 Rhaa i gael i'r gwn i'r 35 eich wneud yn 2017 o Gymru Ac Rhawer i Llogon, dwi'n cael ei wneud i'n dbali allu i gael i'n ffôr o uch Mother Phone i'r tyfnod. Mae agenda item one, maen nhw'nwaith i'r gyfrifod? mae'r Bill ddarparu a Llan i'r Gweithgaredd, Scotland. Dyna mae'r byn i weddill yn eu consideratio cynllun drwsio. Rhawer i'r gynnydd o ffodus i'r cyfrifodau economi a'r cyfnodau i'w ddweud Supolodau honno. NYTCHOS feminism a Gwb laminodau aroly cofl through a copy of the bill as introduced. The Marsha principal list of amendments that were published on Thursday and the groupings of the amendments which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. Before we go on, I should point out that the clerks have advised me that amendment 136 erbyn yn rhan o'r llwyster yn ymarthwll ystafell, ac yn dechrau yn ddiddordeb yn 114. O'r prysgau ar gyfer i'w ddechrau, ac mae'r ddiddordeb yn cael ei ddiddordeb yn gyfnod ar gyfer ei wneud. Rwy'n gydur i'r ddelch yn yr oedd o'r prysgau porffer. Wrth gwrs, mae'n ddiddor i'n ddiddordeb yn gwybod i'r ddiddordeb. I will call the member who lodged the First Amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in that group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that they want to do so by catching my attention in the usual way. If he has not already spoken in the group, I will invite the Cabinet Secretary to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding-up speech. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the amendments in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the First Amendment in that group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on the amendment. If the member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of the other members of the committee to do so. If any member present objects, the committee immediately moves to vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, not moved. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any decision is by a show of hands, and it is important, please, that members keep their hands up clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section and schedule of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We aimed to complete stage 2 today, but let us see how we get on. I am now going to move to the first question. The first question is that section 1 be agreed or we all agreed. I am going to put that again. The question is that section 1 be agreed or we all agreed. I therefore move on to the next section, which is the purpose of the bill, and I call amendment 14 in the name of Rhoda Grant in a group on its own. Rhoda Grant is pleased to move and speak to amendment 14, Rhoda. I move and speak to amendment 14. This is a purpose clause for the act. The amendment is to add clarity to the purpose of the act. We all know the act came about because of devolution of the Forestry Commission, and that is welcome. However, we must have more ambition for forestry than just that. That amendment shows that ambition and what our focus should be to promote sustainable management of forestry and to promote the social, economic and environmental impacts of forestry. That states very clearly at the beginning of the act, the purpose of the act and the benefits that forestry can bring. Jamie Greene, you indicated. I think that the only comments that we have to make on this is that, in principle, we agree with Rhoda Grant's suggestion that there should be an overarching purpose to the act. The problem that we have is that the specific wording of that is unable to support those specific words. We feel that that is not all-encompassing enough that it is too prescriptive in the definition of the purpose of the act. We would like to see a purpose to the act, but we will certainly be voting against the specific wording. However, we would like to, cabinet secretary, to take on board the view that the purpose of the act could be introduced with perhaps some wider wording. I think that, in the same lines as Jamie Greene, a purpose clause for an act is an extremely good thing. The whole Parliament is set up with the statement that there will be a Scottish Parliament. It clarifies things and helps the courts to look at the spirit of the law, rather than just the letter of the law. I like Jamie Greene's reservations about the wording of that particular purpose clause. Stuart McMillan I will ask Malak if we put that in. It is the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. The effect of that is actually to restrict the scope of the act, rather than to extend it, because by putting a purpose in, the whole act is defined by that purpose and nothing which is not defined in that. Therefore, I am afraid notwithstanding the sympathies with the underlying approach that Roder's taking, I cannot support that. John Finnie I support Roder in that. Everything is open to interpretation. There is clarity about what has been said there, and it is a worthwhile addition to the legislation in front of us. Cabinet secretary, before I ask Redd to wind up, are there any comments that you would like to make on that? Yes, and good morning, convener, and to members. Perhaps I could just say at the outset that I thank all members of all parties for the constructive meetings that I had prior to stage 2. My officials found them useful. I hope that members did as well, and I wanted to make it clear that between stages 2 and 3, I would follow the same process and offer a further series of meetings with members with aim of working together to try to ensure that the legislation is in the best possible state. Today, I will offer at various points to take away important issues that have been raised by various members with an undertaking to work with members to take away, improve and come back at stage 3 with various matters. I just wanted to emphasise that as my approach, convener, at the beginning. Turning to Rhoda Grant's amendments, I share the ambitions for the forestry sector in Scotland. This Government has an unequivocal commitment to forestry, and I hope and believe that that is not in doubt. We have introduced the first primary legislation of forestry since the Parliament was reconvened in 1999. The bill has a purpose. It is the main legislative vehicle to complete devolution of forestry and establish modern arrangements for this key land use in Scottish legislation, a long-standing Scottish Government manifesto and programme for government commitment. Therefore, the purpose goes beyond sustainable forestry management. It is about devolution as well, and that is not stated in the amendment. The bill provides a modern legislative framework for regulation, support development and management of forestry in Scotland. It also embeds sustainable forest management across that framework, introducing a duty on Scottish ministers to promote sustainable forestry management in section 2 of the bill and to publish a forestry strategy with sustainable forestry management at its core. The internationally agreed definition of sustainable forestry management is, and I quote, the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way and at a rate that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration, capacity and vitality, and the potential to fulfil now and in the future relevant ecological, economic and social functions at local, national and global levels and does not cause damage to other ecosystems. Given the importance of this phrase, I thought it useful to put on the record that definition at the early stages of stage 2. This is about good management of forestry for long term and for multiple benefits at all levels. That is why it is already at heart of the forestry functions in the bill. I would also question the use of the word impact in the amendment. I do not support the amendment, but where I to do so, I think perhaps positive impact or benefit might have been better alternatives to the word impact, which does have a negative or potentially negative connotation, convener. So, whilst I share and indeed applaud the sentiment that both Rhoda Grant and John Finnie have expressed support for, I would respectfully suggest that the amendment is technically flawed. It does not really achieve the aims that it sets out to achieve and it risks, as Mr Stevenson says, causing difficulties. For those reasons, I would encourage members to resist amendment 14. Thank you. Rhoda, would you like to wind up and press or withdraw the amendment, please? I think that having a purpose clause in the act is really important because an awful lot of the amendments that come after this one is because there is no purpose clause in the act and it is trying to frame the act in a way that people can understand and go forward with. I firmly believe that the act requires a purpose clause. I have heard what other members have said about maybe some of the wording, so I will not press the amendment at this moment and I will take it away and maybe speak to other parties and other members to try and find wording that would help. I understand from the cabinet secretary that he is not keen on a purpose clause full stop, so I do not expect to work with him on that, but I would certainly appreciate input if there were concerns about that, so I would bring a new amendment and share it with the cabinet secretary in the hope of getting that right, especially at stage 3. Sorry, can I just confirm there for radar? Are you pressing or withdrawing the amendment? I'm withdrawing. You're withdrawing the amendment. Does any other member present object the amendment being withdrawn? We will then move on to the next amendment and on this the grouping is the Sustainable Forest Management Code of Practice and I'd like to call amendment 118 in the name of Gail Ross, grouped with amendment 119. Gail Ross, could you move amendment 118 and speak to both amendments in the group, please? I will move amendment 118 and speak to both. This amendment proposes the inclusion in the bill of duty to develop a statutory method of assessing and monitoring sustainable forest management. That would mean adopting best practice forestry guidelines, which are currently outlined by the UK Forestry Standard into legislative requirements. Currently, the UK Forestry Standard, while wide reaching and a good representation of best practice, is not embedded in legislation. By adopting a code of practice, it would ensure that future forestation is transparent, that its environmental benefits are clear and in the public interest and would protect against any risk of changing policy environments that may not place sustainability in such high regard. I am open to any discussion on that, including whether the bill or the forestry strategy is the correct place for it. Jamie Greene, you indicate that you want to speak. I think that there is some admirable intent with Gail Ross's amendment. There is certainly a shared opinion that section 2 of the bill, as it stands, is quite light on going into more detail on what duties are on ministers to promote sustainable forest management. My only problem with the specific amendment, specifically 119, is that it is very prescriptive in its nature and in terms of who the minister must consult SNH and other parties. I think that there is some room for expanding the scope of what the minister must do, but I do feel that this is probably too detailed in that sense for primary legislation. Okay, Ryder, you asked to speak. Just on clarification, when Gail Ross was speaking, she said that it was to enshrine the UK forestry standard in the act. My reading of it appears that it replaces that. I am just looking for some clarification. It is adopting the code of practice that is currently under the UK forestry standard. I just ask if there is a specific question if you could deal with that in the winding up section of it. Does anyone else want to speak at that stage? Cabinet Secretary, would you like to enter into this? Yes, thank you, convener. I do appreciate the efforts made by Gail Ross with this amendment to address concerns raised during stage 1 about the definition and technical aspects of sustainable forest management. During the committee discussions, there was broad acceptance from stakeholders that the current UK forest standard is a good guide to sustainable forestry practice, providing practical guidance on sustainable forest management in Scotland. However, the detailed interpretation of what constitutes sustainable forest management is continually developing, and I do not believe that it is appropriate to commit any specific standard on the face of this bill. I therefore accepted the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Government should lay out its approach in the Scottish forest strategy, as well as setting out how it will integrate with the UK forest standard. Given that, I have accepted the need to lay out both the definition of sustainable forest management and the means by which we will integrate with the UK forest standard and the strategy, convener, I do not believe that those amendments are required. Therefore, I respectfully ask Gail Ross not to press this amendment, but to offer to meet with her so that I can better understand the intent behind it and explore options to address her concerns. I thank both Jamie Greene, Rhoda Grant and the cabinet secretary for their input. It was an amendment for probing, and after the cabinet secretary's comments, I will accept his recommendation and I will withdraw the amendment. Thank you. Therefore, as far as amendment 118 is concerned, does any other member present object that the amendment will be withdrawn? I am still getting the hang of this, so I apologise. As that is the end of a section, I have to ask if that section is agreed, and are we all agreed? I am now calling amendment 119 in the name of Gail Ross, which has already been debated with amendment 118. Gail Ross, do you wish to move or not move the amendment? Does any other member present object the amendment being withdrawn? I should have said that the question is that I was right there. It is not often that I am right, and the clerks are wrong. Occasionally, when I am, I am going to luxuriate in it. I am going to move on to the second grouping, which is forestry strategy and content. I am going to call amendment 120 in the name of Radigrant group with amendments 178, 116 and 117. Could you please move amendment 120 and speak to all the amendments within the group? Can I move amendment 120 and speak to the other amendments in the group? That section refers to the strategy and that it must include Scottish Government objectives, priorities and policies with respect to certain things. My amendment adds to the section regarding the economic development of forestry in particular of communities dependent on forestry. It is clear that many of our communities are dependent on the economic development generated by forestry. Their need must be taken into account when developing the economic development of forestry. For too long communities have had little engagement with forestry and historically, much of the forestry has been planted as tax breaks rather than for the economic and environmental good. Ideal forest land is close to our most fragile communities, and while promoting forestry, we have an excellent opportunity to grow and strengthen those communities. Turning to the other amendments in the group, I will listen with interest to the debate surrounding them, but I do have some concerns. Amendment 1 might constrain Scottish ministers when acquiring or disposing of land. If that were not in the strategy, could it be challenged? The only time I would see a challenge coming forward, however, would be when it was subject to compulsory purchase, which could put a further barrier in the way of compulsory purchase. I agree with the other amendments in the group, especially amendment 8. I would really like to see more native woodland, not just aesthetically, but I would also like to see us manage and use native timber and native trees. Okay, thank you. On that, I would like to call my rumbles to speak to amendment 1 and all the other amendments in the group. Can I just first put on record my view that this is a very good bill? I think it will be really helpful to forestry in Scotland. Because it was such a good bill, I was quite a surprise that we were dealing with 140 amendments. It took me by surprise. I have contributed three of those today, and I am speaking to just one of them, which is amendment 1, because the other two and three are consequentials. That is the only issue that I have put forward. I have tried to put it forward in a constructive way to add importance to the bill and to make sure that the bill is more comprehensive than it would have otherwise been. I hope that the minister and colleagues on the committee will accept it. What I am trying to do is, if you look at subsection 3, the forestry strategy must include the minister's objectives, priorities and policies with respect to economic development of forestry, the conservation and enhancement of the environment by means of sustainable forest management, and the realisation of the social benefits of forestry. All very good. All I am seeking to do is add one further in there to say to the minister that, when he produces the forestry strategy, it should also include the acquisition and disposal of land under sections 15 to 17. It is entirely in the hands of the minister and the strategy in that case. I do not think that it is restrictive. I think that it enhances the bill. It makes it absolutely clear what we are trying to achieve, and I hope that members will accept amendment 8. If I could just say amendment 8, I would like to say that I understand John Finnie's wishes about this, but I think that speaking to the industry, I know that the industry feel that putting a percentage on it is overly restrictive, and that is certainly the view that has been put to me, and I accept that. I am not inclined to support John's at number eight, and I particularly like Richard Lyle's 116 and 117. Can I call on Peter Chapman to speak to amendment 7 and any other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I will move amendment 7 in my name. I think that there is a real omission in the bill in that there are no targets in the bill as to how much planting we would like to see going forward. I think that I am very keen to see more planting in Scotland, as the cabinet secretary is well aware, but we need to have targets in the bill, I believe, and we need to be able to scrutinise them. That is really about putting targets, planting targets in there, and it gives us an opportunity to see how we are progressing as regards meeting those targets. As far as the other amendments, I have struggled to understand what Rhoda Grant is trying to say in her amendment 120. She speaks about communities dependent on forestry. There is no indication of how dependency is going to be measured, and there is just a lack of meaning in there. I am supportive of Mike Rumball's amendment. I am against John Finnie's one in that a percentage is the wrong way forward. I think that we will need to see more productive trees planted, the ones that will support the forestry industry and the sawmills. We will probably see more native woodland planted as the planting area increases, but the percentage is the wrong way around, because that will mean less of the productive timber that we need. I am supportive of Richard Lyle's amendment. I remind members that you do not have to move your amendment when you are speaking at this stage. When we come to your amendment and voting on it, I will ask you to move it at that stage. John Finnie, can I ask you to speak to amendment 8 and any other amendments that you want to make? That is about increasing the percentage of a native woodland. The predominant species in Scotland is the sidkis spruce. That is a non-native species. It covers a third of our total forest area. I am advised that reliance on a non-native species is unusual in a European context. Here, native woodland accounts for under a quarter of the total woodland in less than a fifth of the national forest estate. It has a role to play in forest production. Indeed, hardwoods are used—I think of Norwood near Inverness, a big factory that people will be aware of, which imports hardwoods from the Baltic states. It can deliver much more in terms of the ecosystems, recreation, wellbeing, flood prevention, education, increased soil air quality and so on, and greater biodiversity. Indeed, biodiversity is recognised in the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. It is a target to improve the condition and extent that it runs. That is not being met at the moment. There is an independent assessment of native woodland that says that it is moving in the wrong direction. The Scottish Government can send a very clear signal about its ambitions for native woodland by accepting amendment 8 to increase the percentage of forest land that is in native woodland. To be clear, that would apply to all forest land, be it publicly on or in private ownership but in receipt of public grants. The cabinet secretary is entirely right to say that there were very constructive discussions in advance of this meeting. To say that Scottish Environment Link believed that half the woodland should be native, I did not go ahead with that, but I did talk about an increase. I am very happy to be engaged in on-going discussions with the cabinet secretary on this, but it would be helpful to hear the general direction of travel that the Scottish Government sees with this matter. Supportive of road is, and, as previously outlined, the great significance for some communities that there are. I am relaxed about Mr Rumbles and Mr Chapman's, and we will be supporting Richard Royals. Richard Lyle, can I ask you to speak to amendment 160, and the other amendments in the group? Yes, thank you, convener, for offering me a chance to speak to his amendments, put forward my name. Legislation, we are considering, while amongst other things, repeal the Forestry Act 1967. This act gives ministers response ability for a general duty of promoting the interests of forestry, development of a forestation, the production and supply of timber and other forest products. A number of organisations consulted in the bill thought that those duties should be carried forward into a new bill that we are considering today. However, after consideration in this committee, it came to a view that a proposed forestry strategy should take account of the need to expand forest and woodland cover in Scotland and ensure sufficient production of timber for Scotland's needs in the future. My amendments will ensure that the bill is amended to reflect recommendation 52 from our stage 1 report. More importantly, perhaps the amendments will ensure that Scotland attains a clear and unambiguous commitment to a forestation. Forest cover in Scotland is currently 18 per cent, compared to EU average of 38 per cent. France, Spain, Germany, Italy all have over 30 per cent. Forest cover, while Scandinavian countries such as Finland and Sweden are way above 65 per cent or greater. Last month, I hosted a lunch for Pakistani MPs, and they told me that they had planted over a billion trees in their region—not in the country, but in their region. We therefore must do better. The committee has recognised that the Scottish Government has an ambitious forestry policy that has supported widely across industry and by non-government organisations. However, times change might not always be the case. If Scotland had a level of forest cover in line with European norms, then dropping our existing legal requirement for us at forestation might be justified. However, at a time when we as a nation are seeking to expand our forests and woodlands to lock up carbon, support a vital low-carbon industry, dropping the requirement for us at forestation and ensuring supply of timber and forest products, we will send out the wrong signals. I therefore urge my committee members to support my amendments put forward in my name. Thank you, Mr Lyle. Stuart, do you want to say something? Yes. Let me unusually encourage Mike Rumbos to speak to at least his amendment 2 in group 6, otherwise he will not get started on group 6 because he has the lead there. I think that his amendment is a sensible one that adds clarity. The other amendments have no great problems with the underlying intention, but they have some difficulties with the construction. Like Peter Chapman, I think that communities that are dependent on forestry in her amendment, I would argue that all communities in Scotland are dependent on forestry. In the sense that we have timber-fren houses, we have furniture, we look around the Parliament here and we sit behind a wooden table. So I think that it is not clear that that adds anything. Where Richard Lyle's amendments are concerned, I have my usual hesitation at extending lists that make me reluctant and, in particular, at 117, production supply of timber and other forest products. I think that that is already covered by the economic development of forestry, but it is debatable. I share others' reservations about John Finnie's amendment, while I would wish the practical effect of the bill to be the increase in the amount of native woodland in appropriate locations where it will flourish. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, the floor is now yours, is it well? Thank you, convener, and thank you members for an interesting discussion thus far. I am grateful to Mike Rumbles, Peter Chapman, John Finnie, Richard Lyle and Rhoda Grant for lodging those amendments. I am content to support the majority of them in principle, but further work is required in some cases. I signalled to the committee during stage 1 that I recognised the need to be more explicit and to provide clarity on the potential content of the Scottish forestry strategy. I believe that the intent behind most of those amendments is to achieve the same aim. Let me be clear that I am, convener, committed to increasing the benefits that forestry provides to Scotland, whether that is improving our environment, our economy or the lives of our people. To achieve that, we must have balance in what we do, employing the best silvic cultural practices and engaging with stakeholders to ensure that we have the right tree, whether that be a broadleaf or a conifer, in the right place for the right reasons. It is fair to reflect that in some cases in the past that did not happen. As you have heard me say before, forestry has unique potential for delivering a multitude of environmental, social and economic benefits from one piece of land, and it is important that our strategy recognises and helps to realise that potential. Part of my commitment to increasing the contribution that forestry makes to our rural economy is to secure vibrant rural communities to which Rhoda Grant refers in amendment 120. However, I feel that the purpose behind that amendment is already clearly articulated, convener, in the principles of the land use strategy and the provisions of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015, which provide people with opportunities to engage and influence decisions that affect their lives and their future. I therefore respectfully ask Rhoda Grant not to press this amendment. Moving on to amendment 1, I have committed to sustaining the national forest estate as a public asset and intend that the overarching principles for disposals should appear in the forestry strategy. I am therefore happy to support Mike Rumble's amendment and appreciate his general comments on the bill. However, if the committee supports Mr Rumble's amendment, I would reserve the right to look further at the drafting before stage 3 in case there is any technical difficulties with it that have not yet come to light. I also accept the principles behind amendments 7, 8 and 116. However, I believe that there are some difficulties and gaps in their approach and therefore, convener, I offer to work with members to bring forward a Government amendment at stage 3 to capture the intentions of amendments 7, 8 and 116. In particular, the important objective of increasing the area of native woodland. As committee members may be aware, I have already made available increased grant support for native woodland creation in the Highland Council area in recognition of the substantial benefits that these woods can bring, an addition of £400 per hectare of planting native woodland in that area. We are also developing work on woodland crafts and we also work closely with bodies such as the woodland trust. I would in conclusion, convener, ask members not to press these amendments 7, 8 and 116 and to accept my offer to bring forward an appropriate stage 3 amendment that addresses all 3. Finally, on amendment 117, I recognise the concerns of the forestry sector regarding the continued commitment of the Scottish Government to woodland expansion to underpin the sustainable timber products industry, which also ties in with our climate change ambitions to increase the amount of timber used in house building. For that reason, I support amendment 117. I would ask Rhoda Grant to wind up and press all withdrawal amendment 120. I will reflect on some of the comments made and maybe come back at stage 3 with an amended amendment, so I will not press at this moment. Does any other member present object to the amendment 118 being withdrawn? Sorry, 120 being withdrawn. No. A call amendment 1 in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 120, might Rumbles to move or not move? The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 120. Peter Chapman, to move or not move? To move. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. Therefore, I call a division. Those in favour of amendment 7, please raise your hands. Those against amendment 7, please raise your hands. Any abstentions? 1. Therefore, the vote in favour of amendment 7 is 3, votes against 7, and there is one abstention. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 8 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 120. John Finnie, to move or not to move? I think that you should move it or not move it at the stage. If it is very brief, in light of what the cabinet secretary said, that is... It is in light of what the cabinet secretary said, and he will understand that I am very keen to have some divinity to this and also whether the figure would apply to all the national forests to say it. I will not press at this time and engage in further discussions. Does any other member present object... Sorry, my mistake there. Therefore, I call amendment 116 in the name of Richard Lyle, already debated with amendment 120. Richard Lyle, to move or not to move? I take it that I respect the cabinet secretary's words. He is a very honorable man, and I look forward to working with him in regards to this, because I am set on increasing the forestation within Scotland, so I will withdraw on this occasion 116. That is not moved. I call 117 in the name of Richard Lyle, already debated with amendment 120. Richard Lyle, to move or not to move? I move 117. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We will move on to the next grouping, which is forest strategy, preparation, revision and reporting. I call amendment 9 in the name of Peter Chapman, grouped with other amendments and shown in the groupings. I would have to point out at this stage that if amendment 9 is agreed, I cannot call amendment 15. Peter Chapman, to move amendment 9 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. We have just heard that the cabinet secretary requires clarity with the bill, and amendment 9 provides a degree of clarity. I think that we need a review of the strategy every five years and a refresh of the strategy every 10 years. I think that that is only right and proper. We need to have the ability to scrutinise how the strategy is moving forward. This is an important addition, I believe, to the bill and requires, I would hope, that it would receive support. Rhoda Grant's amendment, as the convener pointed out, would fall if mine was agreed. Fulton MacGregor, I do not agree with that amendment because I believe that there is too much analysis there. It would be overly prescriptive and is far too detailed in this bill. Claudia Beamish, again I would vote against. I think that it is far too burdensome on ministers and far too specific. Amendment 4, in Claudia Beamish's name, I could support. I think that that is reasonable and logical. Amendment 1, 2 and 3, in Claudia Beamish's name, I do not support. This is a forestry bill. Why do we need to get bogged down in deer management issues? There are strategies in place in regards to deer management in other places and it does not need to appear here, in my opinion. Rhoda Grant's one, as we have regard the coyote protocol, again we are already signed up to this. This is an international treaty. It has no place, I believe, in a forestry bill in Scotland. Ditto for the next one, 1 to 5, 1 to 6, I think is as above again. I think that these are international agreements which are well understood and have no place in here. Ditto for 1 to 7, 1 to 8, communities, persons, policies, I am against that again. It overrides elements of agricultural tendencies which I am against. Amendment 16, I think I can support. It adds another layer of scrutiny, which is fair and proper. Going over the page again, Rhoda Grant's one, amendment 17, I can support. I think that this gives a level of transparency, which is fair and proper, and I can agree to that. Cabinet Secretary, I think that it is important that there is an annual report. It is important that the financial transparency is there and we can monitor targets within the forestry strategy, so I think that an annual report is absolutely essential. To wind up on John Finnie's amendment 130, I think that my amendment 10 is superior. I think that we need an annual report, rather than a three-year report. With that, I will conclude. Thank you. Rhoda Grant, can I ask you to speak to amendment 15, please, and any other amendments in the group that you wish to? I speak to my amendments in the group 15, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 16 and 17 and others in the group. It is important that the strategy is reviewed regularly to make sure that it meets the needs of forestry, and I would suggest that that is most important at the first strategy. My amendment is along similar lines as that or that Peter Chapman is proposing in amendment 9, in that it sets timescales for review. However, I think that my amendment allows greater flexibility and that the strategy can continue without revision if that is not required. It does ensure that this decision will face scrutiny as Scottish ministers will have to publish an explanation as to why they have decided not to revise the strategy. Can I let you come in later, if I may? I am just trying to think, because the groupings are quite big, is to let people go through the groupings, but it is up to Rhoda if she is happy to take it. Otherwise, I am very happy to bring Jamie in at the end with the other members that want to speak on particular amendments. I am not, because I did not start the group. I do not think that I have a wind-up in the group, so it would be maybe useful to hear what Jamie is asking so that I could give him clarity, because I do not have a wind-up. Thank you, convener. I do appreciate Rhoda Grant to take my intervention. It feels intuitively easier to intervene on that specific point while she is speaking on it, as it is such a large group particularly. Does Rhoda Grant not feel, however, that the addition of the point 2 in her amendment published an explanation of why they have not revised the strategy, give the ministers a bit of a get-out clause in that respect, and making it mandatory that the strategy must be reviewed and refreshed makes it a more powerful amendment? I think that there are similarities between Peter Chapman's amendment and your own, but we would prefer to lock it down that the minister must actually review the strategy, as opposed to giving him this get-out-of-jail card in the second part of your amendment. I am just keen to probe that further. I do not think that it is a get-out-of-jail card. I think that it is actually the opposite. A forestry strategy needs to be long-term, just because of the nature of the industry. Therefore, to be changing direction every five years, I do not think that it would be helpful, but, especially with the first strategy, there may be issues in it that are having unintended consequences, and that would therefore need to be reviewed to make sure that it is right. Allowing for a review, but not making that prescriptive, I think, is the right way forward, because the forest would take a much more future, it would look further into the future. If there was a problem, you could review it, but at the same time, ministers cannot just decide not to review it without giving an explanation. That would then be scrutinised by this Parliament. Therefore, if there was a need for review, that would happen, because it would have to come to this Parliament, and indeed this committee could recommend that a full review take place, if that was necessary. However, it just means that people do not have to jump through all the hoops every five years. If I can turn to amendments 124, 25 and 26, those amendments add some international conventions on the Kyoto protocol to the list of things Scottish ministers must have regard to when preparing the strategy. We have, in the past, heavily depended on European legislation to work alongside other countries to ensure that we follow best practice and protect our environment. Before too long, we will no longer have that protection, and therefore it is good to ground our practice internationally to ensure that we remain world leaders. It wasn't so long ago that we had blocks of citrus spruce planted randomly around the countryside and forests planted on the flow country, releasing rather than capturing carbon. It will take us a long time to undo these wrongs, but we must ensure that we never repeat past mistakes. I hope that those amendments will go some way forward into ensuring that protection. Amendments 127 and 128 return to the theme of protecting communities. While forestry is a good thing in itself, it is important to use every lever at our disposal to grow and empower fragile communities. Those two amendments add repopulation and agricultural businesses to the list of issues that the Scottish Government must have regard to when preparing the strategy. One would hope that that would happen instinctively, but, given the importance of those issues to our fragile communities, it is right that they are in the bill and given that protection and importance. Amendments 16 and 17 concern the consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of the strategy. Given so much of the details around in forestry, it will be in the strategy. It is right that it should be widely consulted on and that the outcome of the consultation should be scrutinised by Parliament. The timeframe given would allow a committee of the Parliament to take evidence and make recommendations to Scottish ministers on the strategy. Given the time that the strategy will cover, it is right that it should be fully tested to ensure that it meets the needs of future generations. I also speak to some of the other amendments in the group. I would support Claudia Beamish's amendments and I will also listen to the debate on John Finnie and Peter Chapman's amendments, because I believe that there has to be a reporting mechanism, so I will listen to the debate and decide which of those to support in light of that. I now call on Fulton MacGregor to speak to amendment 121 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 121 is concerned with the consultation requirements when the strategy is being prepared or revised. It amends the duty to consult at section 4 of the bill to specify the general public. It must be consulted. Ministers must also consult, as it says, such bodies as they consider appropriate. I believe that that does conform with Scottish Government consultation good practice across a range of areas. I hope that the Government will recognise that appropriate consultation is fundamental to developing, reviewing and revising the strategy. I am happy to move that amendment in my name. On the other amendments in the group, I will await with interest the debate. I welcome Claudia Beamish's input today, but I have some concerns over them. Amendment 122 seems to be a long, non-comprehensive list. It is already covered by principles in the land use strategy. The other amendments 1, 4 and 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 8 would appear to duplicate existing legislation. Ministers already have a biodiversity duty under the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004. I will await the debate around that. I now call on Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 122 and any other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. Amendment 122 intends to ensure Scotland's wealth of forestry expertise is preserved in the new devolved arrangements, specifically in the preparation or revision of the forestry strategy. The bill currently requires members, of course, to consult persons considered appropriate, whereas my amendment lists specific requirements for those to be consulted with. I appreciate the earlier comments that lists have their dangers, but it is important to highlight those particular areas. A sustainable forest industry can deliver multiple environmental, social and economic benefits for the public good. Indeed, that is sustainable development. To truly unlock those benefits, our forests need to be managed with an integrated and sustainable approach. Stakeholders from the forest industries and community and environment groups have shared their concerns that rearranging the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland could lead to a loss of forestry focus and expertise. The existing arrangements allow for resource and knowledge sharing and close working relationship with those on the forest floor. It would be a great loss if the joined-up approach and vital expertise were lessened by the forestry and land management devolution, particularly in those sectors that are so important to climate change, biodiversity, economy and communities. Amendment 122 requires ministers in the preparation or revision of the forestry strategy to consult with those with knowledge of social economic development and the other points that I have made. I would also make the point that the land use strategy does not actually, as I understand it, have a statutory situation. I would also like to speak to amendments 4 and 1, 2 and 3, which I have put separately so that one or other could be supported, depending on the views. Section 4 states in preparation of the forestry strategy that Scottish ministers must A, consult with such persons as they consider appropriate, and B, have regard to the land use strategy and land rights and responsibilities statement. The two policies that are mentioned should certainly be included in the exercise, however the list is not in my view complete and there are other important policies that are relevant to the forest strategy that should be included here. Those amendments are needed to ensure that biodiversity and deer management to essential components, in my view, of achieving sustainable forest management, are recognised on the face of the bill. I am not going to go into the details of where they are also referred to in other acts, but I want to reiterate that, particularly, the amendment addresses one of the points made in the bill by my own committee in its letter to this committee at stage 1, in which I quote, we state that the committee is unclear as to what degree wider policy objectives, including those related to biodiversity, deer management and climate change, are reflected in the bill and, in particular, are to be taken into account in the preparation of the forest strategy. The committee also considers that there is merit in including the need to have regard to biodiversity and deer management requirements on the face of the bill. Finally, your own committee in its stage 1 report states, the committee believes the strong links between forestry and policy areas, and I will not quote them all, but they are listed there. Biodiversity is listed, but I must point out not deer management in the case of your own committee, but it does note that the Scottish Government's awareness of its existing statutory commitments. However, it is clear that stakeholders are seeking reassurance, and the need for this policy integration will be clear and unambiguous and that there will be a requirement for it to be delivered. I thank members and the Cabinet Secretary for listening to the points I've made, and I would also like to support Rhoda Grant's amendments, and coming as I do from the Eclare Committee, I will most certainly want to be supporting the climate change amendment, but the others as well. I think Rhoda Grant's point of MSSO is well made about as we head towards the Brexit situation, but it is important that we recognise other international agreements and tie ourselves to those in our important forestry sector. I now call on John Finnie to speak to amendment 130 and any other amendments in the group. It is about the preparation of the forest strategy contained in section 4 and the relationship of the bill to overarching policy objectives, suggesting a reporting period of three years. Section 4 states that in preparing the forest strategy, the Scottish Minister must a. consult such persons as they consider appropriate and b. have regard to the land use strategy and the land rights and responsibility statement. With two policies mentioned, they should certainly be included in the exercise, but that is not a complete list in my view. Other very important policies are relevant to the forest strategy issue, which should be included. Having listened to my colleague and dear friend, Claudia, I speak earlier. We have a very similar view on what is important here, but I will not repeat many of the things that she said. I will say that the amendment is needed to ensure biodiversity and deer management to essential components in achieving sustainable forest management that are recognised on the face of the bill. That will ensure that the forest strategy contributes to the delivery of public policy objectives in those two areas. The subsection should include references to the strategy that the Scottish Minister is required to designate the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy under section 2 of the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004 and the Code of Practice and Deer Management, which S&H is required to prepare and keep under review in accordance with section 5A of the Deer Scotland Act 1996. Indeed, the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004 requires all public bodies to have regard to the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. That strategy recognises the importance of native woodland for Scottish biodiversity and sets ambitious native woodland planting targets in the strategy's route map. There is a voluntary code of practice in deer management, and that place is a responsibility on all land managers to manage wild deer, which are highly pertinent to what we are discussing. Deer live in woods and deer eat trees is highly pertinent and aims to integrate deer management with other land use objectives such as woodland creation and the regeneration targets. In the code, the concept of responsible deer management focuses on three things—managing deer as a resource, sustainably, minimising negative deer impacts on public interests and safeguarding deer welfare. I also was going to quote from Claudia's Committee's report, the Clear Report. I won't, I think, it's a highly pertinent reference. Our own report at stage 1 did comment on the strong links between forestry and policy areas such as land use, planning, community empowerment and climate change. Moving to the other amendments in the group, I was prepared to wait and hear what colleagues Peter Chapman and Rhoda Grant said. I certainly favour Rhoda Grant's position and will be supporting that, likewise Fulton MacGregor's. As regards Claudia Beamish's amendments, I again will be supporting those. Whoever commented that it was restrictive quite the reverse. If you prepare a list that you say in particular, that's not an exclusive list, and I'm quite sure that Claudia Beamish would anticipate the fullest consultation on those issues. I'm going to call some other members to speak. I just want to make it clear that, just because you've spoken already, it doesn't mean that you can't come back in if there's a point that, if you were at the beginning of the debate or halfway through, you can't come back in, so it shouldn't be restrictive if you've already spoken. That is not an excuse to allow everyone then to repeat their arguments, please, but first of all, Stuart. Turning to the leader amendment, Peter Chapman's number nine, the idea that you can only undertake scrutiny if you make this amendment is an entirely false one. Indeed, putting that in here allows ministers off the hook because it gives to them the responsibility to do scrutiny, whereas Parliament should be the one who decides timetables and scrutiny. In other words, if, after 18 months, it's the right time to do scrutiny and Parliament thinks that or a committee thinks that, then it should do the scrutiny and it should be in control of that, but if we say it's five years and 10 years, it's just a nuanced issue. I'm not saying it's a principled issue, but I think that scrutiny should be in the control of Parliament rather than putting it in quite the way that Peter Chapman does. Having said that, I think that amendment 130 from John Finnie, because we have a choice of approaches here in the amendments in the group, offers the best of the bunch. Although I have a wee difficulty with section 3A, which starts the period when the bill receives royal assent, I suspect that we might have to look at that stage 3 if we've passed this, because I think that it's more likely that the right time would be either at commencement or when the strategy is adopted at the three-year clock, but that's a detail that can be dealt with at a later date. Claudia Beamish's 1-2-2 perfectly illustrates the danger of lists in primary legislation, not against lists in secondary legislation, where you can change them very rapidly as needs require. For example, it doesn't include in the list the use of forests for public good. I accept that it says consult in particular, but the moment you produce a list and say in particular, you demote all other ways in which you might consult to a lesser level than those you choose to put in the list. I just don't like lists in broad principle in primary legislation, while having no objection to them in secondary legislation, where they can be amended quickly as required. I'll leave 127 for the moment. Down to 126. Those are all matters that already bind us as the UK's signatories to the protocols or, alternatively, they are part of our legislative framework in 4 and 1-2-3. Once you start to stick in the manner of a list, you demote by implication things that you choose not to put in there. I have less objection to 127. I think that there is some merit in that. Number 17, the construction of the amendment at paragraph B has a serious flaw. It says that any representation is received as a result of the consultation that the Government has published. That appears to remove the right of people who wish to submit a representation without their details being published. That would require the Government to publish such things. Just in the construction of it, there is a technical flaw that would mean that I could not readily support amendment 17. I think that we are given alternative approaches to revision reporting here. I much prefer Peter's amendments 9 and 10 to the others. If I could say so, I do not agree with my colleague Stuart Stevenson on the point that Peter's section amendment 9 lets the Government off the hook. It does precisely the opposite. The amendment that Peter has put forward, as I read it, is giving Parliament the authority. It is doing exactly the opposite of what Stuart is suggesting, because I have heard what you have said and I am contradicting you. I do not believe that you are correct. What we are doing in Parliament, as a committee of Parliament, is instructing the Government or requiring the Government. I may be instructing is too strong a word, but requiring the Government to come back and do this. I am sure that the Government thinks that this should be appropriate. I cannot see what the problem with it is, because I think that with amendment 9 and 10 it is giving the Government greater time to do this, but it is putting into legislation the requirement to do it. This is Parliament being in charge and not the Government, so I entirely disagree with the position taken by Stuart. I agree that, with Fulton's amendment 121, I think that this amendment is a good practice on consultation. I am certainly happy to support Fulton's amendment 121. On the others, I am afraid—I cannot support them on the grounds that we have a situation in which we have taken the forestry bill through, we have called for evidence, and we have taken evidence on the whole bill. Where have we taken evidence on the voluntary code of practice on deer management? We have spent a great deal of time in stage 1 going through all of this, and then suddenly we have an amendment thrown at us that talks about the code of practice of is-a-will. I am grateful for the member for taking intervention. Would the member accept that this piece of legislation will not stand in splendid isolation from other pieces of legislation in quotes? Thank you. That is exactly my point. It is not necessary to have it here. That is entirely the point that I am making, and I am glad that John Finnie supports my point of view. I think that I have been comprehensive enough, and I will close at that point. Thank you. Well, Jamie was next, and then, Chloe, I will come back to you if I may. Thank you, convener. If I may just speak very briefly to amendments 9 and 10. My understanding is that there is quite acceptable precedence in five-year, 10-year reviews and refreshers. I do believe that this is very similar to the language that we are using in another bill, which the committee is considering, during the island's bill. That seems to be quite acceptable to the Government that the five- and 10-year timeframes are quite adequate for Parliament to scrutinise the strategy. On point, amendment 10, from speaking to industry stakeholders who had initial concerns about the overarching rationale behind the act and the integration of the First Commission into Scottish Government departments, they feel that an annual report is quite a vital part of the on-going governance of the strategy. Indeed, it would be prudent for the Government to report an annual basis, including financial reporting, as they are currently used to from the Forestry Commission. The amendment would ensure that that is on-going and that that would not slip in any way from the status quo. That is my comments on those amendments. Thank you, Claudia. You wanted to come in. It was just in response to Member Stewart Stevenson's point about, in particular, persons with experience and knowledge of. It may be that it might be more appropriate for me to consider withdrawing the amendment at this stage and using the word including rather than in particular. I am listening to that point that the member has raised. I would also like to highlight the issue of why it is unacceptable to have any list added to in relation to both Rhoda Grant's amendments and my own, in that we already have in section 4B have regard to land use strategy and the land rights and responsibility statement. We already have a precedent within the bill, on the face of the bill, for putting important strategies and declarations in there. I just raised that point. In relation to Mike Rumble's comment, a dear management was highlighted by the Eclair committee in our letter at stage 1. I had attended a number of the meetings of this committee. I also raised it and highlighted it in the stage 1 debate. It has been highlighted before, so I will just make that point. Another interesting discussion that even contains moments of entertainment, which is something that is not always present in stage 2 debates of my experience. I am grateful to all members and to Claudia Beamish, Peter Chapman, Rhoda Grant, Fulton McGregor and John Finnie for lodging those amendments. I support the intentions of a number of them. I am pleased with the cross-party support for the development of the forestry strategy. It is heartening that there is strong agreement on all sides that the strategy needs to reflect the broad-based, multifunctional nature of Scotland's forests and woodlands. I emphasised that I am committed to working with all parties to develop and improve the part of the bill. Before I turn to address specific amendments, I wanted to reflect that, by its very nature, the completion of devolution of forestry will result in enhanced levels of scrutiny of forestry by the Scottish Parliament. That is something of which we should not lose sight and something to be welcomed and borne in mind when framing the legislation on the strategy. I also observed the processes for publishing, reviewing and scrutinising the forestry strategy must be proportionate and enabling. I believe that we must avoid putting into law requirements that ultimately may impede the publication of the strategy or place barriers in the way of revision. I know that that is something that the sector has expressed reservations about. Amendments 9 and 15 are perhaps alternative, convener, and they deal with the review and refresh of the forestry strategy. In considering those, I would ask members to note two important points and perhaps refer to the wording of section 3 of the bill, which will be before members. Section 3, subsection 4, already requires the Scottish ministers to keep the forestry strategy under review and states that they may, if they consider it appropriate, revise the strategy. Thus far, that is contained within the bill as it stands. Secondly, as I said to the committee, during stage 1, I am mindful that the forestry sector depends on a long-term, stable policy environment. That is important to ensure that the on-going investment, which I believe that we all recognise, is required. It is therefore vital that the review cycle for the strategy is of appropriate length. I believe that fixing the strategy into a five-yearly review cycle is not sufficiently long-term. It is shorter than the current CAP cycle of seven years. I would comment in passing that that fact that discontinuity has proven to be a problem for sustaining consistent forestry activity. However, I am committed to making sure that the strategy remains up-to-date and relevant. Therefore, I would ask members not to press these two amendments as drafted. On the basis that I commit to coming back at stage 3 with an amendment that sets out an appropriate review cycle and revision cycle of no more than 10 years. Now, perhaps I would point out, convener, what members will I suspect know very well, that, as well as forestry being a long-term process, the period from planting to maturation, even if the tree, the species that grows most quickly, is 40 years, and can be up to 80 years or longer in different species. We are talking of 40 to 80 years, a long, long-term business. If there was to be a strategy review every five years, then even taking the fastest growing species, which I believe, although I am an expert to be sick of spruce, that would mean that there would be eight strategy reviews between planting and maturation. Is that consistent with the approaches that I believe we wish to take? Yes, I certainly will. I just finished the point. We are talking here about five years versus a longer period of up to 10 years, and it is a five-year period of sufficient length. I would suggest with great respect that, because we are talking unusually about a very long-term process, the statutory requirement for review should not be embedded in the legislation. However, I want to make a further point that this Parliament is sovereign over the Scottish Government. This Parliament, at any time when this bill is passed and becomes law, can require the Government to review the strategy. In the circumstances where a review, of course, was necessary, I would fully expect that members would be scrutinising this Government and demanding a strategy review. I wanted to point that matter out, although Mr Rumbles did make the point well earlier. Mr Greene, if he wants to intervene, can be happy to do so. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention. Would he not accept, though, that review of the strategy does not necessarily interpret a complete overall of the strategy? Indeed, it would not be prudent to have that five-year refresh. Would it not seem appropriate that Parliament, and indeed the public, should be afforded at least one's review within a parliamentary cycle, given that they are five years, and that we would expect of the Government within a five-year parliamentary cycle at least one review of the strategy in whichever form that review takes? Not really. As I say, this Parliament and future Parliaments can always require the Parliament to do things. Indeed, the Parliament has done so in the field of rural affairs by requiring the Government to do things. I hope that we have acted on that, for example the National Committee of Rural Advisers. We do not always make every member absolutely happy about the outcomes, but we did act following Parliament. That is just one example. Parliament can require a review. What I am saying is that this should not be set in the law as something that must be done within a period that, for forestry, has been such a long-term nature five years, I believe, too short. However, I want to emphasise that, if the authors of amendments 9 and 15 accept my commitment to work with them and to come back at stage 3 with an amendment that sets out an appropriate review cycle and revision cycle of no more than 10 years, I would be happy to work with them on the basis that they do not oppress their amendments today. I recognise that appropriate consultation is fundamental to developing, reviewing and revising the strategy. Of course it is, and that is the approach. I think that it is fair to say that the Government takes in respect of all its policy formulation. However, to be appropriate, that needs to reflect the needs of the time and not include partial lists that risk becoming rapidly out of date. I think that Mr Stevenson did a given example of a type of potential consultee that was not included in this list. Although Ms Beamish may say that the reference is to consult in particular, so she would say that that does not exclude the consultation of others to be fair to her. I think that the more fundamental objection—I mean, the Government is not in favour of long exclusive lists in primary legislation because they can date quite quickly and fail to draw in relevant matters. Perhaps an even more telling objection is to look at the particular wording that says that the Scottish Government would consult in particular persons with experience or knowledge of various things. That then, convener, imports the duty on the Scottish Government to carry out some form of process to ascertain who does and who does not possess experience or knowledge. That, I suspect, would be a highly contentious process. It would involve subjective judgments to be made. Inevitably, those would be controversial. I see no easy way of deciding myself who has knowledge and who does not. Indeed, the process of judging someone to have no experience or no knowledge or insufficient experience or insufficient knowledge would, I think, be a somewhat odious one and not one that any Government could easily or readily perform without a great deal of difficulty and controversy. I am sure that this is not a matter which Claudia Beamish, with respect to her, would at all wish to occur, but I hope that, having made the point, members can see that it is a common sense one pointing to an infallicity, a technical infallicity and draftsmanship. I would respectfully therefore ask Claudia Beamish not to press amendment 122 and instead ask members to support amendment 121. In the name of Mr McGregor, which I think Mr Rumbles pointed out, is in the normal customary form that imports the duty to consult fairly widely. I must say, I am not particularly aware of any cases where the Scottish Government has been accused of failing to consult the right people in consultations, although, of course, if I am wrong, no doubt I will hear about that. On amendment 128, I do not believe that it is helpful to list a specific singular group of stakeholders, and I believe that amendment covers the same ground as the duty in section 4, which is to have regard to the land use strategy, which contains a specific principle that people should have opportunities to contribute to decisions about land use decisions that affect their lives and their future. Therefore, I ask members not to press amendments 4, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, 2, 5, 1, 2, 6, 1, 2, 7, 1, 2, 8 and accept a commitment that the Government will return at stage 3 with an amendment that delivers the improved policy alignment that members wish to see without creating a long and exclusive list on the face of the bill. On amendment 16 and 17, on the important question of parliamentary scrutiny, I fully support the principle of appropriate scrutiny and oversight of the Scottish Forestry Strategy, but I believe that the process and timescales outlined are disproportionate given the scope and scale of the strategy. That appears to be the same process that is required for the climate change bill, which is a much larger, complex and multi-sectoral document. I would suggest that there may be alternative, more proportionate approaches that would meet Parliament's desire for scrutiny whilst ensuring sufficient time for the crucial processes of completing the strategy before 1 April 2019. I agree that the process that is laid out in amendment 17 for laying an explanatory document represents good practice and therefore I ask Rhoda Grant not to press these amendments and to offer to bring forward a Government amendment at stage 3 that lays out an appropriate process for parliamentary oversight of the Forestry Strategy. Finally, on amendments 10 and 130 on the issue of reports, I believe that a three-yearly reporting cycle is an appropriate term to update parliaments on progress with the implementation of the strategy as that reflects the slowly changing nature of forestry. I support amendment 130 in the name of John Finnie, but I would like to bring forward an amendment at stage 3 to ensure that the reporting cycle starts once a strategy has been published. I will also consider how the requirement for a three-yearly reporting cycle should inform the amendments that I offer at stage 3 on reviewing the strategy and parliamentary scrutiny of it. As I indicated earlier, I offered to work with all parties on the sections of the bill. In conclusion, convener, in consequence of my support for John Finnie's amendment 130, I respectfully ask Peter Chapman not to press amendment 10, which proposes annual reports, recognising that the key forestry statistics, such as the area of new woodland that is created, will continue to be published annually as national statistics, and Forest and Land Scotland, which will replace forest enterprise as an agency, will produce annual reports as forest enterprise has, so those annual reports will continue, although they will be provided by the new agency, Forest and Land Scotland. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am now going to ask Peter Chapman to wind up and press all with draw amendment 9. I think that I need to progress and press amendment 9. It is absolutely important that there is a review every five years. The Parliament lasts for five years. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary has told us about the lifetime of a tree, and it is considerably more than five years. I accept that, but we are not speaking about the lifetime of a tree. We are speaking more about the lifetime of a Parliament here, and that can change radically in a five-year period. I believe that it is correct and right that the strategy does have a review every five years. I am grateful for the support from Mike Rumbles and Jamie Greene in what they said in support of what my amendment wishes to achieve. I think that it is important that that clarity is in there, and that any new Parliament gets an opportunity to have a look at the strategy, and then every 10 years it is refreshed. I move that amendment in my name. As regards amendment 10, I hear what the cabinet secretary has to say about annual reports. I think that an annual report is quite a normal procedure for any organisation. Most organisations do produce an annual report, and I think that it is important that there is that layer of transparency. I again would move that we accept my amendment 10, and with that I will leave it there, convener. The question therefore is that amendment 9 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendment 9 to raise their hands, please? Those against amendment 9. Any abstentions? There are four votes, four, six against one abstention, and therefore amendment 9 is not carried. I call amendment 15 in the name of Rhoda Grant, who is already debated with amendment 9. Rhoda Grant, to move or not to move? Given the cabinet secretary's comments, I will not move at this stage. Is there any other member? No, I do not need to do that. I just move straight on to ask the question, is section 3 agreed? Are we all agreed? Good. I call amendment 121 in the name of Fulton McGregor, who is already debated with amendment 9. Fulton McGregor, to move or not to move? The question is that amendment 121 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. I call a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, and there are no abstentions, so there are eight votes, four, three votes against, therefore amendment 121 is agreed. I call amendment 122 in the name of Claudia Beemish, who is already debated with amendment 9. Claudia Beemish, to move or not to move? In view of the points raised by the cabinet secretary and also Stevenson at this stage, I will withdraw the amendment, but I will consider possibly in dialogue with the cabinet secretary, whether it is indeed on the face of the bill or elsewhere, bringing this back at stage 3, because I do think that there has been a considerable amount of stakeholder concern on this issue, and so I withdraw at this stage. In relation to, I'll wait, sorry. Okay, if you can wait and just confirm to me you are not moving the amendment, I understand the word withdraw for procedure, it means to be not moved, therefore I call amendment 4 in the name of Claudia Beemish, who is already debated with amendment 9. Claudia Beemish, to move or not move? In view, convener, of the cabinet secretary's points made, I will withdraw at this stage and would be happy if it's appropriate to have further discussion, so I'm not moving that amendment. Thank you. Therefore, I call amendment 123 in the name of Claudia Beemish, who is already debated with amendment 9. Claudia Beemish, to move or not move? I'm not going to move, convener. I do think that in recognition of the serious concerns on dear management that I would also like to have some assurance that it might be possible to discuss this further in relation to the forest bill. Thank you. Thank you. Therefore, I move on to amendment 124 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 9. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. Therefore, I call amendment 125 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 9. Rhoda Grant, move or not move? Not move. Okay. I call amendment 126 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 9. 9. Rhoda Grant, move or not move? Not move. Fine. I call amendment 127 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 9. Rhoda Grant, move or not move? Not move. Okay. I call amendment 128 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 9. Rhoda Grant, move or not move? Not move. Ond y front ohono i chi talw'r raw Ghost youne dechtwnod mydd a'r norwedd astudio ond am eu hunain.ín na'r find gonfodoliad, rai hynna a'i gwelir ar hynny yng Nghar sóloch yn rhaniaeth, faswyl o'r axial Copaloib, yn f тебя factory, o'r gfin spinning for유 o rhaentplaydiad ei cyfaidEN, a'r G Spider slang o gwelir rhaentlaeth. mae'n ddflennwch o ran ar gael, and yn ddflennwch i'r awdrif. Rwy'n meddwl fel cwestiynau anghyrau, fynd i ddflennwch i gael elfrannu, a yna maen nhw geisgolfa ar gyfer mae Ysgrifffordd, Maen nhw'n rhoi teaseb o aesio am y dda, mae'n goshodio iawn i ddflennwch aesio mewn gwriadfa mewn ddflennwch. Mae'n rhoi i gael eich ddflennwch, mae만 eich ddflennwch aesio mewn gwir, mae eu ddflennwch yn meddwl 39 a dyswodafolau rydych chi'n pwyntiadau cymaint, tynnu amserodag i ddwynebol 18 ac yn ddwynebol i ddwynebol. Maes yn gawr. Rydw i'r ddweud o tynnu amserodag oedd yn ddwynebol i'r cyfrifiadau a pharolomethau. Tegwcwydden ymddir o'r cadw oedden nhw'n cymaint i gyffredigol o dydd y bîl o gweithredu o hyd o gair. dros i bob, Clarity oedd iawn ar y llythfawr yng Nghymru nid yn y clywed i grfaith ynghylch sennod lleoedd cymrydol cysyllt yn dweud â byrgyll yn cymrydol, ac yr ynghylch dechrau yn cynghylch yn y cysyllt yn dweud â'n cyd-13 o gyfwylol yn cyfyrdd yn gyfrifio ar gyrsedd cysyllt yn gyfrifio gydael. Rwyf i'n oedda'n gyfer y censyr i gynnwys i gyfrydol i'w myfyrdd gondol ar y cysyllt yn cyrfflybiol yng Nghymru. I'm pleased to lodge amendments that address the issues raised and have been welcomed by the forestry sector as providing helpful clarification. In response to questions about how land to be managed under each duty would be identified, my amendments introduced a simple determining characteristic upon which the decision will be made, namely, land that is forested must be managed under the section 9 duty for sustainable forestry management. That land that is not forested will be managed under section 13 duty to further sustainable development. Amendments 24 to 26, 27 to 31 acknowledge this change and reframe the section 9 duty to apply to forested land rather than forestry land. As amended, section 10 will define forested land to include both land in the national forest estate that is forested and land that is otherwise owned or managed by Scottish ministers and forested. Taken together, the effect is that all forested land owned or managed by Scottish ministers will be managed under the section 9 duty in accordance with sustainable forest management. For the purposes of the bill, forested includes land undergoing a forestation. The bill has introduced, identifies the power for ministers to manage forestry land for the purposes of sustainable development. That provided the ability to move land between the forestry land management duty and the sustainable development land management duty. Due to the introduction of forested as the characteristic of the land that will determine the duty, that power is no longer needed and is removed from the bill by amendment 26. I have explained that section 10 as amended will define forested land to include the forested parts of the national forest estate. Amendment 38 specifies that the non-forested parts of the NFE are to be managed under the section 13 duty to further sustainable development with other non-forested land. I know that some stakeholders had concerns that the bill has introduced implied that all of the national forest estate was forested and that labelling it as forestry land was misleading. I hope that this approach, which recognises the nature of the estate as one-third open land, lays that concern. The division of the NFE between the two land management duties will be achieved by the allocation of management blocks to each duty based on the detailed inventory held by Forest Enterprise Scotland. The inventory covers the entire estate and includes information on what land is forested and not forested. New acquisitions of land and land management on behalf of other people under section 14 of the bill will be allocated based on the same basis, according to whether they are forested or non-forested. The definition of the national forest estate in the bill is amended in consequence of the changes to section 10 and 13. New acquisitions of land, if forested, will automatically come under the section 9 duty and do not need to be labelled as NFE to do so. For this reason, the definition of the NFE in the bill is amended to simply mean the land in Scotland currently under management by the forestry commissioners that will transfer to Scottish ministers on devolution. The definition at section 11 is further amended so that only land that remains in the ownership of ministers is included. That is to ensure that the land management duties cease if ownership changes. Amendments 18 to 22 make consequential amendments to section 6 of the bill, which places duties on ministers to have regard to the forestry strategy when performing certain functions. The effect of those is to require ministers to have regard to the strategy when managing forested land, acquiring land under the bill and disposing of forested land. I hope that members will consider that those amendments provide the clarity that was sought around the operation of the land management powers in the bill and I would encourage members to support them. I move amendment 18. There are no members who wish to speak on this, so Cabinet Secretary, as you have moved amendment 18, I am going to put a question to the committee. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. It is agreed. Therefore, I am proposing to call amendments 19, 20 and 21 all in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and as previously debated. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move amendments 19 to 21 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 19 to 21? Yes, I object. I am going to put a question on each of the amendments individually. The first question is that amendment 19, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, is agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. No. We are not agreed. I call a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against? Three. No abstention. That is eight votes, four, three votes against. Therefore, I move on to amendment 20 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. I call a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Any abstentions? No. There are eight votes in favour, three votes against. I call amendment 21 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I move on to the next grouping disposals of land and compulsory purchase. I am going to call the amendment 2 in the name of Mike Rumbles, grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. I must remind members that if amendment 38 from group land managed by Scottish ministers is agreed, I cannot call amendment 39 in this group. I must further point out that if amendment 41 is agreed, I cannot call amendment 42. Mike Rumbles, please move amendment 2 and speak to that amendment and the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 2 before I forget to do so. I would just like to thank the minister for accepting my first amendment in the spirit that it was lodged. Amendments 2 and 3 are simply consequential amendments, and if I am not going to spend a great deal of time on them, I hope that the minister will accept that and members of the committee will accept that. It does not really, because we have accepted amendment 1, I think that it is logical to accept amendments 2 and 3. I would like to spend my time, however, focusing on the other amendments, which are actually the one controversial, I really think the one from my personal view, the one controversial issue in the whole of the bill. In stage 1, we took a great deal of evidence on the proposal to transfer compulsory purchase of land from the 67 bill to this bill. In our report, we focused on that, and we did not think that while we thought that it was fine to transfer those powers, we did not think that it was fine to enhance the powers. In the division, the majority of the committee voted to make that clear in the stage 1 report. I was rather hopeful that the minister might have taken that on board, and I was rather hopeful that the minister might have brought forward the amendments to do this. He obviously has not done so, and the actual amendments 39, 6 and 42, which are the key amendments to this, have been brought forward by Peter Chapman. This reflects the view that we took in a majority vote at stage 1, and here we are again now at stage 2. One would hope that the members of the committee who voted this way in stage 1 would vote the same way now in stage 2. I cannot think what has changed unless there is guidance being given to members from various sources to suggest that they change their minds. I am hopeful that members of the committee are stronger than that. I think that you will have a moment to speak, John, if you want to speak. I do not want to say the need to intervene on me, I am just trying to make a point. I do well remember when I took in the first Parliament, my first stage 2 debate, I had an envelope passed to me with guidance from the Government. The Executive, as we called it at the time, I did not even read it, I just put it in the envelope, wrote the minister's name back on the envelope and handed it back. I think that we would have a job in this committee, in Parliament, to look at the evidence, examine the evidence and make our own minds up in the committee. I am very confident that members of this committee have the strength of character to do the right thing and I would end on that point. I am now going to move to Peter Chapman to speak to amendment 39 and other amendments in the group. I would ask if we could follow this, just so that we get through. You will get a chance to speak if you want to. Peter Chapman spoke to amendment 39 and other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. I would like to speak to amendment 39 and amendment 6 in my name. This is a very important part. To me, to my mind, this is a red-line area here, that this is about compulsory purchase powers and the proposal to increase compulsory purchase powers to allow purchase for sustainable development. I am very strongly against adding extra powers under compulsory purchase powers rules. We are content to roll over the powers that exist in the 67 act because we do agree that in certain circumstances compulsory powers may be necessary. To extend those compulsory purchase powers to include sustainable development, I think it opens it far too wide. It gives ministers far too much power and I think it is completely unnecessary. We need to reflect on the fact that although there are compulsory powers in the existing 67 act, in the 50 years that they have been there, they have never actually been used. To think that it is necessary to increase and widen those powers, I cannot understand the thinking behind that. I think that this is an absolutely important part that we need to amend so I would hope that I can receive support for those two amendments. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to speak to amendment 40 and other amendments in the group? Yes, there we are. I will deal first with the amendments relating to the disposal of land before turning to those on compulsory purchase. Amendment 41, in my name, flows from the Government amendments on management of land by Scottish ministers. The effect of those amendments was to change the definitions of forested land at section 10 and the national forest estate at section 11. Section 17 of the bill deals with disposals of land. The purpose of amendment 41 is to reframe section 17 to ensure that ministers may dispose not only of land in the national forest estate but also other forested land that they own that is not part of the estate. For example, forested land is acquired under the bill. Further amendment 41 amends section 17 so that ministers may dispose of non-forested land that they have acquired under the bill. Turning to amendments 2 and 3, I understand from Mr Rumbles that those are consequential to his amendment 1. I supported that amendment, therefore it follows that I support those amendments 2. I note, however, that, before stage 3, I would like to take a look at the potential interaction between those amendments and the Government's own amendments relating to land management in case there are any unintended consequences that need to be addressed. I think that Mr Rumbles would expect to appreciate that as a necessary process. Turning to amendments 12 and 12A in Mr Finnie's name and amendment 12A in Mr Greene's name, those are both about the hypothecation of funds relating to disposals of land on the national forest estate. Mr Finnie's amendment seeks to use funds from the disposal of land solely for the purposes and functions set out in the bill. Mr Greene's amendment goes even further restricting the use of the funds to buy land for forestry and not for any other functions. I understand the intention behind the amendments, but I do not think that it is necessary to set them out in primary legislation. I believe that there are other more appropriate mechanisms for examining the Government policy on disposals. As the committee has recognised, it is already current practice for forest enterprise to reinvest income in the national forest estate, enabling reconfiguration of the estate to meet strategic priorities, including new woodland creation. I would point out also that there is also investment in other non-forestry purposes such as recreation, such as tourism, such as the provision of services for people with mental health issues. Therefore, restricting things simply to forestry would be unduly restricting, and perhaps not what Mr Greene may have intended. The Forest Enterprise Scotland's existing framework document already sets out the policy on disposals and acquisitions and the criteria for selection of land that is put up for sale. Following the committee's recommendation at stage 1 and Mr Rumble's amendment 1, I intend that the overarching principles for disposals shall be set out in the Scottish forestry strategy with further information in forestry and land Scotland's framework document and corporate plan. That is similar to Forest Enterprise Scotland's existing corporate documentation. As the forestry strategy and the new agency's corporate plan will be subject to public consultation, I believe that that should provide sufficient reassurance that there will be appropriate scrutiny of the Government's intentions on disposals. In addition to those points, I am concerned that both amendments would unreasonably or artificially constrain the Scottish Government's ability and scope to make judgments about the overall management of the nation's public finances, judgments that are rightly subject to parliamentary scrutiny on a regular basis. In a widely recognised approach to the management of Government budgets, it is appropriate to retain the flexibility to deploy surplices for other priorities, just as it may be necessary to allocate budget from elsewhere if the agency were subject to unpredicted financial pressures. It works both ways, but the flexibility that I submit to the convener is the key. I therefore ask Mr Finney and Mr Greene not to press those amendments. We turn now to compulsory purchase powers. I want to state again, convener, that there is absolutely nothing unusual in having those powers. CPO is part of the statutory landscape in Scotland and indeed in Britain. Powers are held by a number of public bodies for a variety of purposes. In fact, due to the diligence of my officials, I know of 20 acts of Parliament that include the powers in Scotland. Of those, I note that around one-half were actually passed by a Conservative administration. I have here a little list which includes compulsory purchase powers that were set out by Conservative administrations under Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major. I have not noted land reform campaigners so far as I recall. In the Crofter Scotland Act 1993, the Education Scotland Act 1980, the Electricity Act 1989, the Enterprise and New Towns Act 1990, the Housing Scotland Act 87, the Housing Associations Act 1985 and the Environment Act 1995 may have missed out a few years, so I apologise for that in felicity. The point that I am making is a serious one, that the creation of these powers is a routine, ordinary, work-a-day aspect in the establishment of legislation. It is no more than that. I think that members will recall the evidence that was given, I believe, by Simon Hodge at stage one, that these powers in respect of forestry, convener, were set out in the 1967 act and over the ensuing 50 years they have been used on zero locations. I know that the controversy is not in relation to forestry but with the land management issue, but I would suggest that the arguments that I have set out that this is a routine matter, routinely deployed by Governments of all hues in nature, and it should be seen as that rather than any desire in my part to start to act in a dictatorial fashion. I can assure you that I have no intention of that and I can't imagine that that would be part of any ministerial actions. It may be helpful if I set out the scope of the proposed power. Section 16 1b, as read with section 13, provides that Scottish ministers may compulsorily acquire land that they require to exercise their duty to manage land for the purpose of furthering the achievement of sustainable development. Government amendment 38 has clarified that the land referred to includes land in the national forest estate, which is not forested, as well as other non-forested land, which Scottish ministers have acquired or otherwise agreed to manage under the powers of this bill. The proposed section 16 1b power does not give ministers powers to compulsorily purchase land to address issues of sustainable land management, where there is no connection to land already managed under the duty at section 13 of the bill. That is an important point. Ministers will only be able to use the proposed power to purchase land when that land is required for ministers to exercise an existing land management function under this bill. I have set out the technicalities to indicate that the provisions, the precise wording of the powers are set out to constrain the potential exercise of the power in an appropriate fashion. That power has been provided to support the new duties placed on ministers by section 13 of this bill to manage non-forested land for the purpose of furthering the achievement of sustainable development. Around one third of the national forest estate is non-forested land and will be managed under the section 13 duty. The duties being placed on ministers in relation to this land are new. It is prudent, I believe, to take a CPO power that can support ministers to fulfil this duty for precisely the same reasons that I think committee members accepted that it is appropriate to have the power in respect of forest land. Namely, the power exists as a backstop to ensure that negotiations over, for example, a ransom strip can successfully be brought to a conclusion. I remember Mr Mason at the previous stage making this very point in justification of the conferral of those powers. Non-forest land in the estate is diverse and includes bogs, open mountain and farmland. Managing this land to further sustainable development will require ministers to consider a range of social, economic and environmental outcomes. It is not possible to say here what exactly those may be, convener, and how that may affect any particular piece of land. There may be issues with access to a site management of a particular ecosystem or unlocking a piece of land's economic potential. It is prudent to retain a power that can support the specific duty that I have set out relates to land in respect of which Scottish ministers will be exercising land management duties. It is not intended to allow ministers to intervene in other situations. It is also important to recognise the robust processes to which compulsory purchase powers are subject. The procedure for using the majority of CP powers is in the Acquisition of Land Authorisation Procedure Scotland Act of 1947. The bill provides for the use of this procedure for both of the section 16 compulsory purchase powers. That ensures that the process under the bill follows that for other compulsory purchase powers. The exercise of compulsory purchase requires public notice of the intent to purchase and notices to be made to owners, lessees and occupiers. There is accordingly the opportunity for objections to be made. A local inquiry can be held if necessary, which will weigh the public benefit of the order against the private interests of those with an interest in land. Ultimately, a challenge can be made to the Court of Session. That is therefore a robust process that no acquiring authority, including the Scottish ministers convener, would ever embark upon lightly. On CPO more generally, we recognise the process itself can be improved and modernised. The Scottish Government is working on this separately in advance of legislation, including reviewing the current framework for preparing, confirming and implementing orders. We are drafting updated guidance for acquiring authorities and will be preparing updated and improved guidance for landowners to improve transparency and confidence in the existing system. In the light of the points that I have made about the scope of the power and the robustness of the compulsory purchase process, I would respectfully ask Mr Chapman to consider withdrawing his... Yes, I will. Is the cabinet secretary able to confirm that the crickledown rules will continue to apply to compulsory purchases made under the headings, whereby if the land acquired by the Government for a particular purpose is not used for that purpose, it must be returned to the original owner? Apparently, the answer is yes. I am happy to provide that confirmation. I hope that the additional information that I have pointed out in what has been, I am afraid, a rather long contribution, the additional information and the additional arguments and the setting out of the whole backdrop and the checks and balances that exist will allow members to reach the decision that the Government can be supported under. Turning to amendment 40 in my name that clarifies that the powers of compulsory purchase in the bill include the power to acquire rights and interests in and over land. This flexibility enables rights to be taken that fall short of outright ownership of the land, for example a servitude right of vehicular access. This allows the creation of new rights and interests so far as reliance on an existing right or interest may not be sufficient in the circumstances. There is precedent in enabling acts for this approach, for example in the road Scotland Act 1984. The exercise of the power to acquire rights or interests compulsorily is subject to the same high tests as using it to gain ownership. In conclusion, the scenario of landlock timber is familiar to the committee and backstop powers of compulsory purchase have been recognised as a valid tool in the box. Amendment 40 adds to the tool box by providing an additional option to outright purchase. Thank you for your forbearance. Thank you. I now call on John Finnie to speak to amendment 12 and any other amendments in the group that you wish to do. Thank you, convener. I will speak to amendment 12 and it is in section 17 the power to dispose of land. It is very simple and that is that funds raised by disposals from the national forest estate should be reinvested in the national forest estate. Between 1999 and 2016, the repositioning programme of the national forest estate covering acquisitions and disposals yielded a net profit of £59.3 million. This amendment would ensure that profits from disposals from the national forest estate should be reinvested. On behalf of the people of Scotland in securing sustainable management of the national forest estate, potential to create new native woodland, acquiring additional outstanding examples of forests in woodland in Scotland and, importantly, to secure them for posterity. It is important to see that amendment is entirely in line with our committee's recommendation in the stage 1 report. That was that income generated from disposals should be reinvested in national forest estate. I think that it is appropriate that it be included in this commitment by the Government on the face of the ball. I have heard what the Cabinet Secretary said in relation to this and I am not anticipating that there is going to be an agreement on it. Nonetheless, we will continue to engage on the issue, but given that it was in our report I would wish to press the issue today. What I would be hoping to see is a commitment for maybe matters to be included in the forest strategy, including details of the repositioning programme, so that it could be included in the consultation on the strategy and, importantly, be scrutinised by the Parliament. In relation to the cultural purchase orders, I was not as animated as everyone else seemed to be on the issue. I think that there are appropriate checks and balances in place. I am relaxed that they continue to apply and relaxed that they apply to sustainable development. The argument that they are not used is exactly the argument in the range of options that are available. I am familiar with a very high profile, as I know the Cabinet Secretary and others around the table, will be in the highlands of a significant benefit to the public being held back by a ransom strip. Now, fortunately, negotiations meant that that did not have to be utilised, but the public good must be at the forefront. I think that there are appropriate checks and balances, so I will be supporting the continued position regarding that from the Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, John. Now I call on Jamie Greene's speech to amendment 12A and any other amendments in the group that he wishes to do. Thank you, convener. Following on from John Finnie's comments on amendment 12, I think that there is much to agree with in that, in the sense that the revenues generated from the sale of land should be used for specific forestry functions. My view on that is quite simple, in that the size of the forestry state should not diminish in any way. My nervousness is that the revenues achieved from the sale of land may be used to fill any potential shortfalls in budgets or funds in the functions of this new division. In essence, the revenue generated from the sale of land should be used for the purchase of land for the planting of trees. By doing so, we would ensure that the size of our forestry state in Scotland does not diminish in any way. That is why I feel that I would like to press further than John Finnie's amendment by proposing that capital achieved from the sale of land is used for the purchase of land. Moving on to some of the other amendments in this grouping, just to clarify Peter Chapman's amendments in 39, 6 and 42, the cabinet secretary pointed out in great detail the compulsory purchase powers that other Governments and other jurisdictions have proposed. Indeed, it is worth clarifying at this point that we do not have any argument with that. We in fact support the rollover of compulsory purchase powers from the 67 act. My understanding is that Mr Chapman's amendments agree that the compulsory purchase powers should be retained for the duties in section 9 of the bill, but not 13. My understanding is that, as a committee, we took a view in the stage 1 report that we were happy by majority as a committee to roll over the compulsory purchase powers for the purposes of section 9, but not 13. Therefore, Mr Chapman's amendment simply reflects the views that were expressed in the stage 1 report. Therefore, I would hope that other members of the committee would maintain the views that we agreed on in the stage 1 report and that they would vote for Mr Chapman's amendments because they simply reflect the report. I have a selection of members to speak. The first one is Stuart. Thank you very much, convener. Let me just address some of Mr Rumble's remarks about the decisions that we made at stage 1. He seems to suggest that instructions inform what SNP members are underdoing this committee. The fact that we voted in different stages of the argument in stage 1 is perhaps the evidence to the contrary, but, of course, he who never changes his mind is unlikely to ever change anything. The constructive discussions that I personally had with my colleagues will see the results of shortly. I cannot predict entirely what they might be. I would make the comment that, when my granny died, I was minus 13 years old. She only ever said one political thing in her entire life. I was told, and that was never trust atories. Under the subject of land, I adhere to that. Absolutely. Right. I'm not sure that was a great anecdote to trot out, but Richard, you were next. Well, I'll come over some of the comments, but wouldn't it be as bad as that, Stuart? I have to agree with Stuart. Him and I were on separate sides of the fence in the last time that we were discussing this, but this morning I have recorded that I intend to press this Government to plant more trees and to do as much as possible, and I intend to stick to that. When I hear Mr Chapman continually vilifying the Cabinet Secretary about the reason why he hasn't planted more trees, and now he wants to tie his hand behind his back in regards to compulsory purchase, I'm appalled. That's the word that I would use. I'm appalled because it's inconsistent. It's not... You want intervention, Mr Green? Carry on. I'll accept your intervention, and then I'll come back on. Could I ask you to do it through the chair and look at him? He didn't clarify whether he was wanting to intervene or not. Thank you, Mr Lav for taking my intervention. As I said, Mr Chapman's amendment would like to pursue the role over compulsory purchase powers for the purposes of section 9, which is management of forestry land, which I think includes planting. I think there's broad agreement that we'd like to see more planting, not making any political points. I think there's consensus on that issue. The only thing that Mr Chapman's amendment does is exclude section 13, which is about the management of land to further sustain and development, which is not about planting. I'll thank you for the intervention, but as far as I'm concerned, I want to see this Government doing more, planting more, and I, for one, won't tie their hands behind their back to do it. I intend to ensure that they do it. I'm sure that members who have turned consistently and said that they want to do it, should be doing the same as I do. Thank you, convener. Thank you, Ms Lav. Clodyd, do you want to come in? Raider wants to come in. Just to say that I will be voting against Peter Chapman's amendments, I think that it's important to have compulsory purchase in this bill for sustainable development, and it keeps it in line with other legislation, so I think that it is right. I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments about reviewing compulsory purchase. I also support John Finnie's amendment, because I think that it's really important to protect the finance from sale of forestry and the like to be reinvested in forestry. I've got some sympathy for Jamie Greene's amendment as well, which takes it a bit further. I'm slightly afraid that it might take it a bit too far. I suppose that support for sustainable forestry might then not be funded, and if there is a shortfall on the finance to do that, it could hold forestry back. That's my one concern, but maybe if he would look to address that at some point, that would be useful. I'm Peter Chapman. Thank you, convener. I take some umbridge to Richard Lyle's comments about how I would be trying to tie the cabinet secretary's hands. Nobody's suggesting that we tie the cabinet secretary's hands in any way, shape or form in my opinion. I do want to see more trees planted, and I've always said so. We're not saying that there will be no compulsory purchase powers. I am quite content to roll over the powers that are in the 67 act, and I made that clear as well. What I object to is the widening of the powers, when there has been no attempt made to justify why there's any need to widen the powers to cover sustainable development. I think that that is a step too far. I don't think that it is necessary, and considering the fact that the cabinet secretary confirmed it in the 50 years that he's had the powers, he's never used them, why on earth does he think he needs any more powers? That is my point. As far as I'm concerned, the 67 powers can remain, but the widening of the powers to include sustainable development are not necessary and haven't been proved to be necessary. Therefore, I object to them being there. That is what my amendments 6, 39 and 42 are all about. Thank you, Peter Gow. There has been a lot of reference to the stage 1 report. In recommendation 104, we said that the majority of the committee is of the view that the Scottish Government is yet to provide sufficient justification for the proposed extension of compulsory purchase powers to cover sustainable development. Given what the cabinet secretary has said to the committee at stage 2 that he has provided sufficient justification for the extension of the powers, that was what the committee had asked for. Thank you. Is there any other member who likes anything? I'm not going to bring myself in. I've chosen two stages of this session to bring myself in. This is the first one. First of all, I would say that, as far as amendment 12A is concerned, I support that amendment because my concern is that we don't want to see the diminution of the size of the forest estate. I think that the people of Scotland expect to see the forest estate growing in size and therefore taking money out of the forest estate by selling land and using it to fund general running costs of the new body, I believe, is fundamentally wrong. Therefore, I would like to see the money roll forward. Indeed, that is my understanding of the Parliament's policy when it decided to allow the repositioning of the forest estate to take money out of the sales and put it back into purchasing the estate. I believe that this gives the very surety that people need to look at forestry because forestry is a rolling aspect, i.e. that you purchase land, if necessary, without trees and put trees on it. Once the trees are there and you have the safeguards in place to ensure that the trees remain there, then it is perfectly right that the Forestry Commission looked to selling that bit and moving on to the next bit, which will gradually increase the whole forest estate and forestry in Scotland. Therefore, I think that Jamie Greene's amendment 12A does in just that policy. As far as the compulsory purchase powers, first of all, I note the cabinet secretary's comments about previous legislation. He made me smile in the sense that we are now in 2017. A lot of the legislation that he mentioned was way before the time that I became involved in politics, but looking at the fact that we are now in 2017, I would like to declare that as a surveyor I have been involved in compulsory purchase powers and have some knowledge of them. I should also declare that I have an interest in a farm for those that consider that important. I do not think that it is here in relation to this, but the compulsory purchase powers are deeply flawed at the moment as they are structured. I do not believe that they work very well and they need to be completely reformed to make them fit for 2017. I also believe that, as the compulsory purchase powers for forestry have never been used since the 1967 act came in, they are not actually that much of a threat. There was a lot made of the fact that they have been threatened to be used. I have never had any evidence. When we pushed the officials that came in, they said that there might be one or two occasions that they could have been used as a threat. However, there was no clear evidence to me that they were used as a threat. A threat in this particular case does not particularly work, because the ransom strip that the cabinet secretary said that he wanted to avoid using. Still, if you go by the acquisition of land act, it has to be compensated at the value that the ransom strip is there. All you are doing is saying that you want it, but you have to agree the value. According to the definition of open market value, which is what an acquisition is placed on, there is a value to a ransom strip, and that has to be taken into account. I do not really support the 67 roll forward provisions into this forestry act, but I can see why it gives the cabinet secretary some confidence, which is why, as an individual, I am happy to see it in relation to forestry. In relation to other land, I do not actually see that it benefits at all. The other land that the Forestry Commission has, the one-third of it is a state that is not forested, is not going to be benefited by these compulsory powers. I do not see how that would work, because the management of that forestry land is done in accordance with the forest estate. I really do not see that there is much requirement for it, so I personally will not be voting in favour of that. That is my position on it. I now withdraw from the debate having done that and put my conveners back on, and I notice that Claudia wants to come in briefly if I may ask you to do that, so I can pass it back to the cabinet secretary very briefly if you would like. Thank you, convener. It was simply to reinforce the point that I take the view that the cabinet secretary has clarified the need for management of land to further the achievement of sustainable development in the list that he gave earlier in this grouping. Also, there are other areas such as agroforestry, where the definition may fall more into sustainable development than actual strict forestry definitions. I think that it is very important that we keep the sustainable development opportunity. Cabinet secretary, you have already spoken, but if you would like to come back briefly on any of the points that have been raised, I am happy to let you in briefly. No, I have enjoyed listening to the debate and I had my opportunity earlier when I set out the points in the ways that I wished. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I would call on Mike Rumbles to wind up and press or withdraw his amendment. The minister eloquently outlined a number of acts over the years that have conferred compulsory purchase powers. He said that parliaments have routinely given the powers to government, and we already know all of this, but it is good to be reminded of the fact, because colleagues, I would say, that is exactly my point. The government has enough compulsory powers already, and we already know it. It does not need any more. The 1967 powers have never been used, as we all recognised. Ministers of all parties always say that they would never want to gather in further unnecessary powers. These are unnecessary powers, and I do not focus on our current ministers, an honourable man, but even he will accept that he will not be minister forever. In principle, and this is about the principle of parliament versus government, in principle it is not a good thing for parliament to give unnecessary executive powers to ministers. Over the years, I have always asked ministers of different parties whose civil servants, by the way, always want them to have unnecessary powers. They normally say that they simply want to future proof the legislation. Who knows how things are going to change? We need these powers to future proof. The government's future proofing should be parliament's weariness. Stuart Stevenson said that I had said that some members of the committee had received instructions, or implied to receive instructions, as to how to vote on this issue from the government. I would never say this. I said, and I repeat what I said for the avoidance of doubt, that I said that some members of the committee had received guidance as to how to vote. There is a great deal of difference between instructions and guidance. The government is perfectly entitled to issue guidance to MSPs of its MSPs' choice as to what they do with that guidance. It is up to individual members around this committee table to decide for themselves and they must live with the decisions that they make. I said that it is up to colleagues on the committee to vote the way that they wish to vote. As to the evidence on this subject, I was a bit shocked to say that there has been new evidence. I have seen nothing. Nothing has changed in the evidence. I have not seen any new evidence brought to us by the minister that, in my view, should affect our decision in stage 1. I am a realist if nothing else. I know what the numbers amount to. It is disappointing to realise that our recommendations in our stage 1 report, which were good, are not accepted by everybody in the committee. I accept that. People have different views, of course, to do, but it was a genuine compromise and it was a genuine attempt to do the right thing between Parliament and government. I put that down to the Government guidance that has been received by some members. I repeat the point. It is guidance, but it is up to every individual MSP to decide what they should do. I will move amendment 2. We then come to the question that amendment 2 should be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 22 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 18. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally that amendment. Not moved. Because of the length that has taken to this stage of the morning, I am proposing a five-minute suspension of business to allow members a comfort break. The meeting is suspended five minutes. I reconvene the meeting and I would like to move on to the next group in which there is delegation to community bodies. I would like to call amendment 23 in the name of Richard Lyle, group with amendments 43, 132, 44, 45 and 110. Richard Lyle, please, can you move amendment 23 and speak to all the amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I move amendment 23 and all other amendments and speak to all other amendments in the group. During stage 1, the committee heard evidence from a number of stakeholders that the provisions in the bill relating to delegation of land management functions to community bodies, set in particular sections 18, 19 and 20, were at best unnecessary and at worst introduced additional complexity and bureaucracy for the very groups that were seeking to get involved in land management. That view was expressed in the context of the commencement in January this year of part 5 of the Community Empowerment Scotland 2015 Act, which deals with asset transfer. We also heard concerns that the definition of community body using the bill was different from that in other community empowerment legislation, notably the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015, potentially causing confusion. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy assured the committee during his stage 1 evidence that officials were aware of and looking into the potential overlap between the bill and asset transfer legislation. In the Scottish Government response to the committee stage 1 report published on November 3, the Cabinet Secretary confirmed that officials were considering the matter with a view to bringing forward any necessary amendments at stage 2. In the event that we have not seen any amendments from the Government, I refer the Cabinet Secretary to the views of key stakeholders in this area who advise that those provisions are unnecessary and should be reviewed from the bill, removed from the bill. I considered that stakeholders are right and my amendments seek to remove the relevant sections from the bill. Existing legislation, namely asset transfer under community empowerment Scotland Act 2015, delivers the necessary outcomes for communities. Members should then also note that my amendment 44 seeks to remove section 19 and therefore makes Jamie Greene's amendment 132 what seeks to amend it unnecessary. Jamie Greene, I ask you to speak to amendment 132 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. As Richard Lyle has just pointed out, the removal of sections 18, 19 and 20 would negate the need for my amendment. However, I have to say that I have given some careful thought to this. I was a little bit surprised to see those amendments, which are small in wording but huge in effect. They take out and affect all references to community bodies from the bill. In the statement that Mr Lyle has given, he mentioned the ambiguity around what the definition of a community body is. My amendment seeks to achieve that and strengthen the definition of a community body by saying that it is the same as that in the Community Empowerment Act 2015. By providing that clarity, it would strengthen that whole section of the bill, sections 18, 19 and 20. I am yet to be convinced or persuaded as to why we should support the removal of those sections. I am keen to hear more perhaps over the course of this debate and those groupings. For that reason, I am minded to maintain that my amendment strengthens the definition of a community body. I hope that other members would accept that and listen with great interest as to why those sections should be removed. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to say something on this matter? I thank Richard Lyle for lodging amendments 23, 43, 44 and 5, 110 and I am content to support them. In consequence, I do not support Mr Greene's amendment 132 and I think that he understands that it is negated if Mr Lyle's amendments are accepted by the committee. I also thank the members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity and the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform committees and many stakeholders for their scrutiny of this part and insightful suggestions for improvement. I did signal to the committee during stage 1 that officials were considering the provisions in the bill on delegation of land management functions to community bodies and specifically how they interact with the existing community empowerment law. I have concluded that the provisions in the bill duplicate and do not enhance law elsewhere on community empowerment. Further, I agree with the points made during stage 1 evidence by the Community Woodlands Association that there is a risk that their existence may complicate unnecessarily the landscape for delivery of community empowerment objectives, including for community bodies themselves. I am content that the asset transfer regime under part 5 of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015 can be relied upon to deliver the policy objectives behind sections 18, 19 and 20 of the bill and that those sections can be removed. I note that a wide range of stakeholders, including the aforementioned Community Woodlands Association and Community Land Scotland, recommended this course of action and that it is supported by the forestry sector, including Scottish land and estates. I note the intention behind amendment 132, which is to deliver better integration between the bill and the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015. As I have indicated, I am sympathetic to this outcome but consider it can best be achieved through removing sections 18, 19 and 20 altogether rather than through their retention and amendment. For this reason, I do not support amendment 132. There is a strong track record of community involvement in managing forestry and I wish to see that continue as we complete devolution. In January this year, Forest Enterprise Scotland launched the new community asset transfer scheme, or CATS, implementing part 5 of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015. That builds on the highly successful national forest land scheme, which predated the statutory asset transfer regime and which delivered 42 sales totaling 17,000 acres. That included 31 sales to communities totaling over 10,000 acres. The first successful request under CATS was announced last month and a further 20 requests are in the pipeline. It is encouraging that the Scottish Government's policies are therefore giving people more control over decisions that affect them and enabling communities to shape their individual and collective futures, and therefore support the amendments to the name of Richard Lyle. I therefore call on Richard Lyle to wind up and press all withdraw his amendment. I think I'll be short. I think most of the comments that were actually going to make the cabinet secretary has just made, and therefore I ask members to support my amendment and tend to press my amendments in the group. We'll move to the question is that amendment 33 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Sorry, 23, sorry. I'll repeat that. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay, we are agreed. The question is that section 6 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I'm going to call amendment 10 in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 9. Peter Chapman to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay, we're not agreed, therefore I call a division. Those in favour of the amendment, please raise their hands. Those against the amendment, please raise their hands. And any abstentions? No. Sorry. Now we've got the maths right. Total votes for the amendment for votes against 7, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 130 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 9. John Finnie to move or not move. Move, convener. Thank you. Therefore the question is amendment 130 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay, we're not agreed, therefore there's a division. Please can I have those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands, please? Those against, those who abstain. So the voting is 7 in favour of the amendment, 3 against, 1 abstention, the motion therefore is agreed. We now move on to the next grouping, which is the involvement of persons with an interest in forestry. I'd like to call amendment 129 in the name of Claudia Beamish in a group on its own, Claudia Beamish. Would you like to move and speak to your amendment, please? Thank you, convener, and I move the amendment in my name. This amendment aims to preserve the involvement and inclusion of those on the ground in forestry and land management. It would follow from section 6, duty to have regard to forest forestry strategy and ensures those with an interest in forestry are involved in the delivering and acting out of the functions of this bill by ministers. This amendment would create a requirement to involve people with knowledge of securing sustainable economic benefits, sustainable forest management, silver culture, land management, environmental and biodiversity issues. It also requires consultation with persons and representative organisations. I would point out such as unions. Again, this amendment demonstrates the scope of social, environmental and economic functions delivered by the Forestry Commission and is designed to ensure that each of these six areas, each vital tenants of forestry management, are taken into consideration. Scotland has some exceptionally knowledgeable and experienced people in its forestry sector, as we all, I'm sure, agree. My amendment 129 enshrines inclusion in forestry policy, regardless of the new arrangements for forestry organisations after its devolution. I therefore ask members to consider supporting this amendment, which would put these issues on the face of the bill. Thank you, convener. Stuart, you wanted to enter. I've got a technical issue with the way it's cast, which I would address. It takes steps to ensure that such arrangements involve. I've really no idea what involve means in this context. Does it mean that we need someone under each of these headings to be on a board of some kind related to this? Or does it simply mean that the minister has to have them in for dinner and listen to them? Once every 50 years? Or is it something in between that? I'm just very uncertain what it might mean. I repeat my regular rail against the use of lists. And indeed, Claudio herself mentioned unions. When unions per se do not appear in the list, while I recognise there will be unions who have the expertise that she's looking for. I guess we'll hear from the cabinet secretary once again the difficulties for Governments and identifying people with the experience and knowledge of, and by excluding people of experience or knowledge of. It strictly sets. Thank you, convener. I'd like to follow on from Stuart Stevens's comments and I think it harks back to the earlier comments made by the cabinet secretary around ambiguity over interpretation of how you define a person with experience in or knowledge of is incredibly difficult to do so. There are also other vague terms in this amendment such as consultation of persons who have an interest in, lots of people have an interest in, but again, how do you define that? And Stuart Stevens's point around involvement of what is involvement. And I think that in any way this may even restrict the minister and his ability to distort George's duties under the act. For that reason, I'd be unable to support the amendment. Thank you. Cabinet secretary. Well, I thank Claudio Bewys for this amendment and I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that those with the right professional skills, knowledge and experience are engaged in the development and delivery of forestry in Scotland. But I'm not persuaded that this amendment would necessarily deliver that outcome. I believe that the bill already includes, convener, suitable provision for how ministers must discharge their functions. And these are set out in part in section 6, which says how ministers must discharge their functions under the bill. And section 6 requires ministers to have regard to the forestry strategy when exercising their forestry functions. An amendment 129 overlaps, I think, with this requirement. Further, whilst the bill is mainly about management of forestry, it also covers management of land for sustainable development, a matter not recognised in this amendment. As drafted, the amendment would result in a requirement for wide consultation on all of the activities covered by this bill. This includes wider land management role for ministers to manage non-forested land and the more mundane regulatory activity for forestry. In neither scenario would the effect of the amendment be practical or appropriate. But I am clear that it is vital to maintain professional expertise and skills as we complete forestry devolution. And I'm grateful actually to have an opportunity just to make that absolutely clear for all of those listening or observing the record in future. I have previously stated that within the new structures for forestry, I wish to expand on the existing skills development mechanisms within Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland and to continue to involve foresters and other professionals in the discharge of the Scottish Government's forestry functions. It is, I'm sure, an unintended omission but there's no reference in the amendment to those involving with experience in our knowledge of community ownership involved with forestry. And I point this out to highlight the inherent risks of including an exclusive list within legislation. It cannot be comprehensive as some stakeholders such as Confor have noted and it may date the bill. I would support the arguments that Mr Stevenson and Mr Greene have made about the technicalities. And I also think that use of the word arrangements is vague because it's not clear really what these arrangements would be, when they would be, how they could be discharged. But these are technical points. I do share the sentiments of which have been expressed. I would ask members to resist amendment 129 on the basis that it is unnecessarily restrictive. Thank you cabinet secretary. Claudia Beamish, I'd ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment. Thank you convener. I've listened carefully to the discussions and take on board the points made by Stuart Stevenson about a definition of involve. We don't want to get too tied up in definitions but I do take that point and also Jamie Greene's point about what is experience and knowledge of. This amendment did come from a range of groups who've approached me who have concerns about, as we move forward, to the devolved arrangements that are to be open about it. That it won't be subsumed within Victoria key, that it will be out there across Scotland and across the skills and the range of professions and I do take the cabinet secretary's point as well about the missing clause about community ownership which having been involved with the Land Reform Act as it now is very important. So that was indeed an omission. I think it was a probing amendment to a degree. It is very important to many stakeholders and including unions that their interests are taken into account. I certainly didn't want to make something cumbersome and that is a point that I take as well of the cabinet secretary's. What is one obliged then to consult on and how far would that go and who indeed would one actually consult on and that might become very cumbersome. I will withdraw the amendment on the understanding if I've got it right that the cabinet secretary has put on the record the importance of the range of skills and professions and organisations that should be involved in moving forward a positive and sustainable forest strategy in the context of the new devolved powers. I will not be putting forward my amendment. I have a question. Does any other member present object the amendment being withdrawn? No. The next question is that sections 7 and 8 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We then move forward to the next group in which there is co-ordination, co-operation in plant health responsibilities. I am going to call amendment 131 in the name of Jamie Greene in a group on its own. Jamie Greene to move and speak to the amendment please. I would like to speak to amendment 131 concerning the duty on ministers to co-ordinate and co-operate in plant health responsibilities. It is my view that, given the cross-border nature of plant health on an island, there should be additional wording in the bill that reflects that and places additional duty on the minister to take that into account. Whilst understanding that the bill cannot mandate the Scottish minister to ensure that any memorandum of understanding would be agreed or signed by secretaries of states or ministers of other parliaments, I would like to see some wording agreed that ensures that they take reasonable steps to try and achieve an MOU of such. The amendment would set before Parliament a report that they have taken reasonable steps to achieve section 1 of amendment 131 and update Parliament as to any arrangements or agreements that result from such a memorandum of understanding. I hope that the cabinet secretary will find this a constructive addition to the bill. My understanding is that, without putting it in legislation, there is no mandate for the minister to do so and I hope that that will be taken into account. I therefore push and move my amendment in that respect. Just again, looking at the words that are in the Jamie Greene's amendment, it must take all reasonable steps to ensure that they agree. I just do not see that we can ensure that they will agree. The wording that is before us is not capable of assuredly being delivered. On that basis, I do not think that I can support it. I would again wish to disagree with my esteemed colleague Stuart Stevenson, because he focuses on the word to ensure that that is not the purpose of this amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to take all reasonable steps. All reasonable steps. Who could possibly object to that? The emphasis to say that we are focusing on the word to ensure is erroneous. What this amendment is doing is simply saying to the Scottish ministers to take all reasonable steps, and that way, therefore, I will support the amendment from Jamie Greene. On the day of the stage 1 debate, I announced that the agreement had been reached with my counterparts in the UK and Welsh Governments on sharing responsibility for important cross-border forestry functions. One Government will coordinate delivery of each function on behalf of all three. Under that agreement, certain forestry plant health responsibilities that are primarily linked to trade will be led by the UK Government. That includes inspections at ports and airports for wood and wood products, maintaining a register of premises for forest products and timber, and regulation for identification and control of seeds and cuttings. Other tree health functions will continue to be carried out separately in each country. For example, surveys and monitoring for tree pests in Scotland will continue to be coordinated by Scotland. I would argue that that work, which was achieved after a great deal of positive interaction with the UK Government and the Welsh Administration, does perhaps constitute reasonable steps. To reassure Mr Rumbles, reasonable steps have already been trodden if that is the way to put it. Although they have not resulted in a formal written agreement, there is an agreement in principle and we expect that that agreement in principle will be taken forward to full agreement prior to the law coming into force. I do not accept that the current arrangements for co-operation are deficient. Those arrangements are carried out in an extra parliamentary way between the Scottish Government and the other Government bodies involved. Additionally, I do not believe the amendment properly reflects the fact that completing devolution of forestry is actually one of the principal drivers of this bill. I would anticipate that there always being close co-operation between administrations on these islands, on matters such as plant health. Indeed, I have emphasised the importance of that. I know that many stakeholders are keen that that should be the case and keen to hear me say so and that this message is delivered and understood and being acted upon between the Scottish Government and other Governments in these islands. I welcome the opportunity to re-confirm and restate that because those listening will welcome that fact that plant and tree disease respect no borders. Those are very serious matters. Tackling them effectively is one of the absolute essentials of sustainable forestry management and on a cross-border basis these matters can be most effectively tackled. However, there is a different point here because what Mr Greene seeks to do, so far as I know, is unprecedented. That is the place in statute that we must somehow secure a memorandum of agreement with other bodies. There is no other statute, my legal adviser informs me, where that approach has been taken. Perhaps it would detract from devolution if our law seeks to fetter our scope in respect of devolved matters. Forestry is a devolved issue and the approach taken may serve to detract from the very nature of devolved power. However, I can reassure Mr Greene that arrangements are in place, as I say, to ensure co-operation and plant health. For example, we maintain a UK plant health risk register, which is reviewed monthly by the UK plant health risk group, and we take part in bi-annual UK plant health coordination meetings. We published a Scottish plant health strategy in March 2016, which sets out measures to safeguard agriculture, horticulture, forestry and the wider environment from pests and diseases over the period from 2016 to 2021. I hope that that will reassure Mr Greene and all members that this is consistent with the plant biosecurity strategy for Great Britain, published in 2014, which was signed off by Scottish and other GB plant health ministers. You see, Mr Greene, we are a wee bit ahead of you. I am very pleased to say that we have been doing all of this already. We will continue to do so, but not on the basis of something inserted in the face of Scottish Parliament legislation. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call on Jamie Greene to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment. Thank you, convener, and thank you to other members and the cabinet secretary for their feedback on the amendment. I think that there are perhaps some contradictions in the minister's response to the comments that I made. Far from seeking to detract from devolution, I think that the minister acknowledged that plant health has no borders. In that respect and in that vein, this is an important and necessary addition to the bill. I understand that very positive and constructive work has already been achieved with the various administrations, but referring back to previous points that we have made by putting it in the bill, this future proves the concept. It is all very well that current administrations are in agreement orally to take this issue seriously and work constructively together. Those are three existing administrations in their respective parliamentary cycles. I would like to ensure that this is future proof in the sense that, regardless of who is running those administrations, that good work continues beyond the term of the existing parliaments of which the three mentioned administrations are involved. For that reason, I am unswayed, if you like, by the cabinet secretary's argument that good work has been achieved on this issue, and therefore we should let it rest at that. I would like to continue with this amendment to ensure that future administrations take the issue of cross-border plant health seriously. As Mr Rumbles pointed out, all that is done is asked for Scottish ministers to take reasonable steps. That in itself I do not think is an unreasonable request. Can I just ask you to formally press your amendment? I formally press the amendment, therefore. The question, therefore, is amendment 131, be agreed, are we all agreed? All. Okay, therefore call a division. Those in favour, those against. Those for the amendment are five, those against amendment are six. It's therefore not agreed. We're now going to move on to the next grouping, which is deer management, and I call amendment 11 in the name of John Finnie in a group on its own. Mr Finnie, could you move and speak to the amendment? Thank you, convener. Yes, I move amendment 11 in my name, which is section 8, duty of deer management to ensure sustainable forest management. The amendment proposes that done by the insertion of the information that you have in front of you into the Dears Scotland Act 1996 as amended. It's important to give some background. Population modelling isn't exact, but it's thought that between 85 and 100,000 rows seek unfollow deer and private forests. 40,000 to 55,000 on the national forest estate, red deer estimates are 45,000 to 60,000 on private forests and 40,000 to 45,000 on the national forest estate. 30 per cent of all deer culling in Scotland is by the Forestry Commission. That costs the taxpayers £5 million per year. As was said earlier in our debate, woodlands are deer habitats and new woodlands will create new deer habitats. It should be the responsibility of all owners of private forests to ensure arrangements to manage the deer that live in their forests in woodland. That would be important not just for the future timber crop but also for woodlands biodiversity value. It's also the question of impact that deer have on adjacent land, the damage to agricultural crops and the increased risk of road traffic collisions. So there's a legal requirement for all forest to protect the forest asset. This amendment to incorporate a duty of deer management will ensure sustainable forest management. This duty should be discharged by having a plan in place to manage deer, ensuring that arrangements are put in place to carry out that plan, as well as reducing some of the damaging impacts that deer can have. There's also a view that it will create economic opportunities with the letting of deer stocking to qualify people in Venice and sales generating income. Such arrangements already exist in some places and the bill, if the amendment were accepted, would ensure that suitable arrangements are in place for all woodlands. It would help to drive a step change, particularly with regard to the lowland deer management issue. It would be in line with the rural environment climate change and land reform committees report on the subject. I move it in my name. I don't support the amendment on the grounds that we haven't taken any evidence on this. As I said, I mentioned this in the previous amendment from Claudia Beamish that we could have taken, if we wanted to go down this route, a good deal of evidence from land owners and land occupiers. We haven't done so. To put this in as a substantial amendment, while I consider it to be the last minute without us having to have people before the committee, is unhelpful. If we look at the actual wording of the amendment, Scottish ministers must, by regulations, make provision requiring owners and occupiers of first land to take those steps, as may be specified in the regulations. Unspecified powers given over to ministers. Again, in subsection 5, the Scottish Parliament, a draft Scottish statutory instrument containing the first regulations under subsection 1, I would like to ask how many statutory instruments have we rejected in this committee? This is a legitimate question, and I can't think of any. Of course, with statutory instruments, they are unamendable even. Our power as a committee, our power as a parliament is completely restricted by this. I think that it would be entirely wrong simply to put this at the last minute into the forestry bill. By all means, it's a legitimate subject, and we need to have taken evidence on it. We haven't done so. We've decided not to go down that route, and therefore I think that it would be entirely wrong to support this at stage 2 at the last minute like this. Stuart Stevenson, followed by Peter Chapman. Thank you very much, convener. Just picking up Mike Rumbles, have we rejected any? I'm not sure of this committee. I certainly have been involved successfully in seeing an affirmative. At least, subject to my checking, it might have been a negative one. I can't quite remember, but it was a long time ago. It's right, in making the general point, that it doesn't happen very often. It's not even challenged very often. Nonetheless, Parliament decides on SSIs just as it decides on primary legislation. However, turning to the substance of what we have before us, I don't disagree in any way, shape or form, with John Swinney about the need to manage deer in forests. Sorry, can I just confirm that? I think that you mean John Swinney. What did I say? Oh, I beg your pardon. Just for the record. John Swinney is in India, and John Swinney is in front of me. John Swinney has tabled amendment 11, and I agree with the underlying principles. My difficulty, which I'm open to hearing more about, is that if one manages only one part of the ecosystem and not what's going on in the neighbouring areas, the experience, I think, on deer management, where we've had estates taking different views, who are adjacent on their deer management policies, because they have different shooting policies that they're making money off. All that happens is that if you create a hole in the eco structure where there are fewer deer, deer simply move in. I think that to separate off forests from an overall strategy to manage deer populations, I would want to hear some of the arguments that really suggest that that would actually be of assistance. That's simply my concern about this one, convener. Peter Chapman, full of Barbaric's law. I concur with both Mike Rumbles and Stuart Stevenson on what they have already said. I am against this. We all know that deer management isn't as huge as trees are concerned, but there are deer management arrangements in place. There are separate rules and regulations that are well known, and this bell is about trees. This bell isn't about deer. I don't see the need for this at all. One way to manage deer is not that everybody likes it, but it's a factor of life. One way to manage deer is to fence the trees. There are other ways forward. I don't think that this is necessary. I think that this is the wrong place. The deer management rules and regulations are well known in that already in place and in other places, and it has no place in this bell. Richard Lyle, followed by Red Grant. Unfortunately, John Finnie is sitting beside me, but even because I'm sorry, John, I can't support your amendment. It's been put to me that forest owners could face penalties if they don't take up measures to control deer. It could make landowners liable to new penalties for choosing to plant trees or tend to discourage a forest station, discourage integrated land use by increasing disparity in regulation. I believe that it is an interest of forest owners to control deer, but to use other measures to tackle deer numbers and they should be co-operative rather than punitive. Therefore, I can't support my good friend and colleague John Finnie's amendment. We are going to meet Red Grant, followed by Claudia Beamish. I have sympathy for the amendment. It probably isn't necessary for commercial forestry because to have a commercial forest you would have to control deer. There would be no two ways about it. I suppose that I have more sympathy with the amendment regarding native woodland because if we do encourage native woodland at the moment, there are not many commercial uses for it. It might be that people will plant native woodland in the thought that that is aesthetically pleasing, but we will leave it and not manage it properly. If we are really going to manage, cultivate and use native woodland, there has to be a degree of deer management. I am not quite sure whether that is the place. I will listen with interest to what the cabinet secretary says and how he would propose that that would happen before I make up my mind on the amendment. I would like to highlight again that, at the point of my amendment, which was 123 on the issue of deer management, our committee did write in a letter to the committee where we are hearing the evidence today about concerns about deer management, as we indeed did about biodiversity and a number of other matters. It has been highlighted, although I take the point that there has not been direct evidence taken by this committee. I think that John Finnie put forward the arguments clearly about how complex the issue is and how incredibly important it is in the context of forestry, because there are areas of Scotland where the deer management groups have been on the Racky Committee and taken a lot of evidence on it previously. In the last session of the Parliament, there are areas where deer management groups are not working satisfactorily, and I think that there could well be merit on having this amendment within the bill or something further at stage 3, which recognises the significance of the issue in relation to forestry, but taking up Rhoda Grant's important point also more to woodland as well. Although I do not have a vote, I wanted to highlight that it is such a significant issue in relation to the future of our forestry, and I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary's comments. Thank you, Claudia. Jamie Greene, and then I'm going to come to the cabinet secretary. Just to add on some further comments, I think that it's absolutely right and important to address this issue. As many members have stated today, I'm not convinced that this is the place to do it in this bill itself. The bill talks about further regulations and penalties as a result of those regulations, but it doesn't go into any great detail what those regulations may look like. I suspect, therefore—and I'm happy to be corrected—that that would come through secondary legislation. Indeed, this additional amendment opens a huge can of worms in the consequences of which I'm not convinced that we've taken full account of. We've also taken very limited evidence on the subject. We have had representation on the matter, and it is an important matter. In order to add something as substantive as this amendment, I would have expected the committee to have taken far more evidence and to reach a point to discuss it in its fullest and proper terms, as it rightly deserves. I think that, as a committee, it's something that we should do, but I don't think that inserting it in this bill at this stage is the right way to address the problem. We all want forests and woodland to be managed sustainably, and the Scottish Government is not in any doubt that effective deer management is part of that, as many members have clearly argued. However, there are technical and policy reasons why both myself and Rosanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, cannot support this amendment. On policy, members will be aware that deer management has been comprehensively reviewed and discussed over the past year with a Scottish Natural Heritage deer review published in November last year, and the ECCLR Committee's report on deer management published in April this year. Both of those reports reach broadly similar conclusions on the state of deer management, good progress made but significant further effort required. My colleague Rosanna Cunningham set out the Scottish Government's response to those reports in the answer to a PQ on 29 June. She said that, we intend to set up an independent expert group to examine and develop solutions to barriers to effective deer management in the up plans and a separate panel under the Deer Scotland Act 1996 to look at lowland deer management. We will ask SNH to report on progress on deer management in 2019. We will be looking to see effective deer management that protects the public interest. If the review does not find sufficient progress with those objectives, then we would have no alternative but to consider fundamental changes to the framework for deer management in Scotland. Having set up the independent group and given notice that we will look at making fundamental changes if there is not sufficient progress by 2019, I believe that it would not be sensible, convener, to cut across the work of the group, set up following parliamentary scrutiny, nor to cut across the further efforts that will be required. Deer management is not an issue that should be treated in a piecemeal fashion. We have given deer management sector as a whole, including forest and woodland owners and managers, a clear indication of what is required and the timescale. We have been clear on the consequences if sufficient progress fails to be made. That is the approach that the Scottish Government has taken and which I understood had broad support. Confor and Scottish Land and Estates agree with the Scottish Government position that the amendment should be resisted. They both favour co-operative approaches to tackling the issue over legislation that has the effect of singling out forest owners and managers. There are also some technical reasons why I cannot support this amendment. We do not think it appropriate to support an amendment that compels ministers to make regulations using the affirmative procedure. This is a very broad provision and it gives wide latitude regarding the content of the regulations. At the same time, it appears to indicate that ministers should create new penalties for failure to comply with those as yet unidentified regulations. We need to be very careful about the creation of new penalties as well as potentially criminal offences. It is vital that we are as specific as possible about the behaviour that we are criminalising if that is the intention, who the offence will apply to and what are the appropriate penalties. We would expect that Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise those aspects, usually through primary legislation. I agree with the analysis that Mr Rumble set out originally that, had the committee intended to cover this, as relevant in this bill, it should have consulted on it prior to stage 1 and taken evidence from it. Although I understand the sincerity and commitment behind Mr Finnie's views and Ms Beamish's views and those views that have been expressed. For all those reasons, and while understanding the intentions of the members involved, I urge that those amendments are not pressed and that they are not supported. I have a call on John Finnie to wind up and either press or withdraw your hand. I am grateful for the members' further contributions. On the question of evidence, of course we did have evidence. We have heard from the convener of the other committee that we had evidence. If people had chosen to read the submissions that we had, we had reference to Dia. Mr Rumble is talking about being unhelpful in the past minute. That is the first opportunity that people have to bring amendments. Those amendments are brought in good faith. On the question of the SIs, they will have to be judged on their individual merits. My point was that, reiterated by the cabinet secretary, that this is really an important issue. Nobody doubts that. If it were not your intent to bring this forward, it would have been really helpful to question witnesses in the stage 1 process. Then we could have interrogated everybody and come to a proper conclusion. Doing it this way, in my view, is not the best way to do it. I note your comments. You know the volume of evidence that we do get. It is a very small percentage of it that is actually scrutinised at the end of that table there. The question that Peter Chapman is talking about is about trees. It is precisely because it is about trees that we need to consider what the negative impact on trees can be. The comments about Native Woodland are welcome. That is not piecemeal. One of the earlier amendments was to have an overarching approach. I note the cabinet secretary's willingness to continue to engage in that. If we could add that to other items to the agenda, to understand how the concerns that are held in good faith, notwithstanding all the good work that is on-going, can be addressed, then I won't press. Thank you. My mistake. Does any other member object to the withdrawal of this amendment? We will move on. I will call amendments 24, 25 and 26 in the name of the cabinet secretary, all previously debated with amendment 18. I invite the cabinet secretary to move 24 to 26 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 24 to 26? The question is amendments 24 to 26 are agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 9 be agreed. Are we agreed? I call amendments 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 27 to 31 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 27 to 31? The question is that amendments 27 to 31 are agreed. Are we all agreed? I call on amendments 32, 33, 34 and 35, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 32 to 35 on block. Does any member wish to object to a single question being put on amendments 32 to 35? The question is that amendments 32 to 35 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I have forgotten the section at the bottom again. The question is that section 11 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move to the next grouping, which is Scottish Minister's duties to publish maps. I would like to call amendment 36 in the name of the cabinet secretary, Groups with Amendment 36A and 37. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 36 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Amendment 36 and 37 in my name are part of the suite of amendments to the land management part of the bill, lodged in response to request for clarity on the land that will be managed by Scottish ministers under section 9 and 13 duties. Section 12 is introduced places of duty in the Scottish ministers to publish a description of forestry land that they manage. The purpose of the duty is to provide transparency on the land to be managed under section 9 duty to manage land for the purposes of sustainable forest management. In consequence of the amendments to sections 9 and 13, including the stipulation that the non-forested part of the national forest estate is to be managed under section 13 duty, I have concluded that the transparency duty should apply to land managed under both section 9 and section 13 land management duties, not just the former. Amendment 36 makes this extension, convener. Further is set out and the explanatory notes for the bill. The intention is that section 12 duty is delivered via an online mapping tool. In the interests of clarity about what is meant by description in the section 12 duty, amendment 36 makes it clear that the duty is to publish a map. The map will provide the associated forest inventory data. Forest Enterprise Scotland currently publishes detailed annual snapshots of inventory data for Scotland's national forest estate as open data online. The detailed land use data for the whole of the national forest estate, covering both the forested and open areas, is therefore available online for download, scrutiny and analysis by interested parties at any time and will continue to be made available. Amendment 37 changes the placement of the transparency duty within the bill so that it falls under section 13, reflecting the extension delivered by amendment 36. I do not support amendment 36A in the name of Andy Wightman. As I have said, the purpose of the section 12 duty is to provide clarity about the land managed by Scottish ministers. It is right that there should be transparency about that, but amendment 36A would fundamentally change the scope of part 3, which is about management of land, not ownership of land. The amendment would duplicate the role of the keeper of the registers and cut across established arrangements to complete the land register of Scotland and to provide information publicly on Scotland's forests and woodland. It would also place an uncosted and, in all probability, a very substantial financial burden on Scottish ministers on which there has been no consultation whatsoever and no estimation whatsoever. The costings would entirely duplicate work that has been carried out by registers of Scotland. I would draw committee members' attention to the views of two of the organisations whose members are working hard to complete the land register. Scottish land and estate say that amendment is unnecessary, as there is already a process of land registration under way in Scotland that will fulfil the objective. Confor says that legislation and land ownership should apply to all types of land equally and should be dealt with under different legislation. It also says that the decision to plant trees should not be influenced by consideration of what information will have to be publicised, which would not be required if the land was left without trees. The keeper is working to complete the land registered by 2024 with public land registered by 2019. Information on Scotland's forests and woodland cover will continue to be made available to the public. I can see no merit in cutting across these established arrangements and I therefore urge members not to press or support amendment 36A and I move amendment 36. I call now on Andy Wightman to move and speak to amendment 36A and other amendments in this group. Thank you very much, convener. I move amendment 36A. I have tabled this amendment with two purposes in mind, one to extend the duty to publish information to other forest land. That is in the context of the long title of the bill that entitles to make provision about Scottish ministers functions in relation to the management of forestry land and other land. Secondly, to improve information availability and the characteristics and the nature and ownership of forestry land in Scotland. We have an ambitious programme to expand forestry, cover much of this will be done by the private sector and yet there is little of any data to inform policy that would best achieve those goals. In comparison to other European countries that publish extensive data about non-state-owned forest land, data is very scarce in Scotland. In 2006-07, the United Nations Economic Commission in Europe, together with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, conducted an inquiry into private forest ownership in Europe. It includes the demographics of owners and on gender, etc. The UK provided no data on the question of this, on the status of owners, the residency, their owners objectives, the UK also offered no data. The reliability of that data in 2006, according to the Forestry Commission that was supplied to the UN Economic Commission in Europe on 27 July 2006, were estimates which in turn were derived from a survey carried out UK wide as long goes in 1977. That is 40 years ago and couldn't be broken down by countries. Officially we know nothing about ownership patterns, owners motivations and the characteristics of the private sector. It is my contention that we need to know more about this to better inform policy. My policy goal here would be to have a proper annual return and survey so that we do this information, but the most straightforward way to bring this amendment is as an amendment to section 36. I understand the cabinet secretary's comments about perhaps technically it should not be in this section and if he was minded to consider the purposes behind this amendment and put it in an appropriate place, I would be happy to have that. Finally, that does not duplicate any work that the Registers of Scotland are doing, it is not about determining ownership, it is about the publication of information and data and analysis to better inform policy. Andy Wightman referred to the long title as forestry land and other land. The amendment from the cabinet secretary talks forested land is distinct from forestry land. I am not at all clear what other forest land in the context of the amendment. I am very unclear what that means. I am also left a little bit unclear as to how one would identify some of the information that amendment 36A requires without there being a right to access forest land. I am not sure whether there is an access provision for anyone to achieve that. I know and respect Andy Wightman's long-held interest in establishing the ownership of land in Scotland and I very much agree with him on that matter. However, there is the practical issue that, although the land register is making progress, it is already emerging that it is going to be fundamentally pretty difficult to complete the transfer from the register of say scenes to the land register on perhaps the timescales that are being thought about. Where private land is concerned, that will be particularly difficult because of course the costs associated with that fall on private landowners. I am a little bit unclear about that. At paragraph 5, which essentially seeks to commit the Government to a two-year cycle of publishing maps, I think that that is extremely challenging. I think that if I recall correctly, and I can be corrected on this, that the Ordnance Survey works on a five-year cycle because it just isn't broadly thought that you can work on a two-year cycle. In the terms that the amendment appears to say, and I think that I would echo what the cabinet secretary said, while the objectives within the amendment are perfectly fair and reasonable, I would be reluctant to accept this without understanding the costs that are associated with it and of course the corresponding benefits that we might expect to derive. John Finnie, you would like to say something about that. I want to speak in support of my colleague Andy Wightman's amendment. If I noted the cabinet secretary correctly, he said that it would fundamentally change the scope. People will be fully aware that the situation with our land in Scotland is, and my colleague Andy referred to the UN looking at it, simply embarrassing the situation. The word challenging was roosed repeatedly. That is entirely meant to be challenging and of course it is challenging. Another issue, the question that has come up for not the first time today about the phraseology use, people know how amendments come to be considered here. They are all competent. People can express a view in them. Surprise, surprise, Scottish land and estates do not support that. In many respects, that is the very reason that I would be lending support to anything in the first instance, but there is a lot of merit in this and I would encourage members to support it. Thank you, Mr Finnie. This was the second area that I was going to speak in, so I'm going to come in here and then ask the cabinet secretary and then Andy Wightman to wind up and press his amendment. My comment on it was specifically in relation to 36A, 2A and B. First of all, I'd like to make it entirely clear that I support the ownership of land in Scotland being clear and available and accessible to all people. Therefore, I welcome the work that the register is doing and I see that being a useful document that will be accessible to all. I'm not sure it helps. We've heard evidence from the mapping, how good the mapping and the control system is, the forestry commission at the moment, and I found it to work very well when I've gone into it. As far as the characteristics of forests on the land covered by the map, I have some issues with that because it is very difficult to define the characteristics of forestry and then where do you go to the next level. At the moment, we have some very useful maps developed by the Macaulay Institute, which gives a land classification for all land across Scotland. It also gives some productive capacities for land. On top of that, you could factor in the different forests and factor in the different yield casts. At the end of the day, you'd end up with a map that would be of very little use. I cannot see how that helps forestry. For that reason, I'm struggling to support it. It is not the reason that I want to cover up land ownership. I believe that it should be open, as I've said, but I just think that this is not the map to do it. Does any other member want to make a comment before I pass back to the cabinet secretary? Cabinet secretary, I'd ask you to wind up and then I'm going to bring in Mr Wightman. I stand by my previous remarks. Andy Wightman, would you like to wind up and move your amendment or press or withdraw your amendment 36A? Thank you very much, convener. To make it clear, I'm not seeking to duplicate any work that anybody else is doing. The argument that the Registration of Scotland is accessible is wrong. It would cost you tens of thousands of pounds as an individual if you wish to access this information from the registers. Countries across Europe provide good statistics. I see Mr Stevenson shaking his head. It's £30 per land title you have to pay in order to obtain information from the land register. Countries across Europe publish good statistics on an annual basis about many aspects of land use, not just forestry, but we're talking about forestry here. Those include very good data, for example, on the gender of forest owners. I think that we need that in terms of equality's impact. We're developing policy around forestry expansion completely blind as to who currently owns forestry land, the kind of people that we might wish to see own forestry land or more of it, for example women, communities, farmers, families, et cetera. My amendment, although I accept that there might be technical reasons for it's not being included under this section, is a very straightforward amendment designed to achieve the policy objective of providing better data and an app to enable everyone with an interest in this matter, including policy makers, academics and the public, to better understand the nature and characteristics and patterns of forest ownership in Scotland and to place a duty on ministers to publish that information in exactly the same way that they publish the information relating to the national forest estate. I move and press the amendment. Thank you. The question is amendment 36A, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed, therefore, we'll go to a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. That's two. Those against and those abstaining. Therefore, the result of that, there are two votes in favour, eight against and one abstention. The amendment is not agreed. Cabinet Secretary, I ask you to press or withdraw amendment 36. The question is amendment 36, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The question is section 12, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. I therefore call amendment 37 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 36. Cabinet Secretary, please can you formally move it. The question is that amendment 37, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. I therefore call amendment 38 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 18. I remind members at this stage that if amendment 38 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 39. Cabinet Secretary, will you formally move please amendment 38? The question is that amendment 38, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed, therefore, there is a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment, please raise their hand. Those against the amendment. The amendment, therefore, is agreed because there are seven votes for it and four votes against it. Sorry, it's that one, isn't it? The question is that section 13 is agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The question is that section 14, 15 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I'd like to call amendment 6 in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 2. Peter Chapman, could you move or not move the amendment please? I would like to move the amendment. The question is that amendment 6, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. There is a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment, please raise their hands. Those against the amendment, please raise their hands. There are no abstentions, there are four votes, four, seven votes against, therefore it is not carried. I call amendment 40 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 2. Cabinet secretary, could you formally move it please? No. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're agreed. That is. The question, therefore, now is that section 16 be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. Therefore, I call amendment 3 in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 2. Mike Rumbles, would you move or not move the amendment? You moved the motion. Therefore, the question is amendment 3 agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I therefore call amendment 41 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 2. I remind members that if amendment 41 is agreed, I cannot call amendment 42. Cabinet secretary, will you formally move it please? Moved. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not. There is a division. Those in favour of the amendment, please raise their hands. Those against the amendment, please raise their hands. There are seven votes in favour of it, four votes against, therefore the amendment has agreed. I'd like to call amendment 12 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 2. John Finnie, could you move or not? I'd like to call amendment 12A in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 2. Jamie Greene, could you move or not move it please? The question is that amendment 12A be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. Therefore, we go to a division. Could I ask those people in favour of amendment 12A to raise their hands? Those against the amendment, please raise their hands. Anyone abstaining? There are four votes in favour of the amendment, six votes against, one abstention, therefore the amendment 12A is not agreed. John Finnie, can I ask you to press or withdraw amendment 12? Yes. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Those in favour of it, please raise their hands. Those against it, please raise their hands. Any abstentions? At this stage, there's five votes, four, five votes against, and one extension, which means that, as convener, I have to exercise my casting vote and my casting vote is to agree the amendment. The question is that section 17 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 43 in the name of Richard Lyle, already debated with amendment 23. Richard Lyle, to move the amendment, please. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I'm calling amendment 132 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 23. Jamie Greene, to move or not to move? To move. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There is a division. Therefore, I ask those all in favour of the amendment to raise their hands, please. Those against to raise their hands, please. There are no abstentions. There are four votes, four, seven votes against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. I call the amendment 44 in the name of Richard Lyle, already debated with amendment 23. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The question is that section 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I therefore call amendment 45 in the name of Richard Lyle, already debated with amendment 23. Richard Lyle, to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. It has become clear at this stage that we are not going to get through all of the stage 2 debate today. We will have to pick up next week, and I would remind members that amendments to the remaining section of the bill can still be lodged. The deadline for doing so is 12 noon tomorrow, 7 December. The Parliament has not yet determined when stage 3 will take place. In fact, I don't need to say that just now. I just need to say that that concludes today's business, and I'm sorry that we didn't get through it all. Thank you for your attendance.