 Good morning and welcome to the 36th meeting in 2017 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Could I please remind everyone to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent? A gender item 1 is the Forestry and Land Management Bill, Scotland stage 2. Today we are undertaking consideration of that bill. I welcome Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity and his officials from the Scottish Government. I just wondered at the outset if any members would like to declare an interest. I am going to declare an interest that I am a member of a farming partnership. It has little to do with this bill but I just wanted to put that on record. Does anyone else want to, Stuart? I am a partner in a farming partnership as well. I will likewise declare an interest. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill that was introduced and the second marshal list of amendments that was published on Thursday and the second grouping of amendments that sets out the amendments in the order of which they will be debated. It may be helpful if I explain the procedure again briefly. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the First Amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and speak to all other amendments in the 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 by catching my attention in the normal way. If he has not already spoken on the group I would 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 and the members who have moved the First Amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group I will check whether any member who moved the First Amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or withdraw. If they press ahead I will put the question on that amendment. If the member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved then they must seek the agreement of the other members to do so. If any member present objects the committee will immediately move to the 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 for members to keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section and schedule of the bill so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We do aimed complete stage 2 today. Moving to the first section which is the offence of unauthorised felling I would like to call amendment 46 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary grouped with amendments 133, 134 and 135. Cabinet Secretary, please move amendment 46 and speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 46 amends the definition of felling in response to the evidence provided to the committee during stage 1. It moves us to a position where felling, for the purposes of this bill includes both the ordinary meaning of felling and the intentional killing of trees. That is intended to capture both what the sector would recognise as felling but also to ensure that, for example, the poisoning or ringbarking of trees in order to kill them and move land out of forestry use is also caught. That is in line with the fundamental principle behind the approach to the well-established regulation of felling which looks to control and maintain woodland cover and, if appropriate, apply restocking requirements. That change is supported by the sector. Mr Chapman's amendments hardwire a small selection of the current exemptions to the offence of unauthorised felling into the primary legislation. As I have stated previously, I do not think that the place for the convener is on the face of the bill. I see no reason to treat this small selection of current exemptions preferentially. While setting aside those that allow other things, those include, for example, allowing power lines to be kept clear, exemptions for developments to go ahead that have obtained planning commission or exemptions for felling required by a water authority. I just give some examples of those that Mr Chapman does not feel should be on the face of the bill. They also fail to reproduce those with the felling of trees suffering from Dutch elm disease, for example, or purposes associated with aviation, including obstructions to the approaches to and departures from aerodromes. Members get the sense that there is a wide variety of circumstances in which felling may be appropriate or necessary, so it is difficult to see why some should be in the face of the bill and some should not. I would be interested to see what Mr Chapman says in explanation of his amendment, of course. Additionally, I see nothing from Mr Chapman to Cata for changes to be made to the exemptions that he has selected. They would be fixed, so this is less flexible and proportionate than even the current arrangements, whereby much of what is on the face of the Forestry Act 1967 can be changed by regulation, and as you would expect, all of the exemptions made by regulations can also be changed. There would be introduced a degree of inflexibility, which is not appropriate or desirable and potentially causes unforeseen, unintended, presumably, consequences. Amendments 1, 3, 4 and 5 would create a two-tier system, convener, of exemptions, I believe, one set in fixed and primary legislation without any route for change where it to be required, and one set in regulations with all of the flexibility that comes with that approach, which I believe is substantially supported by stakeholders. The bill is introduced, poses a much clearer and practical regime where all of the exemptions are created by regulations, and that are found in one clear set of regulations and can suitably be adjusted if there is a good reason to do so. As a practitioner, having one clear set of regulations, convener, is always desirable for users. I am absolutely certain that Mr Chapman has brought forward those amendments with good intentions, so I hope that the issues that I have presented today highlight both how far-reaching and how important those exemptions are, and we do have to get it right. I am working with stakeholders to ensure the exemptions that we carry forward are fit for purpose. I am determined that we should use this as an opportunity to adjust them if that would be beneficial, rather than simply copying and pasting all of or an arbitrary selection of what is there now. For example, I know that some suggestions have been brought to us exploring whether there is a way to increase the protection of ancient or semi-natural woodlands by adjusting the exemptions based on volume, one of those that Mr Chapman proposes to set in stone. I am committed to considering ideas like this, convener, in order to have the most appropriate arrangements in place at the point of completing devolution in April 2019. As the committee has already heard, I am using the current exemptions as the basis for what we bring forward in regulations. The changes will only be made where there is a good reason so to do, and there will be no gap between the current exemptions and the new ones. I say that because that was a point specifically raised by the committee in its report that there should be no gap, and I think that that was a very sound advice and advice that we should follow. This approach has broad support across the stakeholders that we have heard from. Confor did not support those amendments. The regulation making power for exemptions is affirmative, and Parliament will therefore have the opportunity to scrutinise the results of the collaboration with the sector and other interested parties, and I think that that is a good thing. I therefore move amendment 46. I call on Peter Chapman to speak to amendment 133 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I am pleased to speak to amendments 133, 134 and 135, and as the cabinet secretary intimated, I bring those forward with good intentions. The amendments are the key definitions. We believe the key definitions in terms from the 1967 Forest React and ensure that they are in the new bill. This is because the bill at present in section 24 gives the Scottish ministers the power to set out exceptions and regulations. As the minister has said, he argues that this should remain a general and flexible power rather than setting out specific detailed exceptions on the face of the bill. However, with the 1967 Forest React filing regulations appealed in this bill, we argue that specific cases that we want to be exempt should be covered. The three regulations that we have taken from the 1967 Act provide clarity for forestry landowners, and they widen the exceptions to the offence. That is why I would move the three amendments in my name and I would add that I support the amendment 46 in the cabinet secretary's name. Thank you, Peter. Stuart Stevenson. I just want to speak briefly on 1.35, which is about the cubic size of trees that can be felled in three months. Putting that into primary legislation illustrates a more general problem. When you remove it from the secondary legislation, put it in primary, you remove the context. As a lay person, not a forester, I do not know what five cubic metres of wood is. Is it, for example, the size of the tree before you fell it? I suspect not because I can think of a single tree that would be five cubic metres before it is felled. Is it the result of what you get leaving aside the brush that you are going to discard? What does it mean? When you bring it into primary legislation and the explanation of that sort of thing, I think that it creates some dangers, at least for the lay person. It may not be the case, by the way, and I accept this for the professional forester. That may be the case. In reading it as a lay person, it struck me that it kind of stood alone from a context that it probably would have in the secondary legislation. Cabinet secretary, I invite you to wind up, please. Well, I do recognise Mr Chapman who has brought forward his amendments with good intentions, so I just wanted to repeat that and thank him for so doing and allowing a debate on an important matter. But I do believe that we do need to have the clarity that will come from having the regulations determined in secondary legislation and the flexibility that comes from that. The amendments in Mr Chapman's name would deny that flexibility, which could be required in the future, and whilst apparently demoting the importance of exemptions in various areas, many of which I have covered, but many others I have not covered. I think that this is largely a technical matter where all the stakeholders appear to agree with the Government's approach and I would therefore commend it to the committee. Thank you. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I move on to the next section, which is remedial notice. I call amendment 47 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with other amendments, as has shown in the grouping cabinet secretary, to remove amendment 47 and to speak to the other amendments in the group, please. This group of amendments, while very large, encompasses three areas, two brought forward by the Government and one by Mr Chapman, all relating to the remedial notices provided for in part four of the bill. Remedial notices will be used where it appears to the Scottish ministers that a person is failing to comply with the permission, direction or registered notice. A remedial notice will set out what steps must be taken by a person in order to bring them back into compliance and, although the hope is that this will result in compliance, if it does not, ministers may then use their step-in powers. For the sake of giving context to this long and technical group of amendments, the sequence for failing permissions is this. A permission is granted for failing with conditions attached, usually relating to restocking of the site. One or more of those conditions is not complied with. Thirdly, ministers serve the person who is failing to comply with the remedial notice, setting out steps that they must take in order to come back into compliance, and this could be about the timing within which restocking is to be done or the way in which it is to be done, for example. Next, if the steps are not taken, ministers may use their step-in powers and carry out the steps themselves. Finally, if ministers consider it reasonable to do so, they may reclaim the costs of taking those steps. I thought that it useful to run through the process where the remedial notice would come into operation. They are a crucial part of the enforcement picture and they allow for the end that we all want to see reached compliance with conditions. In other words, conditions set out for restocking should be complied with. That process allows us to have confidence that there is a mechanism so to do. They do not, however, interfere with the ability to refer any offences to procreate a fiscal. That option is open to ministers at any point in the process. The first of my proposed changes is to make it clear that remedial notices may have conditions placed upon them. This is dealt with by amendment 85 and those made in consequence of 85, namely 81, 84, 86, 89, 97, 100. That brings remedial notices into line with felling and restocking directions and will ensure that Scottish ministers are able to specify in regulations what those conditions can include on registering remedial notices. The second of my proposed changes is to bring remedial notices in line with permissions and directions as far as the ability to register is concerned. Amendments 87, 88 and 101 together do that by enabling registration, secondly by underpinning registered remedial notices with an offence of failure to comply and third and lastly providing for appeals to be made against refusal to vary or discharge the notice. Amendments 47, 48, 52, 55, 57 to 80, 82, 83, 90 to 92, 98, 99, 114 are made in consequence of amendments 87, 88 and 101. That is important in order to ensure that remedial notices can be enforced in the same way the other permissions directions are in the bill. Turning to Mr Chapman's amendments which are about reasonable or reasonable conditions is amendment 75A, 78A, 81A, 84A, 85 and 86A, 87A, 89A, 97A and 100A will seek to insert the word reasonable to all of the Government amendments that inserted references to conditions on remedial notices. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure committee that ministers are bound in fact to act reasonably in exercising all of their powers. Why this is stimulating jocularity is a matter for members. So we are bound to act reasonably, we are bound by the law to act reasonably in exercising all of our powers, including all of the power set out in this bill. The imposition of remedial notices and the inclusion of conditions is a discretionary power. All discretionary powers which ministers have must be exercised in accordance with the rules of administrative law. That means that the powers must be exercised in a manner that is reasonable and proportionate and for proper purposes. Decisions may be challenged through the process of judicial review and that has happened not infrequently and reasonableness is at the very heart of that. If a power is exercised in a manner to paraphrase Lord Greene in the case known as Wednessbury that is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to that decision then the courts may interfere and hold that decision to be out with the scope of the power conferred by Parliament. I'm very pleased that in those decisions that I've taken over the years and I can think of four which I will not name the courts have eventually decided that I did act reasonably in all circumstances. That irrelevant personal observation aside I can... That cabinet secretary, I'll let you continue. It is an illustration that these matters are taken quite seriously very seriously because the chamber has lodged these amendments with the laudable aim of protecting the regulated from unreasonable actions by their regulator and I believe that the addition of the word reasonable would instead of providing clarity or reassurance have the potential to cause some confusion after all if one presides in some circumstances that ministers must act reasonably then it does beg the question that where ministers have other discretionary powers and the word reasonable does not appear then is there a difference and it begs the question about whether or not there is some different degree of duty or imposed upon ministers so the potential for confusion is there albeit that I am absolutely certain Mr Chapman's amendment is well intentioned so for those reasons I would invite him respectfully not to press his amendments thank you. Peter Chapman, please could you speak to amendments 75A and other amendments in the group? Convener, I will speak to 75A, 84A, 85A, 86A, 87A and 97A under 100A in my name and although we do support the addition of registered remedial notices we do not agree with the wording that ministers can issue registered remedial notices and that is a key bit including any condition imposed on it that's what it says we think it should read including any reasonable condition imposed on it, we just feel that's too wide so adding the additional word reasonable before the condition means that they have to relate to forestry and be applicable to the bill so adding reasonable to the conditions imposed on registered remedial notices makes for fair and proportionate conditions I would argue and as the cabinet secretary said the the government is bound to act in a reasonable manner so therefore I would take it from that that he should have no objection to the word reasonable appearing under the various sections that I have outlined so with that in mind I would remove these amendments in my name and move them later sorry, I'm finished Stuart Thank you very much, convener There's always a temptation to sort of take a blanket approach to these things and unfortunately it leads you into temptations which you should avoid and I particularly want to look at amendment 84A where the addition of the word reasonable has the opposite effect to that which Mr Chapman suggests he says that the power is too wide, we need the word reasonable however if we look at what the Bill before us says that before amendment by the minister by the cabinet secretary's amendment it reads the Scottish ministers may vary or revoke a remedial notice when you add the cabinet secretary's amendment to it it becomes Scottish ministers may vary or revoke a remedial notice including any condition imposed on it when you add the word reasonable it becomes the Scottish ministers may vary or revoke a remedial notice and any reasonable condition imposed on it in other words we deny the Scottish ministers the opportunity to revoke a condition that was not reasonable so in fact the addition of the word reasonable restricts the power to revoke a remedial notice and is an example of how the word reasonable one might be able to make a logical case for including it you have to go back to the legislation and look at the effect of every individual word that you add and in the case of 84a in particular now I only focus on that one just to exemplify the dangers of what Mr Chapman is proposing it actually has the opposite effect which is the one which I think he seeks that I could possibly support because it restricts the ability to revoke remedial notices which might be concluded by Mr Chapman or others not to be reasonable Mike Rumbles For a moment I thought I was on the set of a comedy production yes minister when does the word reasonable actually mean unreasonable and I'm astonished to hear members so far and Stuart Stevens making a marvellous case to make the word reasonable sound unreasonable I don't accept the proposition to me I'm going to support if they are moved Peter Chapman's amendments which are full of reasonableness I can't think of any better amendments actually that we've seen in this whole process that they are full of reasonableness and it does restrict the minister's actions and it puts it into law I heard the minister say that ministers are acquired by law to act reasonably and of course they are but let's not forget this is the law we are actually making the law and we're putting it into black and white so for the avoidance of doubt I think to have to go to court to see whether ministers are acting reasonably acted unreasonably no no I think you've had your say Stuart I think I'm commenting on the minister's comments I think it is strange to have to think that we have to go to court to prove the ministers were not acting unreasonably whereas if it's actually in the bill and it becomes an act of parliament where there is a requirement in black and white for the issue of these notices for the minister to act reasonably I go back to where I started from I was actually thinking maybe I am on the set of yes minister when I hear the English language being turned on its head full of reasonableness I'm a reasonable person and I certainly will support these reasonable amendments Mr Finlay John You can give me that I often think I'm on the set when I hear Mr Rumble speak I I'm also a member of the justice committee we transact a lot of business it makes certain demands on ministers and I have to say it would be endless amendments if we were to insert this word I think we heard from Stuart Stevens a very graphic and very practical reason why we shouldn't support these and I won't be supporting these amendments Richard I know Mr Rumbles is always a reasonable man and as far as I'm concerned he just destroyed his own case and basically the concern that I would have is that a lawyer would have a few days with that word so therefore I won't be supporting neither Mr Chapman nor the reasonable Mr Rumbles Just before I hand it back to the cabinet secretary if I may make an observation if a remedial notice is issued under this law which has to be reasonable with reasonable conditions there is no way that you would want to remove any conditions that weren't reasonable because they wouldn't have been put there in the first place so reasonable to me is a very good argument for it and therefore I should be supporting it but I think we'll go back to the cabinet secretary and let the cabinet secretary wind up I'll just make three points that where Mr Chapman's amendments be accepted would in this statute be adopting an approach which is entirely inconsistent with the approach that we have taken in this Parliament and indeed that is taken in the history of parliamentary draftsmanship and is unnecessary because of the extant law across the UK based on the Wendsbury test so it's unnecessary and it creates confusion I've said that already but there are actually even within this draft bill unintended consequences of reasonable would apply to some matters but not to others for example if you look at section 31 this confers upon ministers powers in relation to felling directions if it appears that the felling of trees is required then it confers quite wide powers upon ministers and the regulations may include for example in section 316d the imposition of conditions on a felling direction Had Mr Rumbles seriously intended that his approach be consistent and reasonable should have appeared in front of the word conditions because he would argue that we could act in impliedly unreasonably in relation to felling directions so that creates this inconsistency even within this bill that we would be bound to act reasonably specifically explicitly in some cases to do with remedial notices but not in relation to other cases even within this bill but surely is inconsistent and not something that the unminded member would be liable to support and the last point I make is this that because of the way that Mr Chapman has worded his amendments there is actually I presume in a further unintended consequence which is that we would still be able to impose remedial notices which were unreasonable we just wouldn't be able to register them in other words we wouldn't be able to register unreasonable conditions but we could impose them well that's the result or would be the result is approved and I would submit that that would be certainly unreasonable and perhaps even more perverse thank you therefore we'll move now to the question is and the question is amendment 47 are we all agreed we are agreed the question therefore is that section 22 be agreed are we all agreed okay I'm going to call amendment 133 in the name of Peter Chapman already debated with amendment 46 Peter Chapman to move or not to move okay does any other member present object the amendment yep confused sorry too early in the morning moving on to amendment 134 in the name of Peter Chapman already debated with amendment 46 Peter Chapman move or not move okay thank you therefore is to call amendment 135 in the name of Peter Chapman already debated with amendment 46 Peter Chapman move or not move okay therefore call amendment 48 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47 cabinet secretary to move formally please the question is are we is the amendment 48 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed is that section 23 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed the question therefore is section 24 and 26 be agreed sorry 24 to 26 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed so move on to the next section which is the continuation of conditions on felling permissions can I call amendment 49 in the name of the cabinet secretary grouped with amendment 50 to move amendment 49 and speak to both amendments in the group I'm grateful for the consideration the committee gave the provisions in the bill relating to registration I hope our discussion on 13 September so I have to clarify the intention behind the powers to register notices specifically that this is about making sure that conditions ministers place as the forestry regulator on a piece of land will bind future owners this is entirely focused on ensuring that conditions or as the case may be directions can be enforced regardless of how many changes in ownership there have been and will mean conditions come up in solicitors ordinary searches property searches when a piece of land is undergoing purchase conditions are familiar to the forestry sector and routinely set out restocking requirements and time frames they may also set out for example how to ensure that operations respect buffer areas around certain rivers while salmon are spawning or stipulate that no operations may occur near Capercaillie core areas during the breeding season they could also include longer term conditions such as the management of important open space within a forest area to stop unwanted encroachment by natural regeneration of invasive species such as rhododendron as suggested I've considered how best to ensure that the proportionate and cost and resource effective use of powers to register notices the risk-based approach to registration since it's a power and not an obligation to register in all instances was alluded to in stage 1 and has now been given further thought I consider that taking a risk-based approach to registration is the best way to use the power in order to ensure compliance with conditions such as restocking conditions on a felling permission owners will in future require to advise the local conservancy of plans to put their forest property on the market that will enable a trigger to allow the conservancy the new forestry division operating locally to consider whether there are conditions that require to be registered amendment 49 seeks to put beyond any doubt that conditions can on top of all the familiar conditions that I've already mentioned require information to be provided to ministers from those using felling permissions the type of information that we envisage being required is for example that a sale of land is being prepared so that ministers can take a risk-based approach to registering conditions amendment 50 makes clear that the regulations that will be made to provide further information on how decisions will be made on felling permissions they include detail on how these requests for information will operate taken together I believe that those amendments support the proportionate use of the power to register that the committee rightly asked for and I'm pleased that CONFOR and Scottish Land and Estates who did have some reservations about registration initially agree that this is the correct approach I move amendment 49 Thank you No other member wants to speak Cabinet Secretary, I'm assuming you will go your winding up at that stage and I can move directly to question that is amendment 49 be agreed are we agreed? Yes We are all agreed and we now move to amendment 50 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 49 Cabinet Secretary can I ask you to move it formally please? Moved. The question therefore is that amendment 50 be agreed are we all agreed? Yes We are agreed The question further question is that section 28 and 29 be agreed are we all agreed? Yes Right we now move on to the next section which is the felling of trees subject to tree preservation orders can I call amendment 51 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary group with amendments 53 and 54 Cabinet Secretary can I ask you to move amendment 51 and speak to all the amendments in the group tree preservation orders or TPO's as they are known are used by planning authorities to protect trees in their area in the interests of immunity or because they are of cultural or historical significance they can impose prohibitions on cutting down and lopping trees for example so it's possible there will be an overlap with the forestry felling regime however currently this overlap usually those cases where TPO's are in place relate to trees which are currently subject to exemptions for felling gardens orchards and churchards are currently exempt as is the felling of small volumes of timber as I've already outlined we're working with the sector to review these exemptions and where appropriate refine them but we do expect the overlap by a convener to remain limited however to ensure that a person who wants to fell in an area where both regimes apply does not need to apply for permission twice amendment 51 provides the Scottish ministers with the ability to refer an application to fell to the planning authority that made the TPO if ministers decide to determine the application instead amendment 51 preserves the requirement to consult the planning authority that made the TPO and to take account of their representations it also disciplines the offence of felling without permission for actions taken in accordance with the TPO consent after such a referral and this is in line with current practice amendment 54 requires ministers to consult a planning authority before issuing a felling direction if the direction relates to a tree which is subject to a TPO this brings the felling direction provisions in line with the felling permission provisions amendment 53 is consequential to amendment 54 convener I move amendment 51 thank you Noah the member has asked to speak so we will move directly to the question and the question is that amendment 51 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed so I'd like to call amendment 52 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47 cabinet secretary can you move it formally please moved the question now is that amendment 53 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed therefore going to call amendment 53 again in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 51 cabinet secretary can you formally move it moved the question now is that amendment 53 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed there is one further question on this section 31 be agreed are we all agreed the question is that section 32 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed so I'm now going to call amendment 54 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 51 cabinet secretary can you move it formally please the question is that amendment 54 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed so I'm now going to call amendment 55 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47 cabinet secretary can you move it formally please formally moved the question is that amendment 55 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed the question is that section 33 be agreed are we all agreed the question is that section 34 to 36 be agreed with the section on the definition of the owner can I call amendment 56 in the name of the cabinet secretary grouped with amendments 109 and 113 cabinet secretary please can you move amendment 56 and speak to all the amendments in the group amendment 109 defines what is meant by owner for the purposes of the bill amendment 113 is consequential to 109 we are seeking to define owner for the purposes of the bill in order to put amendment 56 in the name of the cabinet secretary we are not doubt that when ownership has transferred by a means that does not trigger a change to the title sheet of the land register we mean to refer to the most recent owner when ownership transfers on inheritance this is an example it is often carried out by docket transfer with no change to the title the purpose of amendment 56 is to replace each owner with the owner in section 37 in relation to the registration of notices of variation the owner is used throughout the rest of the bill and the effect of this amendment is to bring section 37 into line with other sections in the bill I move amendment 56 another member wishes to speak therefore we will move straight to the question and the question is that amendment 56 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed I am now going to call amendments 57 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated with amendment 47 I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 57 to 64 on block move the block does any member object to the question on each amendment to putting a single question on each of the amendments 57 to 64 no the question therefore is that amendments 57 to 64 are agreed are we all agreed we are agreed the question is that section 37 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed I am now going to call amendments 65 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71 all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated with amendment 47 I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 65 to 71 on block does any member object to a single question being put to amendments 65 to 71 no the question therefore is that amendments 65 to 71 are agreed to are we all agreed we are agreed the question is that section 38 I am now going to call amendments 72 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47 cabinet secretary could you formally move it please the question now is that amendments 71 sorry 72 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed the question is that section 39 be agreed are we all agreed I am now going to call amendments 73 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47 cabinet secretary can you formally move it please the question is that amendment 73 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed the question is that section 40 be agreed are we all agreed I am now going to call amendments 74 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47 cabinet secretary can you formally move it please formally moved I am now calling amendment 75 in the name of Peter Chapman sorry 75 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed the question is that section 41 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed I am now going to call amendments 75 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47 75a sorry thank you for the correction amendment 75a in the name of Peter Chapman already debated with amendment 47 Peter Chapman move or not move the question is that amendment 75a be agreed are we all agreed we are not agreed therefore I call a division those in favour of the amendment please raise their hands those against the votes for the amendment is for the votes against our seven the amendment is not agreed can I ask cabinet secretary to press or withdraw amendment 75 the question is that amendment 75 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed I call the amendment 76 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47 cabinet secretary move amendment 76 be agreed we are agreed I call amendment 77 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47 cabinet secretary move the question is that amendment 77 be agreed we are agreed section 42 be agreed are we all agreed the question is that section 43 be agreed, are we all agreed? I now call amendment 78 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary can you formally move it please? I call amendment 78A in the name of Peter Chapman already debated with amendment 47. Peter Chapman to move or not move? Not move. Y cwestiynau erioed. The question is... The question is the amendment 78 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 79 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet Secretary will in formally move it. The question therefore is the amendment 79 be agreed are we all agreed. We are agreed. y cwestiynau yw ysgol 44 ydy, rwy'n gweithio yma? Ysgol. Mae arfer amlwg 80 ar y cyfnod Cymru, yn ystyried gyda'r cwestiynau 47 ar y cyfnod Cymru, a'r cyfnod Cymru yn ei ddefnyddio. Y cwestiynau yw ysgol 80 ydy, rwy'n gweithio yma? Ysgol. Mae ysgol. Yn y cwestiynau yw Ysgol 45 ydy, rwy'n gweithio yma? Ysgol. Mae ysgol. Mae'r sefful yn 46 i ddim yn fwy, dwi'n ddim yn fwy cerddael, ac rwy'n ddim yn fwy i gael. Mae'n ddim yn gyd. Doeddwn i'n bwysig befyrddol gyda'r goronon yma o'r Ffawr. Rhaid i'n byw ddatech chi'n gweld amllunio iddendr o'r ffordd meddwl 47. Rhaid i'n byw ddadoch y cerdd, y byw ddadoch eu ffordd? Fقدwllem. amendment 81A yn y name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 47. Peter Chapman, move or not move. The question, therefore, is that amendment 81 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I'm now going to call amendment 82 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you move it formally please? The question is that amendment 82 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 83 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, to move formally please. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 47 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I'm now going to call amendment 84 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you move it formally please? Formally moved. I call amendment 84A in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 47. Peter Chapman, to move or not move. Let move. Therefore, the question is that amendment 84 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I'm calling amendment 85 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you move it formally please? Formally moved. I call amendment 85A in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 47. Peter Chapman, to move or not move. Let move. Okay. The question therefore is that amendment 85 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 48 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 86 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it please? Formally moved. I call amendment 86A in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 47. Peter Chapman, to move or not move. Let move. Thank you. The question therefore is that amendment 86 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 49 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I'm now going to call amendment 87 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you move it formally please? Move. I call amendment 87A in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 47. Peter Chapman, to move or not move. Let move. The question therefore is that amendment 87 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 88 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you move it formally please? Formally moved. The question that amendment 88 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question now is that section 50 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 89 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you move it formally please? Formally moved. I now call amendment 89A in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 47. Peter Chapman, to move or not move. Okay. The question therefore is that amendment 89 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I am now going to call amendments 90, 91 and 92, all in the name of cabinet secretary, and all previously debated with amendment 47. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 90 to 92 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put to amendments 90 to 92? No. The question therefore is that amendments 90 to 92 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 51 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We now move on to the next section, powers of entry and step in power. Can I call amendment 93 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 94, 95 and 96? Cabinet secretary, can you move the amendment 93 and speak to all amendments in the group? Amendment 93 adds summary sheriffs to the list of persons who can issue warrants under section 52 of the bill to authorise entry to land where entry has been refused or is reasonably expected to be refused, the land is unoccupied or the owner is temporarily absent. This means the full list of those who can issue warrants for the purposes of this section would be sheriffs, summary sheriffs and justices of the peace. It is government policy to include summary sheriffs in the provisions for the granting of warrants like section 54. Amendment 94 is consequential to amendment 93. Amendment 96 has the effect that references to the Scottish ministers in sections relating to site visits, powers of entry and step in powers include persons authorised by the Scottish ministers. That means that ministers will be able to use contractors or consultants as the need arises, for example to carry out site visits to check compliance with conditions relating to a protected site. Amendment 95 is consequential to 96. I move amendment 93. No other member wishes to speak, therefore I am going to move straight to the question that amendment 93 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I am calling amendment 94 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 93. Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it please? Formally moved. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 52 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question now therefore is that section 53 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I am now going to call amendment 95 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 93. Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it please? Formally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 96 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 93? Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it please? Formally moved. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 54 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I am now going to call amendment 97 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it please? Formally moved. I therefore call amendment 97A in the name of Peter Chapman already debated with amendment 47. Peter Chapman, to move or not move? Not move. Okay. Therefore, the question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 98 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you move it formally please? Thank you. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 55 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 56 to 58 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I now call amendment 99 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it please? Formally moved. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 59 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I am now calling amendment 100 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it? Formally moved. I call amendment 100A in the name of Peter Chapman already debated with amendment 47. Peter Chapman, to move or not move? Not moved. Okay. The question therefore is that amendment 100 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Therefore, call amendment 101 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question therefore is section 60 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We now move on to the next section, which is information, research and education. I call amendment 13 in the name of Peter Chapman in a group of its own. Peter Chapman, can you formally move the amendment and speak to it please? Thank you, convener. This amendment, I think, is quite important. In my opinion, it is anyway that it changes the word may to must. This is in reference to section 61, which is about information, research and education. That means that ministers must carry out research. When speaking with many stakeholders, we all agreed, everyone agreed, that there can never be a time when we don't need more research in regards to tree health and education, etc. I believe that there is never a time when this is not needed. Therefore, I move amendment 13 in my name. The effect of changing may to must is extremely slight. Where it to say must, the Scottish ministers only need to do it once. That is the effect. We know that research of the kind described is being undertaken, so, just in practical sense, it would only need to be done once. It has no effect. Cabinet Secretary, do you have any comment on that? Research, development and education are extremely important functions in relation to forestry. The Scottish Government, of course, is committed to carrying out those functions as appropriate. I can inform members that, in 216-17, through the Scottish Government, through the First Commission of Scotland, commission nearly £1 million of Scottish-specific research and development. I have full details here, but I just wanted to start off with that clear commitment. Although I appreciate what Mr Chapman is trying to achieve with amendment 13, I would like to offer an alternative approach, which I believe is to be preferred. I am also concerned that the amendment, as it stands, would oblige Scottish ministers to carry out functions even when they are not necessary. I acknowledge that that may seem unlikely when it comes to research into tree health. We are sadly unlikely to run out of avenues for research on that front in any of our lifetimes. However, the amendment goes much further than research and covers all of the matters listed, convener, in section 61, to which members may wish to refer. Those are all of the matters that are necessarily drafted quite broadly, as they were intended to be enabling in nature. However, the amendment would oblige ministers to do all of the following, to carry out research and inquiries, to collect data and publish statistics, to provide education and training, and to encourage or assist other persons to do any of those in the exercise of the bill's functions. Further, it would apply to all of the minister's functions under the bill. The amendment goes much wider than, for example, a duty to carry out research into tree health or to provide training for machine operators working in forestry, which I believe may be the intent behind the amendment. Indeed, such research and training is vital and is currently carried out without such an obligation being in place. The forestry act does not place this kind of duty on the forestry commissioners, but rather enables them to carry out such work. As the duty would apply to all minister's functions under the bill, it would include functions related to the management of non-forestryd land, or the regulatory functions that we have discussed in the previous groups today. Even in relation to the forestry parts of the bill, convener, it is unclear what the amendment would actually mean, for example. Consider an obligation to provide education and training in connection with the duty to prepare a forestry strategy, a duty that rests on the Scottish ministers currently on me. Maybe Mr Chapman believes that I need to be educated or trained prior to undertake the duty that is or would be imposed upon me in order to prepare the forestry strategy. That is what his amendment means at the moment. I presume that that is not something that he had in mind when he lodged the amendment. Ministers may well consider appropriate that the strategy includes material on education and training in the forestry sector, but that is not the same thing as a duty to provide education and training in connection with the duty to prepare the strategy. A second example of the difficulties is that it personally obliges ministers to assist others. That would again have consequences that I presume were unintended. For example, the private sector has an obligation to collect data and publish statistics. That would impose an obligation on ministers to provide assistance in that respect, which might have the effect of imposing obligations on taxpayers to cover expenses that would properly be due by private sector businesses. Again, I do not think that that is something that Mr Chapman intended to be the case, but because of the way that his amendment is framed and the wording of section 61, that is a consequence of what it would mean. Nonetheless, I can understand the motivation behind the amendment, and I have sympathy with anyone attempting to provide sure footing for important issues. I am committed to ensuring that tree health research continues at the levels that we need. Indeed, on the day of the stage 1 debate, we announced that forest research would continue as an agency of the forestry commissioners, and I am in fact visiting the forest research station at the Bush estate tomorrow. In conclusion, I would prefer to work with Mr Chapman between now and stage 3 to develop a duty that focuses on having suitable arrangements in place to carry out tree health research. I believe that an amendment that focuses on maintaining or improving our capacity would be a proportionate way forward. Finally, I point out that ministers have agreed across the UK an equitable split of the £11 million core budget for cross-border functions, which is currently held in the DEFRA vote. The majority of that funding does, convener, relate to research that would thus be carried out in accordance with the existing strategy known as Science and Innovation for Forestry in Great Britain. A member has asked to come in, and I am going to let him come in, Jamie Greene. If any other member wants to come in, having heard that for hours, Peter Chapman, to wind up, please let me know. Yes, Jamie. I thank the convener for allowing me to participate after listening to the cabinet secretary of great interest. I have just a few points on this. I think that there is a technicality issue here that the minister has identified around the changing of the word may to must in the sense that does this place a duty on the minister as an individual to conduct research and educate, or does it, would changing the word may to must create a duty on the minister to ensure that research takes place as opposed to the minister, him or herself, conducting the research or inquiries or publishing the data, et cetera, as listed in points A to D. That is perhaps a point of clarification that I am unsure of. I do support, in essence, what Mr Chapman is trying to achieve, and it is up to Mr Chapman whether he proceeds or not with the amendment. Given much of the evidence that we took in the sessions on this bill, I think that there was concern and genuine concern from different factions as to the restructuring of the First Commission Scotland becoming an essence of government department, that it was vital that we protect some of the key functions of the commission, such as publishing data, education, training, research, et cetera. I do welcome the cabinet secretary's proposal to strengthen the problem with the word may, but it also means that the Scottish Minister may not. What Mr Chapman is trying to achieve is to strengthen the section to ensure that those current functions of the First Commission are not lost in any way as a result of this bill or any restructuring that takes place, which is why I was keen to support Mr Chapman. Cabinet Secretary, there was a question in there that I will give you a chance to answer, but I'm going to go to Mike Rumbles first. I just wanted to say that section 61 is an enabling section, and it seems quite reasonable to me that the minister is being enabled to do all of this, so I'm perfectly happy with the word may rather than an instruction must, but I just wanted to comment on what Stuart Stevenson said. He said that if you put the word must in there, you only have to do it once, but if you leave the word may in there, you don't have to do it at all, and that's the point. However, I trust the minister and I trust other ministers to operate under this enabling legislation. I don't always trust everything ministers do, but I do in this particular case. I'm happy not to support the amendment. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to make a comment on the question that Jamie Greene raised? I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch it. I wonder if Mr Greene could, for my benefit, just reframe the question. I was probably more in observation, Cabinet Secretary, but it was around your point and your statement that changing the word may to must meant that the duties were on the minister as an individual as opposed to the minister and his departments. The objection to using the word must is that the obligation would then be to carry out research whether or not it was required. There is no question that we require research. In fact, we must have research because of the threats to tree health by plant disease, hybolium and so on. This is one of the biggest worries to forestry, as all members will know. As I'm sure you heard from all stakeholders, so there's no question about that. Therefore, our concern was that the obligation would exist that we had to carry out research, but not of any sort whether or not it's required. As a matter of practice, if we just reassure members that this will essentially be a function that's carried out at UK level, we've reached an agreement with the UK Government and the Welsh Administration about how that's done. We've reached an agreement about how the budget should be allocated. We've reached an agreement that the various administrations will take leads in specific areas. We've reached an agreement that the Welsh Government will take the lead in relation to research. We've reached an agreement that, of course, the research that's carried out will be determined by all of the bodies of the UK Government, the devolved administrations, and it will be done in accordance with the existing strategy, which is called science and innovation for forestry in GB. There already is quite a settled approach to that, and there's lots of excellent staff in Scotland that are working on that. Obviously, I'm happy to do that. I'm certainly reassured by the talk of the collaborative work within GB. Can you confirm that part of the liaison regarding research will be on an international basis? Of course, scientists have regard to all evidence from wherever it is based, and it's important for scientists to look at the work of others across Europe and beyond, and they do. I think that's an important point that Mr Benny has raised. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call on Peter Chapman to wind up and to press or withdraw the amendment. Thank you, convener. I do absolutely believe that May isn't a strong enough word in there, and I don't understand what Stuart Stevens was saying, but if you put in must, then you only must do it once. That doesn't seem to be logical in any way, shape or form, but I do recognise in 61D, for instance, that the cabinet secretary pointed out that my amendment would mean that we must encourage and must assist other persons, maybe private persons, to do some of the things. I accept that that wasn't what I had intended with my amendment. I do welcome the offer to work with me. I do think that we need to strengthen this word, May, but if the cabinet secretary is minded to work to achieve a fairer or a better meaning in here, then I am prepared to accept that offer and withdraw on that basis. Okay, thank you. I have to ask a question that does any other member present object the amendment being withdrawn? As we don't object, no one objects, we will move on to the next amendment. Sorry, no, I've got two questions first. The question is that sections 61 be agreed, are we all agreed? The question is that sections 62 to 64 be agreed, are we all agreed? So I move on to the next section, which is organisational structures, and I'm going to call amendment 102 in the name of Raid of Grant, group with amendments 103, 104, 105, 107, 108 and 136. Can I ask Raid of Grant to move amendment 102 and speak to all amendments in the group? Can I move amendment 102 and speak to the others in the group? When we took evidence on the bill, there was concern that the new structures would mean a loss of forestry expertise. That was so well regarded in the forestry commission. The Government have ignored pleas to change the structures, therefore these amendments are attempting to protect forestry expertise and keep the new organisation rooted in the industry. Amendment 102 creates the post of a chief forester. That has been modelled on the statutory provision that requires local authorities to have certain professional heads of service, for example chief finance officer, chief education officer and chief social work officer. It establishes a requirement for a post but leaves ministers to specify in regulations what the mandatory professional qualifications are for anyone to get this post. Amendment 107 makes those regulations subject to negative procedure. Amendment 103 is very similar to amendment 102 but creates a post of area forester. That amendment does not prescribe the area but leaves that to Scottish ministers. My understanding is that there are five divisions currently in that and these could be designated as areas to be covered by area foresters. Again, it allows Scottish ministers to bring forward regulations for the qualifications for experience that would be required by the post holder. Again, amendment 105 makes those regulations subject to negative procedure. Amendment 104 puts in place a national advisory group. That would not be a formal commission but a group that ministers can appoint to advise them. Again, it is designed to keep forestry routed in the economic, environmental and social principles that should guide our forestry policy. Amendment 105 sets up similar local groups in areas that could follow current forestry divisions. I hope that those amendments will keep the best of what the industry and communities cherish of the forestry commission and keep the management of the forestry close to its stakeholders by giving stakeholders a real seat in policy making. Turning to amendment 136 in the name of Claudia Beamish, one of the most contentious parts of this bill is the bit of the bill that is not in it. I support Claudia's amendment in that those government structures could be published and scrutinised in order to give some comfort to those in the industry. I am now going to call Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 136 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to members and, of course, to the cabinet secretary and those with him today. I speak in support of my amendment 136, of which there has been a considerable amount of dialogue between my own office and other offices with some stakeholders in the lead-up to this meeting. In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that Scottish ministers should set out details of how they will manage and administer their forestry responsibilities and that members should also consult on a notified Parliament of any significant future change in those arrangements. The committee also noted that stakeholders had expressed wide-ranging concerns about the separation of the functions of the Forestry Commission. I would like to very briefly quote the consultation responses on the bill. Question 1A says that our proposals are for a dedicated forestry commission in the Scottish Government and an executive agency to manage the national forest estate. Do you agree with this approach? I am simply quoting from this document around five in 20 respondents—I am not quite sure how I could be around, but I am quoting—agree with the proposal by a 13 in 20 disagree and around two in 20 did not answer the question. Amongst the organisational responses, the three most frequently made points by those disagreeing with the proposals were that the management of Scotland's forests should be or remain independent and be the responsibility of a standalone organisation that is separate from government and secondly should be managed by forestry experts and professionals rather than by civil servants and thirdly should sit within a single organisation and not be divided between two different bodies. The amendment seeks to reflect the committee's recommendations, as I have understood them, and to address the concerns expressed by some stakeholders, including the Forestry Commission's Scotland staff union, by requiring ministers to lay before Parliament a report setting out the administrative arrangements that they intend to make for carrying out of their functions under the act. That would include the arrangements intended for the establishment of any agency, its governance, the different roles and responsibilities of senior officers, the financial accountability, establishment of advisory groups and the exercising of the power to form companies, etc. under section 62. It also requires ministers to consult on any future significant amendments with appropriate persons and to notify the Scottish Parliament. As I have highlighted, a number of forestry stakeholders have raised concerns about the new arrangements, explaining to me their belief that Scotland's forests should sit within the single organisation. As I have highlighted in the bill consultation, that was raised. At this stage, I have not lodged an amendment to directly address this issue, in part because it is not my committee. I am trying to show respect to the committee but, also due to the legislative advice that I have received about the complexities of this, am I not wishing to lodge an amendment that could in any way be construed as a wrecking amendment. However, the stakeholders are concerned about the bill's proposals, which could sacrifice the long-established brand identity, culture of joint working and knowledge sharing and the practical attitude of the current organisational arrangements. It would be welcome if the cabinet secretary were able to address these concerns as he will himself be aware that they were raised at the consultation stage. My amendment 36 is an attempt to address these concerns constructively. While I live in hope that the cabinet secretary might consider accepting it, I do appreciate that it is quite a tall ask at this stage 2, but I would be very keen, perhaps more appropriately, if the cabinet secretary were to consider discussions before stage 3 on the issue of a single organisation with those continuing to express these concerns. Although I do not have a vote, I also support Rhoda Grant's amendments because I think that they will enable a more again, a more outward looking arrangement through the amendments that she suggested, especially having a chief forester to oversee things. Thank you, convener. I would like to thank Rhoda Grant and Claudia Beamish for bringing before those amendments. I would like to speak to the amendments in this group, starting with amendment 1 or 2, around the creation of a chief forester. I believe that that reflects a view that was taken in the committee report stage 1, around the appointment of a chief forester. That is a necessary function and it is a welcome addition to the bill. I am therefore happy to support Rhoda Grant's amendment 1 or 2. However, amendments 103, 104 and 105 do have concerns over that. By putting in primary legislation that we must appoint area foresters, in my view, this is a step too far in creating additional and perhaps unnecessary bureaucracy in the organisational structures of the future agency. I believe that the division of Scotland into administrative areas perhaps is unnecessary for the purpose of forestry when looking at a national outlook and strategy. I believe that decisions should be taken by the chief forester, which is why I am happy to support the amendment 1 or 2, which would create such a role. I also think that by putting those area foresters into primary legislation, we are setting in law a structure that may not necessarily meet the needs of future governance of forestry. In a similar tone, amendments 104 and 105, with the creation of a national advisory group and local partnership groups, I have absolutely no doubt that Rhoda Grant has very well intentions behind those amendments. However, again, I feel that that adds unnecessary bureaucracy to proceedings. In any case, there could be unnecessary unintended consequences in the sense that decisions made by future governments may be hindered or disrupted by having too many layers and levels in this decision making process. That being said, I am happy to support amendment 107, which reverts regulatory powers to the chief forester. That reflects the support of amendment 102 in the creation of that role. Logically, it places regulatory responsibilities on that new role if it were to go ahead. However, it cannot support 108 because it links back to the creation of the area foresters, which I do not support. I hope that all that is helpful. If I may move on finally to speak around amendment 136, Claudia Beamish's amendment, it addresses many of the concerns that we heard over the course of proceedings. I pay particular attention to amendment 136, section 3B, and I believe that it increases accountability and scrutiny on the part of the Parliament to the next steps of the Government as it takes this quite bold step of integrating the Forest Commission functions into its own departments. I also believe that it includes welcome additions around some of the concerns that we heard from witnesses around the loss of expertise, restructuring and also the financial reporting and accountability of that department, as listed in section 3B of the amendment. Therefore, I am very happy to support that amendment if it were to go ahead in any case. I also think that the cabinet secretary would be mindful to take heed of the general comments that were made by Claudia Beamish around the intention behind the addition of amendment 136. I speak in support of my colleagues, Rhoda Grant and Claudia Beamish's amendments. In particular, I have taken them one by one, 1.04. What we did here was a lot of affection for the Forestry Commission, as it is presently structured, but we also heard concerns, and those have been rehearsed about the potential absorption into Scottish Government and the loss of forestry expertise and professionalism. I see amendment 102 as being entirely in line, not just with what was said in stage 1 report, but also, and Rhoda alluded to, local authority positions. We also have Scottish Government ones, chief medical officer, chief scientist, chief planner—it is entirely consistent with that. In relation to 1.03, I am surprised to know that, as a green, we want things to be local up, and rather than the exclusive focus on the central functions, it is very important that there is a clear responsibility laid out for the area. Take issue with Jamie Greene's position on that, that this is not needed. It will always be needed. There is no point in having central functions less of something to oversee. Yes, absolutely. Thank you to Ms Finnie for taking intervention. I do share the view that local decisions can and should be made. I wonder, though, if it should be the responsibility of the chief forester to make decisions as to how he organises his team structurally rather than impose it upon him in primary legislation. That is my only concern around the creation of those area foresters. I think that whoever he or she may be that would assume that post. I think that it is important that the Parliament gives a very clear steer that it is local decision making that it is important, too, that that can be informed by a more strategic approach. Following on from that, the national advisers group, I would hope that the Scottish Government would lend support to that. That is entirely consistent with positions that have taken in relation to other matters, and the committee referred to the rural advisers, for instance. I will be supporting 105. I have some concerns about subsection 1 paragraph B, about the establishment, and I hope that that could be creatively looked at. Of course, there are a number of fora that exist at local level that could fulfil some, if not the vast majority of those functions. However, again, entirely in line with the design that we are looking for, we want collaborative local working. I will not say much more on Claudia Beamish's amendment other than to say that I fully support it in the direction that we take it in. Thank you, John Stuart. Thank you, convener. I will pick on the words again. The 102 says that Scottish ministers must for the purposes of assisting and advising them, etc. I am not quite sure what assistance means, advice, maybe, but assistance, I am not quite sure. The national advisory group in 104 does not use the word assist, but is there to advise. The 105 assists and advises local partnership group. Leaving aside the immense burden of this hugely complex oversight that appears to be desired, just a personal view, what happens when the advice from these different levels is in conflict with each other? When you have a mandatory requirement that advice comes in and assists, the proposals, if we were to accept them in total, can you Yes, the member will. I am grateful to the member for accepting the intervention, but would you not accept that that is day-to-day politics, that of course ministers are compelled to make decisions on the basis of often competing advice, and that is situation normal? Oh no, of course. And of course ministers in discharging their responsibilities under the act and in need of many other acts would wish to consult and receive advice, because anyone who helps ministers to do the best job that they can do is to be welcome. I am just very unclear why we should create a structure where the national advisory group in particular can be seen to undercut and cut across the functions of a chief forester. I think that is just legislatively not a comfortable place to be, and local partnership groups similarly. You are talking about being in conflict with national advisory groups, and I just don't think that that is particularly helpful. I would have thought, if you were going to create structures like this, that, yes, there should be empowerment of local decision making as there is at the moment and as there would be even if we did not pass any of that. I just think that the construct is difficult. I am not necessarily tackling wider principled issues, which we will hear from the minister on. I just think that the construction where we should pass all of that in total would be a recipe for some unhelpful potential conflicts, and I also do not know what the word assist means. Thank you, Stuart. Mike Rumbles is followed by Peter Chapman. I am always astonished by my colleague Stuart Stevenson's contributions. I am astonished that he does not know what the word assisting means. To me it is perfectly obvious what assisting and advising ministers is all about, but there we are. I am also astonished to be in complete agreement with my colleague John Finnie. He is obviously astonished by that, but I am absolutely with him 100 per cent in everything he has said on this issue. I think that it is really important. I think that those amendments reflect the evidence that we received at stage 1 and the report that we produced at stage 1. I would be hopeful that the minister will accept those amendments. I do understand—we have not heard the minister's response yet—that ministers can find in any opposition amendment almost any reason, any particular reason, any focus on a particular word, to reject an amendment because of confusion, it could cause difficulties and persuade members to vote against them. As I said, I have not heard the minister. I could be completely surprised that the minister could say that these are really good amendments, and we accept them. I actually would prefer that we would see these amendments, all of them, from 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 7, 1, 8 and 1, 3, 6 on the face of the bill. If the minister feels that they could be improved upon at stage 3 to come back at stage 3 and do that, I would rather see them on the bill at this stage because I think that it reflects the evidence that we have received, the committee report that we have produced, and probably a majority of members of the committee. I would rather hope that we will see them on the face of the bill. If the minister feels that he needs tweaking, he can bring forward amendments that we could all support at stage 3. Thank you, Mr Rumbles. Peter Chapman. Thank you, convener. It would appear that there is lots of astonishment around this table today. It would appear, and to some extent I reflect that, because I am quite astonished that I am agreeing with a lot of what Stuart Stevenson has said today. I am not so astonished that I am agreeing with my colleague Jamie Greene, because that would be to be expected almost, but I do agree that the position of a chief forester did receive wide support, as we took evidence, as a committee. Many of our stakeholders agreed that that was an important post to Putin's place, so I do agree with 1 or 2, but 1 or 3, 1 or 4, 1 or 5, I do not agree with. I think that it is too bureaucratic, too cumbersome, too adds another level of complication, and too many layers can actually stop things happening. So I do not agree with them. 1 or 7 is okay, because that refers back to chief forester 108, no again. As far as Claudia Beamish's amendment is concerned, I do welcome that. I think that it is a fair addition to the bill. I think that there is much support for that out there, in particular with the union. People certainly are keen to see something along those lines included in the bill, so I do support Claudia Beamish in her amendment. First of all, I would thank both Rhoda Grant and Claudia Beamish for moving the amendments, but also for the way in which they have removed them and for the whole tone of the debate. Perhaps I could just make and start off very clear in response to Mr Rumble's invitation and make it, because I have quite a lot to say. Some of which is intended for the consumption of people who work for the Forestry Commission of Forest Enterprise around Scotland, which I want to place on record to provide reassurances to them, convener, which may take some time. For the sake of clarity, I want to make a clear undertaking to members that I will continue, as we have done prior to stage 2, to work very closely with all members prior to stage 3, with a view to going as far as we possibly can to meet the desires of members, and in particular to bringing some of those matters on to the face of the bill if we can. I wanted to start off with that undertaking, given in this nonscripted part of my remarks, because I very much want to continue the way that we have been working thus far, and I think that we can make progress on many aspects, and therefore I just wanted to start off by making that clear. I do fully recognise the importance of ensuring that people who have the right professional skills, knowledge and experience are engaged in the development and delivery of forestry in Scotland. Let me make absolutely clear to the concern about centralisation, which exists, and I visited all the conservancies over the summer, and I did hear about this from some individuals, obviously. We will not be bringing in people from the local offices to work in the centre. We value people who work in the conservancies. They work locally, and that work is essential, and it is essential that they continue to do that work and meeting them in person allows me to see how important that was, and therefore I am grateful for the opportunity to state that on the record today. I also want to go further. I mean, I want to expand on the existing skills development mechanisms within the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forestry Enterprise Scotland, and to continue to involve foresters and other professionals in the discharge of the Scottish Government's forestry function. The structure that we propose, the establishment of a dedicated division and the retention of an agency that is calling it Forestry and Land Scotland, both of which will be part of the Scottish Government, is close to a lift and shift of the current arrangements as possible. We are transferring the functions of forestry commissioners to Scottish ministers and transferring the existing staff to undertake those functions. The new structures decisions on which I announced in May do preserve, they do not disrupt or separate, they preserve the distinction between the two entities, the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland. So we retain two entities. I think that some of some criticism, not suggesting today, but some criticism has been based on a false premise that there is in fact one entity at the moment, there is not, there are two, and there will continue to be two. Retaining the separation between the two parts maintains and other things, as I think Simon Hodge said in evidence, convener, the valuable financial flexibilities that FES currently enjoys. For example, the ability to carry over funding from one year to another would be lost whether or not the retention of FES in the agency format at a convener, and that was a significant important practical factor. Now, throughout this process, the day-to-day forestry functions and operations should be disrupted as little as possible, and therefore I want to restate for the record to those with an interest that there will be no compulsory redundancies in FES or FCS as a result of devolution, that local offices will remain as a vital source of regional knowledge, skills and delivery, and that forestry decisions will continue to be taken by forestry experts. And I wanted specifically to give these undertakings in the record today, and they are very sincerely given and freely given undertakings, convener, because they are the right things to do, and staff will remain as civil servants on transfer to the Scottish Government. So put simply, the same experts will be delivering the same functions as they do now at a national level and locally. A forestry devolution programme board involving senior staff from the Scottish Government and Forestry Commission has been established to plan for and manage the transition, and as part of that work, I'm grateful for the positive leadership role that both Simon Hodge, chief executive of the FES and Joe O'Hara, the head of Forestry Commission Scotland, are showing in leading on implementation of the new agency and new division projects. So a lot of work has been going on and will continue to be done behind the scenes, and rightly so. Those projects are based on skills retention, including identifying ways to continue to recognise and value engagement with professional bodies and identifying jobs that require specific professional qualifications such as in forestry. Staff interchange between the division and agency, both of which will be part of the Scottish Government, will continue to be encouraged as it is now between FCS and FES. This is important, and I think that it deals substantially with Claudia Beamish's amendment 136. At stage 1, I committed to providing a statement, providing further details on how ministers will manage and administer their forestry responsibilities and the relationship between the dedicated Forestry division and Forestry in Scotland. I want to confirm today, convener, that I will make the statement available before stage 3. I want to do that, so members have the statement that will cover those matters prior to stage 3. When I say prior to stage 3, I'm obviously leaving sufficient time for amendments to consider the statement in order to decide whether or not further amendments would be required as part of the stage 3 debate. I have decided to bring forward this and make the statement prior to stage 3. Again, I wanted to make that clear today. I note that this approach was supported by the committee at stage 1 and by stakeholders in their stage 2 briefings. Confor, for example, states that the details of a chief forester post of the division of forestry in Scotland would be better set out in a statement alongside the bill. I'll come back to that. It's a very important amendment. On Rhoda Grant's amendments 102 and 107, I am giving active consideration to having a chief forester's role as a way of recognising the importance of specialist forestry expertise. I have been taking soundings from stakeholders. Although there is widespread support for the idea of a chief forester or a similar role, what there doesn't seem to be, convener, is a common view on the role or its title. Further work requires to be done on what the role or purpose of that post would be. Some people envisage it as a regulatory function. Other people envisage it as a relation to skills and education and ensuring the importance of that being delivered. In other words, different people have different concepts and ideas about what such a role would maintain. However, I undertake today to Rhoda Grant in urging her not to press her amendments today that I am sympathetic to her proposal. I undertake to give it further consideration. I undertake to have further discussions with members who wish to engage in those discussions on the committee and others who take an interest who are not in the committee, such as Claudia Beamish, prior to stage 3. As for amendments 103 and 108 on area foresters, I am not quite clear on their effect. At the moment, we have five conservators. The word conservator is a very important role. It gives a sense of the calling of the ethos of those who work in the Forestry Commission. It is an achievement to become a conservator. It is a great personal achievement and those who become conservators are professional foresters who are proud of their calling. I am not quite clear what is meant by area foresters as opposed to conservators and how that would fit in. I am just not quite clear, although I know that the amendments are well in tension. I have already made a commitment that the local office network will remain and that forestry decisions will continue to be made by forestry experts. I wanted to make a further comment about the proposal in section 102 to have a chief forester. I have had an opportunity to examine how similar roles have been established in government, and I think that that is an important point. This research has revealed that the roles set out in statute are limited to the non-ministerial office holders as determined by the Scotland Act 1998, as determined by that, if you like, founding statute of devolution. Those are chief medical officer, keeper of the registers of Scotland, other chief roles such as the chief planner or the chief economist. In other words, the type of role that I think we are speaking about here today are not set out in statute. We also need to be careful and be mindful of the reserved devolved issues because the civil service is a reserved matter. We need to be mindful of that in framing legislation. However, there are two types of chiefs at the moment—statutory chiefs and non-statutory chiefs. We have to be careful about how we proceed here, but I think that we can find a way forward working together where the objectives that people who have informed this debate, stakeholders, can realise what they wish with a bit of further thought and a bit of further work. I would also respectfully point out to Rhoda Grant that other than the reference to assisting and advising, there is, in section 1 and 2, no clear definition of what the role is. In fact, it allows Scottish ministers to prescribe qualifications. If you like, it confers back-room power on ministers to have a substantial role, which perhaps might not be in the thinking of many of those who want a chief forester to have a degree of independence from ministers. I am not sure, but that is one further matter that needs to be explored. I am happy to take an intervention from Mr Greene. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention. On that point, is not there a slight contradiction in what he is saying in respect of the fact that this amendment does not prescribe what that role is or does give the minister some flexibility to work with protagonists to develop the role, but all that does, and it is in a very important amendment, is to ensure that that role is created per se, which is something that I think there is widespread support for. I understand Mr Greene's point, but I respectfully suggest that, convener, the way in which 102 is amended would mean that the chief forester would not be independent of Scottish ministers. Perhaps many of those who advocate their being a chief forester would do so precisely because they would like the chief forester to be independent of Scottish ministers. I will just make that point, but it is certainly the case that the role is not particularly well defined other than assisting and advising in section 102. I go back and just re-emphasise that I am sympathetic to that proposal and believe that further work would result in us being able to overcome working together some of those technical objections, which is why I hope that Ms Grant and Ms Beamish will not press their amendments today. I have some more comments to make, however, because the wide range of the topics covered by the amendments I absolutely wholeheartedly endorse the need for close engagement with stakeholders across all aspects of forestry. That is essential and I hope that I have illustrated by the work that we have done since the last Scottish election that we do regularly engage with stakeholders at a national and local level. Both in specific issues such as the reference group set up to advise and delivery of Jim McKinnon's recommendations and more general matters such as forestry summits that I have hosted or regional groups that provide local advice and input to the work of Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise. Effective engagement is essential. I will give further thought and, again, I undertake to do this on whether there is scope for incorporating some commitment to this effect on the face of the bill. I am not yet convinced that that is the best way forward because any Government will wish to ensure that there is local and national engagement with stakeholders, and that is something of which the Scottish Government cannot really be accused of failing to do as a whole. Nonetheless, I am happy again to give the undertaking that we will give further consideration to those. The reason I do so is because I am aware that there are some sub-issues that people still have. On amendment 136, which is from Claudia Beamish, I hope that my commitment to provide the statement in advance of stage 3 of the organisational arrangements to help ministers to deliver their forestry functions will persuade her that this amendment should not be pressed at this point. I say that as someone who has engaged substantially with, for example, workforce representatives whom I met in the substance with at least three meetings over the last year or so, and will continue to do so. There is another important reason why I can't support. I could ask the cabinet secretary if he could clarify what the status of the statement will be, if it is not understandably on the face of the bill because it may need adaption in the future, but could he clarify for myself and others what that status would be? I mean, it is partly a legal question. That is why I hesitate slightly, but it would be a statement of ministerial intent and similar in respect to that of any ministerial statement. However, it is intended to clarify the questions that I think underlie the amendments that Claudia Beamish has put forward. I hope that that is helpful to her. It will certainly cover many of the areas that she seeks assurances on in terms of her amendment. There is another reason why I can't support the amendment that constraining ministers' powers to commence legislation that the Parliament has already approved strikes at the core element of any act. I am not aware of any precedent where there is such a provision in any bill that prevents the bill once enacted from becoming law. Once Parliament decides to pass a law, that is its decision. I should say that I am informed that it is extremely rare in the statute. I think that I may have said that it has not occurred at all. I am not aware of any such example, but I will just correct that for the record. It is essential for the effective operation of the legislative process that ministers have the control over when they bring provisions into force. While the amendment only refers to two sections, in effect we could not practically commence large parts of the act. For example, we could not commence part 4 without laying the reports, otherwise there would be two felling authorisation processes in place. That would subvert the very advice that the committee gave that they wanted there to be no gap in respect of the felling provisions. That is a technical point that needs to be considered in any event. We could be looking at delayed timescales for implementation and increased uncertainty for the sector and staff, and I am sure that that is not what anyone would wish to achieve. A drawing to a close convener approach that I have been suggesting throughout stage 2 is one that illustrates the effectiveness of the parliamentary process in which we are not seeking to score points but working together to get the best outcome. I have given clear undertakings today, signifying that the matters raised are substantial and important ones, ones where I respect the views of the members and I undertake not only to make a statement but also to work specifically on the content and substance of these amendments during the period from now to stage 3, in particular in relation to having a post of the chief forester, something to which I am sympathetic, but also in relation to the other matters that we have discussed today. Given that, I apologise, I have a somewhat long contribution today that members will accept on face value, as genuine and sincere, the undertakings that I have given to work with members over the coming weeks, and on that basis I would urge those members not to press at the moment those amendments. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Rita Grant, could I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? Yes. Thank you, convener. I appreciate members' comments, because I think that that was really helpful. Those amendments were really designed to try and keep forestry very rooted in the industry and in the communities that it serves. There were many, and I appreciate that there were layers that might be a bit off-putting to some people, but those layers were designed to try and keep not only forestry at a national level well within the industry but also at a local level. However, I appreciate what people are saying about some of the layers that are in there. They might be too complex, but I would hope that I could take the cabinet secretary up on his offer to look at maybe putting in legislation items of the conservators and the like, something that would keep that local. To Stuart Stevenson, who had issues with the word assist, I realised very quickly that he was not assisting me with his comments, so if that helps to explain it a little better to him, I hope that he will take that in the spirit that was meant. Coming to the first, and I think that the most important of the amendments is that of the chief forester. I think that it was very clear in the evidence that we got that this role was wanted by the industry and indeed by communities. The reason that the definition is very vague is to allow that consultation to go ahead so that that role can be something that is meaningful and supported by the whole industry and the communities. I think that it will be important today to put that down on the bill as a marker. The definition can be changed at stage 3 to make it more fitting to people's views and aspirations, but it will be important to put it down today as a marker and then consult on the other amendments in the group to see if they could be shaped in a way that would assist that post and keep it locally placed. I want to press amendment 102. The question therefore is amendment 102 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There is division. Can I ask all those in favour of amendment 102 to raise their hands, please? Can I ask all those against 102 to raise their hands, please? I confirm that there are six votes in favour of amendment 102 and five against, therefore 102 is agreed. Can I call amendment 103 in the name of Radar Grant already debated with amendment 102, Radar Grant to move or not move? I will call amendment 104 in the name of Radar Grant already debated with amendment 102 to move or not move. I will call amendment 105 in the name of Radar Grant already debated with amendment 102, Radar Grant to move or not move? I will call amendment 106 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it? The question is amendment 106 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 107 in the name of Radar Grant already debated with amendment 102, Radar Grant to move or not move? Therefore, can I ask the question is that amendment 107 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. Yes. We are not agreed. There is a division. Can I ask all those in favour of it please to raise their hands? All those against to raise their hands please. There are six votes in favour, five goes against, so the amendment is agreed. Can I call amendment 108 in the name of Radar Grant already debated with amendment 102, Radar Grant to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. The question therefore is that section 65 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 66 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 109 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 56? Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it please? Formally moved. The question therefore is amendment 109 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 67 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question is that section 68 schedules 1 and 2 and section 69 to 71 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 110 in the name of Richard Lyle already debated with amendment 23? Richard Lyle to move or not move? Move. Move. The question therefore is amendment 110 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendments 111, 112, 113 and 114 all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated? I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 111 to 114 on block. Moved on block. The question I have is does any member object to a single question being put to amendments 111 to 114? No. The question therefore are our amendments 111 to 114 agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that schedule 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 72 and 73 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I now call amendment 136 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 102. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? I do not intend to move today, but I would like to make a brief comment if that is acceptable. A very brief comment. I do note what the cabinet secretary has said. I also note the comments from Jamie Greene, John Finnie, Mike Rumbles and Peter Chapman and Rhoda Grant, which are on the record. I think that it is extremely important that this discussion proceeds because there does frankly appear to be some confusion in the minds of stakeholders or elsewhere, because the cabinet secretary has highlighted, and correct me please cabinet secretary with intervention if that is appropriate, that I think you said it would be a lift and shift as much as possible with the arrangements for the agencies as they are now when they are transferred to be devolved, but that is not what the perception anyway, I use that word with care, has been of some of the stakeholders who have discussed with myself and others what will happen. I really do have a concern about this. I note the statement possibility before stage 3, which I would really urge the cabinet secretary to make sure comes in good time, but there are still serious concerns and I will intend to bring back an amendment at stage 3 or discuss with a member of the committee bringing back an amendment at stage 3 in terms of a unified forestry agency, or indeed a better-developed version of my amendment 136 at stage 3 if we can't make progress, which I hope is an optimist, we will be able to with the cabinet secretary. Okay, I'm not proposing to open this up to further debate because we have already debated it and the cabinet secretary has given an undertaking, and I've noted the comments that Claudia Beamish has made. I mean, I am taking from that, you do not wish to move the motion. No, I don't wish to move. Okay, so the motion has been, the amendment has been moved, so I have to ask the question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed, so there's a division. Can I ask those in favour of this amendment to raise their hands, please? Can I ask those against to raise their hands, please? Okay, the vote for this amendment is five, the votes against are six, therefore it is not agreed. The question that I now have to ask is that section 74 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 75 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Now I'd like to call amendment 115 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 18 on day one, cabinet secretary, will you formally move? Formally moved. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The next question is that the long title be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. That ends the stage 2 consideration of the bill. Can I say that members should note that the bill will now be reprinted as amended and this will be available online and in hard copy at 8.30 am tomorrow morning. The Parliament has not yet determined when stage 3 will take place but members can now lodge stage 3 amendments at any time with the legislation team. Members will be informed of the deadline for amendments once it has been determined. Thank you everyone and that concludes today's committee's business and I now close the meeting.