternoon, but I look forward to the debate and will listen very carefully to points that are made before voting. I thank the Scottish Government's commitment received by the committee after the formal response to our stage 1 report on the issue of transparency of ownership. The fact that the minister has indicated an intention to bring forward amendments in this regard at stage 3 represents progress in reaching the goals shared by stakeholders, the committee, the wider public and the Government, that we, as a nation, have a far clearer idea of who owns and controls land in Scotland. Given that intention, the complex nature of the issue and the fact that my amendments, despite considerable work that went into them on the part of Megan McInnes of Global Witness and Peter Peacock of Community One in Scotland, may have flaws. I recognise that she may not be entirely comfortable with accepting those amendments as drafted, not least of all, because the Government has had only a week to consider them. However, I am bringing the amendments forward in the spirit of common purpose on the principles of transparency, because I think that points are possible and an implementable way forward. The bill as drafted does not deliver appropriate transparency on that. We are all agreed. The Government rightly noted in its response to the effect of my amendment 30 to create a register of persons of significant control in relation to the proprietors of land, the persons who are currently unidentified and lie behind some ownership vehicles. There is a wide range of public interest justifications that warrant full transparency of the human beings who really own Scotland's land. Those justifications, I would argue, outweigh the arguments for retaining secrecy, except in limited and justified circumstances. I will come back to that later. The Government rightly noted in the response to the committee's stage 1 report that this is a legally and practically complex area, but I hope that the amendments that I am proposing can, at very least, form the basis of a way of achieving full transparency of ownership. It would be best if it were possible to have as complete a set of provisions on the face of this bill as it is possible. Those amendments are offered in the spirit of seeking to demonstrate a route to how that can be achieved. The amendment seeks to provide a mechanism for requiring information about the natural persons behind the companies and other legal entities that own a great deal of Scotland. To keep that information up-to-date and make it publicly accessible as part of the land register, its functions build on existing administrative systems of the land register, rather than placing additional burdens on the keeper or authorities. To answer Sarah Boyack's query, the amendment also provides for circumstances where there may be a legitimate reason where a person of significant control of land should be protected from a disclosure being made public. An example of that would perhaps be where someone has been a victim of domestic abuse. As regards amendment 36, which weaves out sections 36, whether I will press that depends really on where we end up in relation to all the amendments that we are looking at. Because, upon reflection, it may be that parts of that will require to be retained, so I will hold fire on that, convener. I very much look forward to hearing the minister's response. Patrick Harvie, welcome to the committee and please speak to amendment 105 and others that you chose to. Thank you, convener. Good afternoon. I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Amendments 105 and 106, I am sure, do not need a great deal of explanation to the committee who are very familiar with the issues. 105 creates a condition of EU proprietorship before registration of a deed will have the effect of transferring ownership of land or conferring a right, a real right in respect of a lease over land. Amendment 106 introduces a retrospective application, a period of five years, for the owners of land currently held by an entity not registered in an EU member state, to introduce a way of remedying that. Amendment 106A from Sarah Boyack is a helpful refinement of the framing of 106, and I have no objection at all to it if the committee saw fit to support that. I first took an interest in the debate on those issues during the consideration of the Land Registration Act as it is now. Although clearly this issue has moved on considerably since that time, not least with the land reform review group's final report, which included support for a measure along those lines, the bill consultation in which a very strong measure of support for a measure along those lines was also expressed, and indeed this committee's stage 1 report in which it agreed not only that the issues of transparency and accountability required strengthening, but it set out a range of measures, a package of measures that would achieve that, including that those who wished to buy land and register a title in Scotland should be registered EU entities. It also suggested the five-year term. I think that provision sits very well alongside the others that are being debated in this group, and I agree with Sarah Boyack's comments that I do not see any contradiction between those different approaches. I think that they are very complementary. There will be many people who take an instinctive response to this issue and react with astonishment at the idea that land can be owned by an entity registered in an offshore tax haven. Many people will simply instinctively ask, why is that not wrong, should we not rule it out? I will respond to some of the counter-arguments that have been made. It has been suggested by the Government at some points that the ownership of land by non-EU bodies has no evidence of detriment in that situation. Given that we are all agreed on the need for transparency, I would make the case that the lack of transparency, which exists in many cases, is itself detrimental. If we are committed to that purpose of achieving transparency, we should regard that as a problem. Reference to be made to the free movement of capital. I do not see that provision as any significant barrier to that at all. Of course, there will be political debate about whether the principle of free movement of capital should have the primacy that it does at present, but I do not see that as any huge barrier. Indeed, there were landowners who responded both to the consultation and to the committee's inquiry, who made the case that they do not see the requirement to create an entity registered in an EU country as any serious barrier to an organisation that has a committed interest in owning land in Scotland for legitimate purposes. It has been suggested that the provision could increase the incentive for the use of trusts or other complex vehicles. I find that a slightly peculiar argument, given that trusts are indeed already a devolved responsibility. If there is a problem with the use of trusts in land ownership and many who have argued for land reform legislation would acknowledge that there is a problem. The Parliament and the Scottish Government are in a position to address that problem with existing devolved competence. It has also been suggested that the rules and regulations around EU entities are not perfect. I would agree with that. However, in relation to the current status quo, we have the opportunity to argue both through the Scottish Government and the UK Government for changes in those EU rules. Indeed, Members will be very aware that, with the development of the agenda at the EU level, particularly in relation to money laundering, progress is in the right direction. I was surprised that the Scottish Government appeared to suggest that the UK or other EU countries are a little different than some tax havens and referred to the Financial Secrecy Index. I hope that the minister will acknowledge that the secrecy element of that index shows a very stark difference between some of the tax havens that many people are concerned about, in which case we can know next to nothing about the companies or entities involved. There is a huge difference between that and the UK or other EU countries. The reason why the Financial Secrecy Index does not necessarily show that is about the slower transactions rather than the level of secrecy. I commend the committee for the decision that it took after having given careful consideration to the Scottish Government's arguments. I commend the committee for the decision that it took in its stage 1 inquiry. I would make the case that, alongside the provisions on a deadline for completing the land register and requirements on beneficial ownership information being placed on the register, that measure would ensure that not only are we locking in the provisions of beneficial ownership, but we are also putting that in the context of the on-going improvements at EU level on the issues of transparency. I hope that the committee remains convinced that that is not only achievable but necessary, and I hope that the committee will come to support this amendment when I move it. There are two members so far who have said that they want to comment on this. I am conscious of the time, so can we try and be as focused as possible. Claudia Beamish, followed by Mike Russell. I do not want to repeat some arguments that have been put forward either by my colleague Sarah Boyack, Graham Day or Patrick Harvey in relation to the details of the amendments, but I do want to stress how I too believe that the issue of ownership transparency is absolutely at the heart of the bill. I will reiterate the point that was made by my colleague Alex Ferguson about the fact that stakeholders were all agreed on the importance of this. I do not see the two main amendments in relation to the register by Graham Day and that on EU transparency by Patrick Harvey as mutually exclusive. I hope that it will be possible for both to be taken forward because it is absolutely imperative that, if the bill is going to work, that communities have the opportunity to be able as simply as possible to find out who the owner is of that land that they may wish to register an interest in for their future. Otherwise, a lot of this work that has been done by stakeholders, by the land reform review group, which indeed supported EU registration and so many others in Scotland will be quite damaged, I believe. Sarah Boyack's amendment 107 about title sheets and a contact within the UK is also important for simplicity and speed at which those interested could find out about ownership. In relation to Alex Ferguson's amendment 104, I do have concerns about this amendment because I believe that definitions around the reasons for requests could lead to legal challenges. I do not think that that is helpful at all. I think that there are very few reasons why land ownership should be secret in Scotland. Therefore, openness is what I am certainly searching for in the public interest for the future of a fair and just ownership of land in Scotland. I do not believe that there is anybody in this room sitting on the committee and absolutely not the minister who wishes to have anything other than complete transparency in land ownership in Scotland. I want to put it in the record because there has been on the fringes of this debate all sorts of allegations about double dealing, secrecy and some sort of conspiracy theorists about people hiding behind ECHR. I do not think that that is true, but it is an incredibly difficult thing to resolve. I respect the minister for that. I have been an environment minister and I have confronted some of those issues, but there is an imperative to resolve it. There is no wriggle room in this at all. There has to be, and this is the key principle, absolute openness in terms of ownership, beneficial ownership of land in Scotland. I made the point term in the stage 1 debate. John McEwen did some real pioneering work on this throughout his life. A forester who knew how important land was and who knew that this was the basis of changing the relationship of people in Scotland to land by knowing who owned the land and by seeing that and then progressively putting that land into democratic hands. That is part of that process. I think that we should be unashamed about that. It is not just about knowing who has the land. It is about changing Scotland's relationship with land. That is what we require to do. Although there is a barrier in a lot of the current legislation—I also made the point in a previous debate in this committee that getting the crofting acts of the 1880s on the statute book would be made immeasurably harder today by the existence of ECHR—there are many, many changes. That is not a flippant remark. It is an issue that has been addressed by those working on those bills for more than a decade. What we now need to do is to find a way around the barrier. We have got to make sure that the outcome of the bill at the end of stage 3 is complete transparency in terms of ownership. To that extent—I am not diminishing the issue of EU ownership outside the EU, but once you have that principle established, once you know that there is no getting around it in terms of ownership, the question of where that land is owned becomes less important, because nobody can own land in Scotland unless it is completely open and transparent about its ownership. I will be interested to see what the minister's response to the two approaches that have been taken today. I do not criticise either of them. I think that there are two different approaches, but I will say that I do not think that either are fully satisfactory. I think that we need to go a bit further. Although one or other, or both, may end up in the bill amended at stage 2, I think that there will be a need at stage 3 to go further to make sure that it is absolutely impossible to get round the issue of transparent ownership in Scotland. That will be a huge achievement in this bill. I look forward to seeing what the minister says, but the principles of those involved in Alex Ferguson has indicated that. The principles of those involved right across the committee have been in favour of absolute transparency, and I know that the ministers will be too. On a point in which Alex Ferguson was mentioned by Mike Russell, you wish to come back just now. I want to address a point that Claudia Beamish made when she was talking about my amendment. I want to make the point that my amendment is not about ensuring secrecy of ownership at all, which you did infer in your comments, but it is about assuring the proper intentions of the person who is seeking the information that they are requesting. I just wanted to make that clear. I need to clarify that. If I inferred that, that was not my intention. It was about the complexity of assessing what the reasons were and how that might hold up the process. I agree with the comments in relation to transparency. It is absolutely vital that we will have transparency in relation to land ownership. I was struck by the broad agreement right across society that this is essential. You do not have to look far in my constituency at this very moment to see issues where transparency would be helpful. A couple of estates have changed hands just in the last few days when the companies that are buying them are registered in Jersey. Those are not isolated examples of the difficulties that we face, so it is absolutely essential that we have the information in relation to who owns land in Scotland. It also has implications on wider issues in relation to land use, because some of those estates are being bought just now. My understanding is that they have been used in recent years for agriculture. They will no longer be used for agriculture, because the folk who are buying them want a big house with a big garden of 10,000 acres for their own private use, and they do not want anything happening on it. The land commission will deal with those issues as we move forward, because land use in Scotland and who is buying our land and what they are going to do with it is going to be crucially important in the future. I wait to hear what the minister says as well, but transparency is absolutely essential. We can have the minister now, if members have had their say at the moment. You have just asked me for as much detail. I know that you have got war and peace there and all the rest of it, but we need answers to these points. There is a lot of detail, convener, as you will appreciate. It is very important, absolutely, as Claudia Beamish said, that it is very important for us to be able to put this on the record. If members will bear with me, because I say that this is an absolutely key section of the bill, because in order for us to understand how land is owned and used in Scotland, we need to know who owns the land, who controls the decisions over the land and how changes in our laws and policies relating to land influence those who own and control our land. In relation to amendment 103, as Sarah Boyack has explained, amendment 103 would impose a statutory duty on the keeper of the registers of Scotland to complete the land register in respect of all publicly owned land by 2019 and all other land by 2024. That, of course, is exactly the target that ministers have set and which the keeper accepted in 2014. We all agreed about the importance and desirability of completing the land register within those timescales. A great deal of work is already underway to accelerate progress towards land register completion. The keeper has published a consultation paper setting out proposals for using the powers of keeper induced registration, which Parliament provided in the land registration Scotland Act 2012. That consultation closed on 8 January. The keeper will be announcing within a matter of weeks how she will be taking matters forward. The registers of Scotland are also in discussions with a large number of major public and private sector landlords with a view to facilitating the voluntary registration of their titles. Against the background, it is unnecessary for Parliament to legislate further at the stage. However, I am very happy and keen to give Sarah Boyack an undertaking that we will keep this committee and Parliament informed of progress. I do not rule out the possibility of further legislation in due course if that proves to be necessary. On that basis, I invite Sarah Boyack to withdraw amendment 103 on amendment 104. I note what Alex Ferguson has said in relation to amendment 103 and its purpose and effect. I would like to take this opportunity to confirm again to the committee the Government's approach to section 35 of the bill. As I said in my letter to the committee, on 13 January, which had followed the meeting that we had on 6 January, I had discussed the approach rather than the actual detail. It is our intention to bring forward amendments at stage 3 to provide a regulation-making power that will enable provision to be made for a public register of persons with a controlling interest in landowners. That will replace the provisions currently in section 35 of the bill. Where an individual or a community wants to find out if there are persons with a controlling interest in a landowner, they will be able to consult this new register. In any case, where an individual or a community was to make a request under the current provisions in section 35, they must show that they are being affected by the land as the regulation-making power only allows provision to be made for access to information by persons affected by land. Exactly what information would need to be provided and how that information would require to be presented in the application would be best set out in the regulations as the detail of the process was developed through consultation. Section 352C makes clear that any regulations could specify the circumstances in which a person affected by land could make a request, and paragraph D would allow for the regulations to set out the form and content of requests. The bill, as it is drafted at the moment, already makes sufficient provision for any requester to have to provide reasons for making the request. Amendment 104 is unnecessary, and I would ask Mr Ferguson to withdraw his amendment. In terms of amendments 29, 36 and 69 from Graham Day and amendment 30A from Sarah Boyack. Before I start out the detail and speak to those amendments, I would like to put on the record that I certainly very much welcome the intention behind Graham Day's proposed amendments. It is clear, as we have heard already from all the contributions, that we are all absolutely committed to achieving greater transparency of land ownership in Scotland. It is helpful for me to outline to the committee the approach that the Government is planning to take to strengthen part 3 of the bill. We believe that in principle it is possible to increase the transparency of land ownership in Scotland through requiring the public disclosure of information about persons who control land. I would like to reconfirm to the committee that the Government will bring forward amendments at stage 3 in the form of a power to make regulations to provide for the creation of a public register that will contain the information required to provide greater transparency on who controls the land in Scotland. The committee is aware that providing greater transparency of land ownership gives rise to many complex legal issues that we have been trying to work our way through most notably the right to free movement of capital under EU law, which has been mentioned already, and the interaction with rights protected under the ECHR. There are also considerable practical difficulties to overcome to make sure that what we are going to be providing is a robust and viable solution that will provide the greater transparency of land ownership that we are all seeking to achieve. We are absolutely confident that we can map out the overall scope of a requirement to provide such information in a public register that will allow us to bring forward a regulation making power at stage 3. Some of the issues that we are looking at at the moment are around what information should be disclosed and in what circumstances disclosure should be required, how would any requirement to provide the information interact with the registration law and our commitment to complete the land register, how the information should be obtained and kept up-to-date fees and charges, what provisions will be necessary to protect the legitimate interests of individuals in maintaining their privacy, whether there should be any exceptions on diminished grounds, for example, flats and houses that are owned by private individuals, how requirements to disclose and update information can be enforced and how to ensure that the landowners cannot avoid the disclosure requirements. As part of all this, we will ensure that we are consulting with key stakeholders. Given the significance and importance of that, it is important that the Government consults widely on the proposed regulations and the details of the proposed register. The policy development and consultation cannot be carried out within the timescale of the bill, given that we have a number of weeks between now and in March. Bringing forward the regulation-making power will allow further policy work to be undertaken on the issues and further consultation carried out in order to bring forward detailed regulations at the earliest opportunity in the next parliamentary term. The Government recognises the concerns that the committee and the delegated powers and law reform committee expressed in relation to regulation-making powers that are being taken in the bill. Given those concerns, I confirm that the regulation-making power that is brought forward at stage 3 will be subject to an enhanced form of parliamentary procedure to ensure that there is an appropriate level of scrutiny when the regulations are brought forward in the next parliamentary term. In bringing forward the proposed regulation-making power at stage 3, the Government does not feel that it will be necessary for the current provisions in section 35 to remain in the bill. If information about persons in control of land is publicly available, there would be no need for people to make a request for information on persons with control over land on a case-by-case basis. That is why the Government has not brought forward any amendments at stage 2 to section 35 and that we will lodge amendments at stage 3 to remove section 35 from the bill, replacing it with the new regulation-making power. In relation to section 36, in light of our proposals to bring forward the regulation-making power, it will no longer be necessary for the keeper to request information about individuals with a controlling interest in landowners. Therefore, we will bring forward appropriate amendments at stage 3 to amend section 36. Section 36 also enables regulations to be made to allow the keeper to request information about the category of landowners. It is the intention of the Government to retain those provisions in the bill, because having information about the category of landowners will be very useful in establishing further information on the patterns of land ownership, and that will help in developing policies in relation to use and management of land. Having put that on the record now, convener, I would like to turn now to the amendments that have been brought forward by Green Day, which contains the outline of a potential scheme for disclosing the name of persons with significant control on the land register. It is clear that significant consideration has been given to those proposals, and I would also like to put on the record my thanks to Community Land Scotland, to global witness and also to Megan McInnes and Peter Peacock for all the work that they have been doing in that area. Amendment 636 seeks to remove the current provisions in section 36 of the bill, so I would highlight to Green Day that amendment 36 would remove an important power for the keeper to request information on the category of landowner that the amendment 30 proposed by Green Day would not replace. Amendment 30 provides for the disclosure on the land register of the names of persons with significant control in relation to proprietors on the land register. Amendment 30 constitutes a fundamental change in the purpose of land registration in Scotland. As we know, the land register plays a pivotal role in the Scottish convening system. It provides the mechanism for the person to obtain the real right in land, so the existence or otherwise of a person in significant control is not required under Scots property law for the legal rights created by registration. The amendment also restricts the potential for disclosure to land that is registered in the land. Only 28 per cent of the land mass of Scotland is currently on the land register, so the Government's proposal to legislate for a separate register of controlling interests early in the next Parliament potentially avoids unnecessary consequences on registration law. It leaves open the potential for the new register to include information about controlling interest in land that is still held on a register title. In response to concerns that separate registers will mean that access to information is more difficult, I would highlight the development that is going on by the registers of Scotland of digital land and property information system. That is the Scottish which is due to be launched in 2017. That is intended to allow information from all the different registers and sources that relate to the same land to be disclosed in a single inquiry. Information about controlling interest in landowners should be able to be easily accessed alongside details of the legal title to land held in the land register. In order to identify persons with control over land, you first need to clearly identify the legal owners of land. One of the measures of the registers of Scotland are taking forward to increase the transparency of land ownership in Scotland is, as we know, to complete the land register by 2024. Any measures that are brought forward to identify individuals that have a controlling interest in landowners has to be considered alongside that commitment to complete the land register and may have significant impacts on both the ability of voluntary registration and keeper-induced registration to meet the 2024 target. The effect that amendment 30 would have on the keeper's current work on completion needs to be considered further. In 29 and 30A, we certainly understand the intention behind them. Given the fact that we have a series of major amendments that will be coming forward at stage 3, I will not be opposing amendments 29, 30 and 30A. What I would like to do is to reiterate my absolute commitment to work closely with the committee as we develop effective and competent proposals that will allow for the development of a public register of controlling interests in landowners that we brought forward at stage 3. I want to take the work that has been on-going through the amendments 29, 30 and 30A and to work together with the committee around that in terms of the amendment that we will bring forward at stage 3. Although we are not opposing amendment 30, there are some serious concerns around that. It is just because of the way that the amendment is drafted at the moment, it does not provide appropriate protection for individuals' rights to privacy under article 8. For example, the amendment does not require a proprietor or the keeper to remove a person's name from the title sheet when that person has ceased to be a person of significant control. It would not be reasonable for information about a person to continue to be disclosed where they no longer are a person of significant control. The amendment does not provide an appropriate means for a person of significant control to engage with the keeper as to whether the information disclosed is correct or asserts why the information should not be disclosed for legitimate privacy reasons. Another aspect of it is that the amendment provides that churches are excluded from the obligations to disclose information. I am not clear what the basis for that is. Without further justification for that, I would be quite concerned that that would give rise to issues under article 14 concerning the prohibition of discrimination. My intention, convener, is that the regulation making power that is brought forward at stage 3 will be capable of being exercised in a way that is within the legislative competence of the Parliament and in a way that will be compatible with EU law and ECHR. On amendments 105, 106 and 106A, I would like to begin by responding to Patrick Harvie and Sarah Boyack by welcoming the intentions behind amendments 105, 106 and 106A. When the land reform review group recommended that only legal entities registered in a member state of the EU should be able to own land in Scotland, it was said that the purpose was to increase the transparency and accountability of land ownership in Scotland. As I have said already, it is evident that we are all committed to increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland, but perhaps we have differing views on how that can be achieved and delivered. The Scottish Government believes that our proposal is to bring forward amendments at stage 3 for a regulation making power that will provide for a public register of persons that have a controlling interest in landowners taken together with the measures by the Registers of Scotland to complete the land register by 2024 and to set up Scotland's land information system that will significantly increase the transparency of land ownership in Scotland. We carefully considered the land reform review group's proposals, which amendments 105, 106 and 106A attempt to implement, but I strongly believe that the EU legal entities proposal and those amendments would fail to significantly increase the accountability and the transparency of land ownership in Scotland and that they are in fact outwith the competence of this Parliament. My officials wrote to the committee on 10 September to send out the Scottish Government's analysis of the EU legal entities proposal. I restated the Government's position in our evidence session to the committee when we were down in Dumfries in November. There are varying requirements for transparency of legal entities in the EU. We are not convinced that by simply setting up a shell company within the EU with the shares and the directors could still be based in offshore tax havens and obscured through complex corporate structures that that would actually provide the greater transparency of land ownership that those in support of this measure suggest would be achieved. Now, some stakeholders, I know, support this policy as they perceive that it will prevent land in Scotland being owned by companies based in tax havens. We also have to be in mind here that the Scottish Parliament has limited competence to legislate in relation to reserved taxis such as capital gains tax, inheritance taxis and co-operation taxis. That means that if the purpose of a measure is the prevention of tax evasion or avoidance of reserved taxis, then the measure would be outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament. If it is being, I am happy to... It seems to me very clear that we are all agreed the purpose of these amendments, whether there is a disagreement about the effectiveness of them, the purpose of them is to increase transparency of land ownership. That is clearly a devolved matter, that is clearly something where the intention relates to a devolved matter. I would urge the minister to say if the ownership of land by entities registered in tax havens is compatible with a view of transparency of land ownership, I would urge the minister to explain how she reaches that conclusion. On that, it still would be considered to be outwith the competence of the Parliament where its purpose is solely on transparency. As I have said, if it is being argued that the purpose of the amendments is the prevention of tax evasion or the avoidance of reserved taxis, that would be an issue that would raise concerns. Obviously, we need to consider that further now. I know that the UK Government has taken forward measures to improve the corporate transparency of UK companies for separate reasons to improving corporate governance and partly in response to the EU's forth money laundering directive. They have included an intention to look at the greater transparency in relation to foreign ownership of land. That is to make the point that we also have measures that are happening at the UK level and also at the EU level. We also want to assure the committee that the Scottish Government will support the measures that are taken by the UK Government and the international community. We will certainly play our part in combating tax avoidance. The UK Government has indicated that it intends to publish a consultation paper on that, but as yet it has not done so. At the moment, we are still unclear of what the UK Government's intentions are around on tax avoidance are likely to be. However, as a report of the land reform review group has acknowledged under EU law, the rules relating to free movement of capital apply not just to movements of capital between member states but also to movements of capital between member states and third countries. Amendments 105 and 106 would be a restriction on the free movement of capital that is protected by article 63 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Such a restriction is only compatible with EU law if it pursues a public interest objective, and it does so in a way that complies with the principle of proportionality. The amendments seek to have the effect of limiting ownership of land in Scotland to entities that are incorporated or established in a member state of the EU. We do not consider that the amendments would be a proportionate way of achieving the benefits that can arise from increasing transparency of land ownership. We consider that the amendments would not be a reasonable way of seeking to increase the transparency of land ownership. It is possible that some landowners who are entities incorporated outwith the EU will be at least as transparent and maybe more so than some landowners who are incorporated within a member state. A landowner who is an entity incorporated outwith the EU may not become any more transparent by transferring the land to a subsidiary that is actually established within a member state. Being an entity that is incorporated or established in the EU does not necessarily mean that the EU will be more transparent than entities outwith the EU. That is why we do not consider that the amendments meet the requirements of proportionality in relation to the free movement of capital. We also consider that there are less restrictive ways of increasing the transparency of land ownership than is proposed by the amendments. That is why we also consider that the amendments 105 and 106 are outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament because they are not compatible with EU law that is relating to the free movement of capital. Amendment 106A works only by reference to amendment 106, so it cannot be considered on its own. As the committee is aware, we made clear in the response to the stage 1 report a proposal to limit those that can register title to land in Scotland to individuals and those that come within the description of an EU legal entity that it would be outwith the competence of the Parliament. In summary, to address the question that has been raised by Patrick Harvie on the amendments 105 and 106, I would like to clarify and have on the record that increasing the transparency of land ownership is a devolved matter. We talked about that in terms of tax avoidance on the reserved matter. Even if the purpose of amendments 105 and 106 were solely related to transparency, the amendments are still outwith the competence of the Parliament because on the grounds that they are incompatible with EU law. That is why I would ask Patrick Harvie and Sarah Boyack to consider withdrawing their amendments. It is also important to put on the record that when it comes to article 345, it has been suggested that article 345 can be relied on to argue that a restriction on the type of entities that can own land in Scotland would be compatible with EU law on the free movement of capital. However, that article provides that the EU treaties do not in any way prejudice the rules in member states and that a member state might have governed the system of property ownership in that state. It is clear that that does not mean that article 345 can be relied on to exempt a member state from the EU rules on restrictions of the free movement of capital. In that context, article 345 is concerned with making clear that member states are not required to have any particular system of land ownership. In terms of amendment 107, the amendment is designed to provide what Sarah Boyack has described as a legal contact point for proprietors where they are an entity that is incorporated or otherwise established outwith the UK and for that information to be included on the title sheet of the land register and so be publicly available. There are some technical difficulties with that amendment such as it does not define entity so it is not clear who this duty would apply to nor is it clear what a legal contact point is. There is also no mechanism for keeping the information updated and so it will only ever be correct as of the date of registration. I think that it is helpful to remind the committee that the land register is made up of four parts. There is a cadastral map, the title sheet record, the application record and the archive record. Every application for registration is accompanied by an application form. Nearly all cases are submitted by a solicitor firm. In most cases, it is a Scottish firm as a solicitor would require to be qualified in Scots law to undertake convincing in Scotland. The name of the firm and their contact details are included on the form. The 2012 act provides that the keeper must include in the archive record copies of all documents that are submitted to the keeper and that includes the application form as well. In practice, the land register already includes the contact details for the solicitors that last acted for the proprietor. As those are included in the register, the information is publicly accessible. It is difficult to see what the proposed amendment would add to existing practices or information that is already available. I am keen and happy to work with Sarah Boyack and the other committee members to consider the amendment and its issue on the contact details as we develop the improved proposals on transparency ahead of stage 3. There are some minutes around it, but we need to consider that further. I will be very happy to have that for the discussion with the committee around on the contact details. On amendment 69, there is a consequential amendment to amendment 36 and removes the reference to section 36 and section 99. As I have said, the Government's position is that section 36 should remain in the bill. I will therefore ask that Graeme Dey withdraws amendment 69. I will possibly not follow the marathon session with a marathon summing up speech. I will just keep my comments relatively sharp. It has been good that we have dealt with it all at some reasonable length. That is really important in terms of transparency. It is also important for those of us who might pull amendments and come back at stage 3. The one thing that I do not really have a sense of is that the minister—I want to read the record in this at my leisure—is the issues about ECHR competence questions with various amendments, particularly in the light of the SCHR paper that we talked about earlier today, the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I think that that issue is a fresh thought on the issue of whether, to what extent, we have got possibly overstated or overcautious worries about competence and legal issues. I will certainly want to have another look at the minister's comments after we have dealt with the amendments today. In terms of amendment 103, amendment 103 was not a probing amendment. In fact, the minister's comments about how, if things did not appear to be happening fast enough, she would certainly consider future legal provisions. She would not rule them out. She would not rule out the possibility of further legislation in due course. I cannot think how many times we have been here before. Can we not just say, these are the deadlines, get them done, we will resource you to make it happen and everyone knows where it stands. I would definitely want to push that amendment in my name. We now move to dealing with that amendment. The question is that amendment 103 is agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. There will be a vote. Those in favour of the amendment, please show. Those opposed to the amendment, please show. Thank you, hands down. The numbers voting for were two. The numbers voting against were seven. Therefore, amendment 103 is not agreed to. Call amendment 104, the name of Alec Ferguson. I have already debated with amendment 103. Alec Ferguson to move or not move. I am not moved. In that case, we move on to amendment 29. In the name of Graham Day, I have already debated with amendment 103 to move or not move. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Then we move on to amendment 30. In the name of Graham Day, I have already debated with amendment 103 to move or not move. Welcoming the minister's comments on that and acknowledging that there are flaws in the amendment, but there is a commitment there to develop it further. I will move that amendment and thank you for her comments. Graham Day has moved amendment 30. Are we in favour of amendment 30? We are all agreed that we are in favour of amendment 30. Amendment 30A, in the name of Sarah Boyack. I have already debated with amendment 103. Sarah Boyack to move or not move. The question is that amendment 30A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Now you are still wishing to press amendment 30. You are. So the question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 105, in the name of Patrick Harvie. I have already debated with amendment 103. Patrick Harvie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There is a division required here. Those in favour of amendment 105, please show. Those opposed to amendment 105, please show. There are two in favour, seven opposed, so amendment 105 is not agreed to. Call amendment 106, in the name of Patrick Harvie. I have already debated with amendment 103. Patrick Harvie to move or not move. The amendment 106A has to be taken before it. This is an amendment in the name of Sarah Boyack. I have already debated with amendment 103. Sarah Boyack to move 106A. 106A is moved by Sarah Boyack. Does the committee agree with the proposal? No. There will be a vote. Those in favour of amendment 106A, please show. There are two in favour, seven opposed, so amendment 106A is not approved. I have moved amendment 106A to be agreed to. Patrick Harvie has moved amendment 106A to be agreed by the committee. Those in favour of amendment 106A is not approved by the committee. I think that we are going to have to stop at that point. There are a number of amendments that will come up later. I have to call amendment 107, in the name of Sarah Boyack. I have already debated with amendment 103. Sarah Boyack to move or not move. I welcome the minister's comments. I hope that, if the amendment is passed today, she will take the steps to make it acceptable. That is what she was saying that she would intend to do before stage 3. Did I get that right? Amendment 107A is for me to work with you around amendment 107A. In that case, if I have that on the record, I will not move at this point. I will not move. That is us reaching the end of this set. Committee, thank you very much. We have to move into private very briefly, but I think that probably we can deal with these matters very soon. At the next meeting of the committee we will be considering various pieces of sub-ledge, as well as continuing stage 2 consideration of the… Section 35 should have been closed down. It is all right. It is in order. We will be looking at more stage 2 amendments, the land reform bill. I close the public part of the meeting and the committee will move into private briefly on regard to the Crown Estate letter. Are you happy for us to deal with this letter and you to tell me any points? I know. Thanks for that. Are you all happy with that? This is the private bit. If you have any queries about the letter, let me know.