 Good morning and welcome to the committee's 15th meeting in 2019, could I ask everyone to please make sure that their mobile phones are on silent? The first agenda item is to support legislation, and consider one negative instrument as detailed in your agenda, no motions to annull or representations have been received in relation to this instrument. Is any member of the committee that wants to pass comment on it or is the committee gallw rhywbeth nesaf am fwy o gynnwys ond yn gweithio. We have agreed not to make comment. Thank you. Therefore, moving on to agenda item 2. This item is to consider one affirmative instrument, the Public Appointments and Public Bodies Scotland Act 2003 treatment of South Scotland Enterprise as specified authority order 2019. The committee will take evidence from Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Scottish Government. The motion seeking approval of the affirmative instrument will be considered at item 3. Members should note that there have been no representation to the committee on this instrument. I would like to welcome from the Scottish Government Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy, Karen Jackson, South of Scotland economic development team leader, Sandra Reid, the bill team leader, Felicity Cullen, Scottish Government legal director and Fraser Gough, the parliamentary council to the Scottish Government. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to make a brief opening statement of no more than three minutes? Yes, well good morning and I commend everyone for the diligence. It's not often that one starts a committee meeting before light has fully dawned. Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about this order. The purpose of the draft order is to enable the appointments of members to South of Scotland enterprise to be regulated by the commission of four ethical standards in public life prior to the new body coming into effect in April next year. This is an absolutely essential part of the law surrounding the creation of South of Scotland enterprise, ensuring members have the right skills and expertise and ensuring that they are in place for the establishment of the new body in April 2020. As highlighted in your stage 1 report, none of us are in any doubt about the importance of getting the chair and board membership right, ensuring that it is made up of individuals with as wide a range of interests, skills, expertise and experience relevant to the South of Scotland as is possible. We want to ensure a diverse and strong field of suitable candidates and reach out in particular to those in the south. Equality is an integral part of the Scottish Government's business and, as the Gender Representation and Public Board Scotland Act 2018 is now in force, we will be working towards equal gender representation on the board. Our aim is members will provide a balanced mix of relevant skills and expertise, which reflect business and communities in the south of Scotland. We also want to make sure, convener, that appointments are made on merit following an open, fair and impartial process that is advertised publicly, and it is therefore crucial that we have the full participation of the commissioner's office in this process. That will ensure that appointments will be done on the same basis as Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and other public bodies. The commissioner's office has been fully engaged in the process to date, enabling us to go live with the advert for the chair appointment on 25 April. In line with my commitment to the committee on 30 January and acknowledging the importance that you have placed on harnessing interest in the new body, the advert is being widely publicised. It is crucial that we reach out to attract people in the south and off the south. That means conducting a publicity campaign locally, including local newspapers, advertising publicly in a way that will attract a strong and diverse field of candidates. That draft order will ensure that the appointment process can be progressed with immediate effect over a period of time to commensure it with this important task and with the full involvement of the commissioner's office. I hope that it will receive this committee's support. I will be happy, convener, to take any questions that you or your members may have. I thank the cabinet secretary and there are some questions as Stuart Stevenson. I very much welcome the approach to make sure that we, at the earliest possible moment, start proper preparations for the south of Scotland enterprise body in advance of the completion of the parliamentary process, noting in particular that the commencement provisions in the bill before us will clearly require a commencement order after royal assent. I am sure that that is all in order for April next year. We will, at stage 2, later this morning, discuss a number of amendments that relate to the way in which appointments are made to the board. It would be useful, at least, to hear on the record that the Government in making appointments will take account of any decisions that we make on the amendments that we will consider later this morning. Although I do not expect that it will be hugely material in the light of the remarks that the cabinet secretary has already made. Of course, I am happy to give the assurance that we will take account of the changes that are made to the bill as at stage 1. I can assure all members that that will obviously be the case. With respect, I do not think that that is a factor that would impede the orderly process of appointment of a chair. I think that it is important to see that as a sort of gant chart in which we have a certain amount of time to proceed in a sequential fashion. First, the process of appointment of a chair. Then, when he or she is appointed, moving on to the appointment of a chief executive and board, that must be done sequentially and with the supervision of the commission of public appointment. In order to meet the target date, convener of April 2020, for the fully statutorily established SOZE, South of Scotland Enterprise Agency, we will require prior to that to put the building blocks in place. That is really the purpose of this provision today, but I will specifically ask that the point that Mr Stevenson has made will be brought to the attention of the selection panel just to make sure that the point that is made today is fully taken into account. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Are there any other questions from the committee? Then we can move on to agenda item 3, which is formal consideration of motion S5M-17046, in the name of the cabinet secretary for the rural economy, calling on the committee to recommend that the Public Appointments and Public Bodies Scotland Act 2003 treatment of South Scotland Enterprise as specified authority order 2019 be approved. Cabinet secretary, can I ask you to move the motion and ask if you have any further comments to make? Moved and no further comments. Are there any comments from the members? The question therefore is that motion S5M-17046 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. We now move on to agenda item 4, which is the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. Today we are undertaking stage 2 consideration of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. The cabinet secretary and his supporting officials have stayed with us for this item. Everyone should have a copy of the bill as introduced and marshal list of amendments that was published on Thursday and the grouping of amendments that sets out the amendments in the order to which they will be debated. It may be helpful to explain the procedure briefly for anyone watching this. 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 and to move that amendment and speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call on other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in that group who wish to speak should indicate by catching my attention in the usual way. If he has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If the member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee immediately moves to a vote on that amendment. If any member does not wish 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, and voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is really important, please, for members to keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote, and I have asked for the next part of the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. I do hope that we can complete stage 2 today, but it really depends on how we get on. With that, I think that we move straight to it. Turning to the actual bill, the first question that I have to put to you is that section 1 and 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore would like to call amendment 16, in the name of Colin Smyth, group with amendments 17. Colin Smyth, could you move the amendment and speak to both amendments in the group? Amendment 16 would require the agency's board to include representation from workers in the region, most likely in the form of trade union representation. I believe that that will help to ensure that the region's workers have a voice in the new agency. The south of Scotland faces a number of significant challenges in areas such as low pay and job insecurity. The new agency will play a key role in tackling those issues. I believe that representation of that kind is key to ensuring that those issues are consistently viewed as a priority for the new agency. It is important to note that there is precedent for that, and it occurs in other public organisation boards, such as the case of Scottish Water. I do not believe that the amendment will interfere with the public appointments process, as far as the final selection is concerned. That decision will still be made independently by the public appointments body, as with other members of the board. The amendment simply introduces a requirement for at least one of those selections to be a representative of workers in the region. Amendment 17 would require the agency's board to have knowledge of the whole region as far as possible in an appropriate spread of skills, interests, experience and expertise. That just clarifies in the face of the bill what I am sure everyone agrees with in principle, to protect against the possibility of the board at some point inadvertently ending up having representation say from one particular part of the region or area of expertise. A number of stakeholders raised that point with the committee and highlighted the importance of the board being genuinely representative of the south of Scotland. It is not overly prescriptive in what it entails or how it should be achieved. It just enshrines in the bill the principle that the agency must be genuinely representative of the whole region. Thank you, Colin. Before I call other members, I just want to note for the record that Finlay Carson has joined the meeting. I am welcome. Stuart, you had a question followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you very much, convener. First of all, looking at amendment 17, I think broadly that makes a great deal of sense. I have got a very minor concern about being, where it says, a broad range of interests, skills, experience and expertise. The experience one, I am just slightly doubtful about. My reason is that it could be used as a way of making it more difficult for younger people to serve on the board, but not to the extent that I want to oppose that amendment. I just make that as an observation for the mover to have a think about it. However, in amendment 16, I have got a slightly more substantial concern, which will not be a surprise to Colin Smyth, where, in amendment 18, it says, and representative. I am not greatly in favour of boards of this kind being boards that represent. In other words, the people who are there should be interested in and further the work of, in this particular case, South of Scotland Enterprise, rather than being representative of anything. I am certainly content that members be knowledgeable of the interests and, indeed, at one be, I think that there is a reasonable point being made, but I am representative of something that makes me disinclined at this stage, at least until I have heard what others might have to say to support number 16. Thank you, sir. Jamie Greene, followed by John Finnie. Thank you, convener. Thanks to Colin Smyth for his amendments throughout, I think that there is a healthy debate to be had on some of his points. Mr Stevenson, I think that there is merit in amendment 17. I, too, had reservations about the word experience. I did wonder if that putting it on the face of the bill would be very prescriptive in terms of ruling out potential candidates. I hope that that is absolutely not an unintended consequence of Mr Smyth's amendment. Nonetheless, on the balance of the whole, it would be wise to support amendment 17, because I think that it is important that we bring in experience and knowledge from the whole of the south of Scotland and not from any one area of it. I think that that is the feedback that we got. I urge members to support amendment 17, but I ask them to reflect on the wording of it. On 16, I equally share Mr Stevenson's concerns and would be minded not to support that amendment. I do not think that boards should be made up of representatives or representative groups in that structured sense. I think that it is important that the board membership is given the freedom and flexibility to be as inclusive as possible, and that the core of it should represent both the employees of the agency but also the wider public in which it operates. For that reason, I would not support amendment 16. Thank you, convener. I did not quite envisage this line of debate. Like many around the table, I have been a member of various boards, and one of the first things that happens is that you are advised that, regardless of the basis of you being on the board, you represent the interests of the board. I do not see any conflict at all with what Collins is saying. Collins is not suggesting that, unless he tells me the country, he is suggesting that that rule is. I think that he is really setting the parameters of the person to fulfil the role that he has outlined, and I think that he is very well outlined about representing the interests that have been said. It is Colin right that he points out that this is not a first. Scottish Water is correct. I would not ask members not to get hooked up in the word. I appreciate that many of the things that all parties seem to say in the chamber about wanting a fair work approach that is adopted in relation to all of our deliberations to manifest itself, and I am supporting that. Likewise, I am relaxed about amendment 17. In amendment 16, I am not comfortable with a special place being reserved for anybody. I think that it is too restrictive. I would, of course, like to see people on the board who have this experience as a worker, whatever that actually means. I am just not happy with the approach of giving a special status within this, so I will not be supporting amendment 16. With amendment 17, I am not quite clear what Colin Means in section A has knowledge of the whole of the south of Scotland. What does it mean by knowledge of the whole of Scotland? I wonder if it is summing up just to help me whether I decide whether I vote for this or not. To me, it seems to be nebulous. I do not understand it, so why are we putting this into the law? The cabinet secretary would you like to put us? Yes, thank you, convener. I am grateful for Mr Smith in lodging the amendments to give us the opportunity to debate those matters. I think that that in itself is a good thing to do, and I was listening with care to the contributions of members of the committee. I would point out that the bill in schedule 1 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 2 already makes provision that, in appointing members, we must be satisfied that they have knowledge or experience relevant to the discharge of South of Scotland's enterprise functions, so that is already there in the bill. Given the wide aims and powers of the agency, that already ensures that members will bring wide-ranging skills and experiences. However, I recognise the need to take every opportunity to ensure that the board is diverse and knowledgeable about the south of Scotland. We are committed to increasing diversity of our boardrooms. I am on balance happy to support amendment 17. However, having heard the comments of Mr Stevens, Mr Greene and Mr Rumbles regarding probing the precise meaning and significance of the words, experience and knowledge, we will, in accepting amendment 17 at this stage, if the committee is so minded to support it, give further consideration prior to stage 3 to see if there is any further technical drafting needed to deal with that. I am grateful to Mr Smith for having lodged that. I have simply, with the intention behind Mr Smith's amendment 16, understanding workers' perspectives will be important to the agency, including in the work that it does to promote inclusive growth. It is, after all, operating in an area where there have been traditionally low wages and relatively few well-paid jobs. There should be and will be nothing to prevent someone representing workers' interests being appointed to serve as a member of new agency, appointed, of course, on the basis of merit and, in accordance with the proper selection process. However, convener, there are other groups who could also lay claim to expecting a specific appointment to represent their interests. I just mentioned a few business farmers, forestry, textiles, young people and, indeed, older people. If one starts off on the argument that all of those sectors, very important though they are, should have a specific voice on the board, then where does one start and where does one stop? We need to balance what is desirable in practice with what is appropriate to expect in terms of securing a broad range of interests, skills and experience. I think that I am mindful of the fact that the numbers on the board, a quorum is five, six and maximum is ten. It is not a huge board, that is the point that I am making. It is not a board that, like other public bodies, would have the ability to perhaps reflect a very wide balance of interest groups. It is also questionable whether such an appointment should be as representatives of particular groups when those are individual appointments, convener, with members appointed each on the basis of their skills, experience and expertise. However, what I undertake is that adverts from members' appointments set out the desirability of attracting applications from those who may represent workers and, indeed, some other groups that I have mentioned, where those individuals also feel that they have the right skills and knowledge for the role, and we will look carefully at how and where we advertise a convener as well. I would ask Mr Smith not to press amendment 16, but we will be minded to recommend acceptance of 17, subject to further analysis of it, which we can bring forward if necessary at stage 3 for consideration of the Parliament. Thank you, convener. On amendment 16, I believe that it is important that the agency with this remit has appropriate input from workers. This important is a point of principle, but it will help the agency to achieve its broader aims, inclusive growth, safeguarding employment and promoting social development. People in the south of Scotland will be deeply concerned that the approach is used for one body, such as Scottish Water, but people perceive that it is not being appropriate for—I am happy to take an intervention. Absolutely, if you want to come back in. I just want to ask the member how you define what is a representative of the interests of workers, because, as you have drafted it, it must ensure that at least one person appointed is knowledgeable and representative of the interests of workers. You have defined workers as the Employment Rights Act 1996, but how do you define who is representative of? Anyone who could make claim to be representative of that could be a trade union, a body of organisations, a chambers of commerce. Does that not open up to many people who then claim to wanting to have that right to be on the board? I fear with the appointment process, which will be independently by the public appointment's body. It will have to determine that any member that they appoint to the board meets the criteria that is set out. It is very clear in point 1b. In the word and in the amendment that, before inviting applications for the appointment, Scottish ministers must consult bodies representing workers, for example trade unions, while the interests of workers in the south of Scotland about the particular interests, skills, experience and expertise that are required for a person to fulfil the requirements of paragraph 1a. It is set up very clearly that there will have to be a process of consulting, and then ultimately the appointment will be made by the public appointment's body. As I have already stated, it happens in other public boards in Scotland, such as Scottish Water. I am slightly concerned that the cabinet secretary seems to suggest that, because the board membership will be relatively small, anywhere from six to ten, that that may in fact mean that a representative of workers may not be on that body. I think that that is an issue of concern, given that the commitment to the whole issue of fair work. In terms of amendment 2b, I will take an intervention. John Swinney, absolutely. Thank you. I am grateful for the member taking an intervention. I wonder whether the member agree with me that, given his knowledge of the trade union movement and representative organisations, it is highly unlikely, given the extensive range of skills that those individuals hold, that the sole criteria that would lead to their selection would be that, but nonetheless it is an important factor that should be considered? I think that Mr Swinney makes a very valid point. I want to touch on the issue of some members implying that there is a concern over the representative of the interests of workers in the south of Scotland. It is very clear that members who sit on a board of this type are there representing that board when they make those particular decisions. I think that that is an important point that should be being in mind when considering this amendment. Supporting this amendment signs a very clear signal that the Government and Parliament are committed to the fair work agenda, and otherwise it undermines that commitment. That is one of the reasons why, for example, the STUC are very supportive of this particular amendment. In terms of amendment 17, the only observation that I would make is that it is important for members to look at the wording of the amendment when it refers to the board membership being taken as a whole. That is not implying that every single member should have particular experience for ruling out young people. It is about the membership of the board as a whole. I think that there was a very specific reason why that wording was put into the amendment to make sure that we are not overly prescriptive. It is about the range of the membership of the new board. One of the important points that has been stressed by stakeholders in the south of Scotland is that it is almost, if you like, the need for a geographical spread. Now, every single community and every single part of the south of Scotland cannot have membership of that board, but it is important that we have a spread across the region that represents not only the interest skills and experience and expertise of the region but the geography of the region as well. I think it will be an important point to consider. We cannot have a concentration on the large urban towns that needs to have that experience from across the region, but I would stress that this is about the membership of the board being taken as a whole in this particular amendment. Thank you, Colin. Can I ask you whether to press or withdraw your amendment, please? I am happy to press both amendments. The question that we move on to is amendment 16, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore there will be a division. Those in favour of the amendment, please raise their hands. The result of the vote on amendment 16, there are two votes for, there are nine votes against, there are no abstentions, therefore the amendment is not agreed. Therefore, I want to call amendment 17 in the name of Colin Smyth already, a debate with amendment 16. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? The question therefore is amendment 17 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore would like to call amendment 18 in the name of Colin Smyth in a group on its own. Colin Smyth, to move and speak to amendment 18, please. Thank you very much, convener. The amendment clarifies that staff working within the agency must be covered by the principles of a fair work as settled in the fair work framework or any framework in this area that succeeds. Again, I think that this is simply a statement in the face of the bill, a principle that I would hope all members would support. As a general principle, public bodies should be delivering good standards for their staff, and this needs the agency to be set in a good example on working conditions, given the role it will play in promoting these principles among enterprises within the south of Scotland. I am happy to leave my comments at that, convener, and I am sure that other members will have views. Thank you very much, convener. Obviously, the fair work framework that is referred to is something that is very much welcome and that spells out something that I would very strongly wish to support. There is just a technical issue around using that specific reference in the amendment, however. That is that, as far as I am aware and I am quite prepared to be corrected if I am wrong, the fair work framework has not been laid before Parliament. Therefore, at some future date, a court will be having to look at that piece of legislation. Depending on the framework for the decision that it might make, it will not necessarily be able to access that framework in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years. If Colin had, instead, extracted from the framework those particular parts of it that he thought were relevant to the bill and put them in the amendment, I think that that issue would not necessarily arise. We would then be dealing with a different issue. On that basis, I am unlikely to be able to support 18. I just am passing, convener. I know that it is in another group that there is a further reference to fair work agreement in amendment 21, to which the same remarks would apply, and I probably will not repeat them when we get to that. I am not inclined to support this amendment, and I am reminded that an SNP Government has established a fair work convention and has supported the fair work framework. The Government also published an action plan to achieve the aim by 2025 and has gone further than any Government in regard to fair work first. I do not think that there is an issue with supporting the concept of fair work through the actions in those agencies. Once the cabinet secretary comes in, he may be able to advise us how this agency might help achieve for people living and working in south of Scotland what the expectations are of the new enterprise board in regards to that. Would he agree that, with the greatest respect to Colin Smyth, himself and the Labour's commitment to those issues might have been more credible if he had supported previously, supported our efforts to have employment law devolved? There are a bit of late converts to this cause, but I welcome them, but there are issues for this Parliament and Government to legislate on employment law matters in regard to the comments made by Mr Stevenson. I won't be supporting this event. For not the first time, convener, we're going to hear a processional speaker saying how they're very keen to support workers but then not support principles that would do that. If Mr Stevenson is correct, can I suggest that, as a committee, that we ask for the framework to be published? We can look at it. If there's a will, there's a way. This is an entirely reasonable— Will you take an intervention? Happy to take an intervention, Mr Stevenson. I just used the very particular word late rather than published. There's a legal difference because it is published. Yes, right. Okay, thank you. Well then, if there is a will to have the principles pursued, then it should be laid whatever the difference is because the reality of the situation is that this is a very modest ask, in my opinion, and if there really is a will to have the principles delivered, then the mechanism should be put in place. Much as the cabinet secretary was pragmatic about something that is understood, he had perhaps some reservations about, but said that he would adopt the principle and bring it back to find at stage 3. If that's the case, then I would like to see this applied here, and I think that there's not unreasonable expectation that this should be supported. I certainly will be supporting it. Thank you, John. Jamie, did you want to come in? Just briefly. It's probably a question for the cabinet secretary. I'm interested to know if all public bodies and their employees will be, by default, covered by the Government's fair work framework, and if that is just a matter of principle or policy or if that is a statutory requirement, there are public bodies as part of the T's and C's of public body employees will naturally be covered by such convention or whether it does need to be prescribed on the face of a bill. By prescribing it on the face of this bill, does that, by default, set a precedent for other bills that affect other future public bodies by inherently stating that they also must adhere to that specific principle, which is a principle of the Government of the day. I also have reservations around attaching terms and conditions to a body that is not yet set up and linking that to another piece of legislation that has not yet been laid and which, indeed, may change in future. I think that there's a risk there, too. The cabinet secretary will get a chance to answer that when he makes his comment rather than just now. I'd like to move to Mike Rumbles. I'm sorry that Mike wasn't on to continue. I'm just concerned with this amendment that, if, for instance, the framework changed in the future, and the Government didn't like it or somebody didn't like it, we'd have to come back to this as primary legislation because this is primary legislation. I would like to hear what the minister is summing up and his contribution to this amendment. What he thinks of that is that going to cause the Government a problem because it looks, by looking at this, that it might, but I would like to know from the minister whether that's the case. If there's no other questions, I'm going to go straight to the cabinet's finnally, sorry. No, just leave it, it should come on. Hold on, wait, pause, next one over. I commend Colin Smyth's objectives on that. I do have concerns and perhaps again the cabinet secretary can answer that. I'd be concerned that, if indeed the fair work framework did change from what was published in 2016, how that would be addressed in the future to ensure that terms and conditions and such like wouldn't be outdated in the future. I think that now I've picked everyone up, cabinet secretary, if you'd like to make comment. Yes, thank you for members for the contributions to the debate. Can I start off by saying that it was this Government that established the fair work convention and this Government supports not just the fair work framework but has published a fair work action plan and is now also committed to fair work first. I think that it is self-evident that we are supportive of efforts that have been described by Mr Smyth and others to take forward the concept of fair work through our actions and through our agencies. It's the way that we do it to get it right that matters most and that's what we intend on doing. I do want, however, to make it absolutely clear, convener, that our expectation is that this new agency will be an exemplar in this area. That is the aim. I don't think that there's any difference between the aims set out by Mr Smyth and others. It's a question of how we achieve that. I just make that point. I fully endorse the vision of the fair work convention and fully expect that the agency will give appropriate consideration as an employer to what it will do to achieve that vision and that by 2025 people in Scotland will have a world-leading working life where fair work drives success, wellbeing and prosperity for individuals, businesses, organisations and for society. I think that it's important to spell out that's what we're trying to achieve here so that people perhaps following this debate will clearly understand what we're all talking about. Now, there are mechanisms to achieve this and primary legislation does not appear to be the best or indeed the correct way to do it. Mr Stevenson and Mr Rumbles have made fair points that if a piece of primary legislation refers to a document that, as Mr Stevenson said, has been published but hasn't been laid before Parliament, then what happens if that document has changed? Mr Rumbles made that point. Then primary legislation may need to be changed. It's difficult to change primary legislation. We need to come back to go through this whole process again. That surely would not be an advantage but it would perhaps conceivably confound the aims that we are seeking to achieve. Secondly, there are mechanisms to achieve this convener. Primary legislation has its role but the main role and mechanisms for the new agency to achieve those objectives will be the operating plan, the employment manual for staff and it will become, like Scottish Enterprise and Highlands Nouns Enterprise, an accredited living wage employer. This is a relatively new area of policy. I think that it was last autumn that the First Minister announced it and she's driven it forward herself with her vision, convener. It's one that needs to grow organically to make sure that it's implemented properly and that will take time. However, we expect the new agency to establish the five dimensions of fair work, effective voice, opportunity, security, fulfilment and respect and I will give further consideration to how we impart those expectations to the agency in its role as an employer but I do have significant concerns about this amendment as it's drafted. It asks ministers and the Parliament to legislate on terms and conditions between employers and employees. This is something that we believe we cannot do because these matters are reserved to the UK Government within the Employment Rights Act 1996 and, as members know, there are dangers and pitfalls in legislating on areas that are reserved. I would want to answer Mr Greene's point. The fair work action plan published on 27 February sets out how we will deliver our ambitions on fair work. In short, this is using the Scottish Government's agreement with the civil service trade unions as a model for getting public bodies, which was his question, and the relevant trade unions to sign up to a joint commitment to embedding fair work within all public bodies. To conclude, convener, I agree with the aims. There is a will to answer Mr Finnie and there is a way—it's just a different way—from the one that Mr Smith has proposed. Yes, I'm happy to do that. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for taking the intervention. Will the Scottish Government bring forward proposals at stage 3 that would encapsulate what Mr Smith is trying to achieve? We will, of course, reflect on the content of today's debate very carefully, because there is no difference in aims. That is the policy that we set forward. We own that policy, if you like. We own it together with those who support it, and we want to develop it in a consensual fashion across the board. However, the way to implement it, we believe, is through the methods that I have already described, such as the operating plan, the employment manual for staff and such as letter strategic guidance that will be issued to the new body by ministers. Those are the mechanisms that are deployed and have already been accepted and understood by the Labour Party in previous legislation when this matter has been debated before this Parliament. I hope that Mr Smith welcomes what I have set out, welcomes the clear commitments that we have given and will not press his amendment, which, on legal competence grounds, the Government cannot support. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Colin, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you, convener. On the final point by the cabinet secretary on the legal basis for the amendment, it has been accepted as a competent amendment by the bill team. It has been legally competent, or it would not have been before us today. On the issue of employment law, the amendment does not change employment law. It simply places a duty on the new body, which happens to relate to working conditions, clarifying the body's responsibilities in relation to its own staff. It is very much within the scope of the bill and within the scope of this Parliament. On the wording, I believe that it is drafted in a flexible way, but it would not become outdated as things move on regardless of this. I think that it sets at a floor rather than a ceiling when it comes to basic terms and conditions and writes that the work that is employed by the new agency should have. The wording of the amendment makes reference to, as the Scottish ministers may prescribe, therefore, if they do change parts of the fair work convention and fair work framework, it would allow the flexibility to incorporate those changes. If the objections to the amendment are purely technical, then what I would say is that I would urge members to pass it, to get the principle on record and work. I am happy to answer that. I am reluctant to intervene, but I felt it important to say that I have been advised that the legislative team and the Scottish Parliament do not assess questions of legal competence. At the point that I made very clearly to the cabinet secretary is that this amendment has been accepted as a valid amendment. It has the full support of the STUC, whose legal advice is slightly different from the cabinet secretary's, but, hopefully, the cabinet secretary, if he has legal advice that implies a problem with this particular amendment, he may want to publish that legal advice. The STUC is partners or where partners when it came to the issue of fair work and they fully support this particular amendment and I hope that that partnership will continue in the future. As I have said, if the objection to this amendment is purely technical, then I urge members to pass it, to get the principle on record and let's work on a final word on stage 3 to develop an amendment that would address some of the concerns that have been raised this morning. Can I ask you to press or withdraw the amendment? Okay, the question therefore is amendment 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. The result of the vote on an amendment 18 is there are two votes for, there are nine votes against, there are no abstentions, therefore amendment 18 is not agreed. The question therefore that I have at this stage is schedule one be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I have a further question and the section three be agreed. Are we all agreed? Right. I would now like to call amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 2 to 6. Cabinet secretary, can I ask you to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group? Cabinet secretary. Yes, thank you, convener. The amendments in this group apply various pieces of public bodies legislation to south of Scotland enterprise, so that what applies to the existing enterprise agency also applies to the newest one as well. Amendments 1 and 2 are technical amendments in consequence of the others in the group. Amendment 3 applies sections of the Further and Higher Education Scotland Act 2005 to south of Scotland enterprise to ensure that various education bodies, including Scottish Further and Higher Education funding council, have the same duties and power in relation to the new agency that they already have in relation to Scottish Enterprise and HIE. Amendment 4 will ensure that ministers can issue directions to the agency about development of Scotland's water resources in the same way that they can issue directions to existing enterprise agencies. Amendment 5 will add south of Scotland enterprise to three provisions of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015. The additions ensure that the new agency will have the same role in relation to community planning and asset transfers as the existing enterprise agencies do. Finally, amendment 6 will ensure that the new agency is subject to the duties of all public bodies relating to reporting about climate change duties and compliance. Again, that will put it in the same position, convener, as existing enterprise agencies. Therefore, I move amendment 1. I will be very brief. I can support all those amendments. I think that those amendments are mainly technical changes that improve the both of reading and the implementation of the bell's objectives. I think that some of this has come forward as a result of the committee stage 1 report, and I welcome it. I would be minded to support all the amendments in this group. No other members of the committee wish to comment, so cabinet secretary, can I ask you to wind up, please? I have nothing to add. I agree with Mr Chapman's comments. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question therefore is that amendment 1 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 2 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 1. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Thank you. The question therefore is amendment 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question therefore is section 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 3 to 6 on block. Does any member wish to object to a single question being put on amendments 3 to 6? As no member objects, the question is that amendments 3 to 6 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore ask the question that schedule 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I now call amendment 7 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with other amendments, as is shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 7, please, and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The purpose of section 5, which is the aims section of the bill, as the committee recognises in its stage 1 report, is to set the direction of travel for the agency and to give it a clear mandate from Parliament without being overly prescriptive about how it allocates resources and determines its priorities. I know members understand the need for a careful balance in this section illustrating a range of activities that the agency could undertake to deliver its aims, while enabling it to be both flexible and responsive. The worst-case scenario, convener, would be for South of Scotland Enterprise to consider it could not act on a matter because its legal advice was that its aims were so tightly drawn as to prevent that issue or growth opportunity being taken up and progressed. That obviously is not the sort of legacy any of us would want to bequeath to this fledgling enterprise agency. We should also be mindful that this is an enterprise agency primarily there to foster and support sustainable economic development, jobs, investment and businesses. Clearly, we want to provide clarity for the new agency on how we expect these to be delivered. We should not forget that other legislation will continue to apply. We do not, and we should not duplicate things that already are law. We should be cautious about where other statutory functions exist on a matter so as not to overlay them with a different wording here, which, convener, could be interpreted differently from the original legislation on the same matter, leading to all sorts of potential difficulties. That is a technical matter, but it is an important matter. Nonetheless, the agency should be given in law a clear set of aims that Parliament wants it to have. I have listened to the calls for the bill to say more on those aims. I hope that members will welcome my amendments in this group. As indeed, I welcome many of theirs. I will speak to amendments in my name first and then, convener, turn to those of other members. Amendment 7 is a technical amendment that simply paves the way for my amendments in this group and those of other members. Amendment 8 emphasises the agency's role in supporting economic growth that is sustainable as well as inclusive. It responds directly to the committee's call for the bill to make specific provision about the development of a sustainable economy. The Government absolutely supports sustainability, not least in environmental terms. Amendments 9, 10 and 11 continue the environmental theme, emphasising particular issues that the agency might look at in its work to improve the environment of the south of Scotland as part of its work to build a sustainable economy there. I acknowledge and welcome Colin Smith signing on to amendments 9 and 10. I am happy to accept his amendment 11A to my amendment 11. I would, however, like to ensure that the wording there is appropriate to deliver our aims on this and would be happy to lace with Colin Smith to agree whether any technical or drafting changes are required in advance of stage 3. I am also happy to support Stuart Stevenson's amendment 23, Richard Lam's amendment 24. Those highlight the critical importance of both physical and digital infrastructure. Those have been mentioned by many, many consultees to the initial stages of consideration of the bill. Those highlight the critical nature of those matters. Tackling those challenges faced by communities and businesses in the south of Scotland was a key theme that emerged from our pre-legislative consultation engagement, and it continues now, convener, in the work that we do. We must acknowledge that this is not the primary function of the south of Scotland enterprise, nor take the existing functions particularly over transport away from transport Scotland, where they primarily lie, and regional transport partnerships and local authorities. Important though they are, there is no need for section 5 to mention transport and digital infrastructure twice, having, if the committee is minded to accept both Mr Stevenson and Mr Lyle's amendments, so I invite Mr Smith not to press amendment 25. I acknowledge that section 5 to F was too tightly drafted in its original form, this is about community organisations. I welcome amendment 14 from Gil Ross, which will demonstrate that support for communities to meet their needs will be considered in the widest sense and not limited to community organisations. If the committee is willing to support Gil Ross's amendment 14, then in consequence the need for John Finnie's amendment 15 falls, but I appreciate fully why he would want the enterprise agency to support such activity. In my view, section 5 to F is amended now provides wide enough powers to support projects for community ownership and transfer without creating unnecessary duplication of existing powers and duties on local authorities in particular through the provisions within the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015. Communities should be able to expect all appropriate agencies to provide appropriate support to meet their aspirations. I hope that Mr Finnie would agree and not press his amendment and would accept my undertaking on the record that the agency will have powers and responsibility to support such activity. Colin Smith's amendment 22 underlines the importance, convener, of there being a range of business models that the agency should support, not the social enterprise and co-operatives. The latter are particularly significant, particularly in the farming sector, the dairy farming sector in particular. I am therefore happy to support his amendment. Although, again, I would like to ensure that the wording properly reflects the intention and will advise if any technical changes might be needed at stage 3. I am not entirely sure of the thinking behind Claudia Beamish's amendment 26. I welcome her to the committee. I will listen carefully to what she has to say and respond to her in closing. Finally, I turn to Mr Smith's amendment 21 on fair work and amendments 27 and 28 on inequality. I will not duplicate and repeat what I have said already. The Government has brought forward fair work. We support it. Our support is clear. It is unequivocal. We have already indicated our expectations for this agency to be an exemplar and also the appropriate ways for this to be achieved in practice. However, convener, which I hope is useful for the committee, I have had the opportunity to have discussions with senior officials in the SDUC recently. I have undertaken to look at those matters very closely, although cognisant of the fact that elements of fair work are reserved, as I have already argued. I undertake, convener, at this stage that I will offer meetings to any members of the committee who wish to discuss this further. As I have made that offer to the SDUC, that offer will be to engage prior to stage 3 and indeed prior to the time when it is necessary to lodge amendments to stage 3 so that that engagement would come in sufficient time for members then to decide whether or not they need to press matters by lodging amendments in stage 3. Therefore, I was very keen to make it clear to the committee that we are working with the SDUC and we are happy to continue to work with members on all those matters. In the light of those undertakings, I would therefore ask Mr Smith not to press his amendment 21 on the basis that I will look at this further, have further discussions with the Fair Work Convention and, of course, speak with him ahead of stage 3 on it all once we have determined what, if anything, might be possible. I think that we can all agree that, among the issues holding back the economy in the south of Scotland, one of the most serious is continuing to be the low wage and gender pay gap. Whilst Government research suggests that this has improved, those matters are still serious matters which persist and this should not be the case in 21st century Scotland. It is my firm belief that the enterprise agency can only achieve the aims of sustainable inclusive growth by tackling poverty and inequality and advancing socio-economic policy. In achieving those aims, convener, it will by definition tackle poverty and inequality. Clearly, as the agency is a public body, it will be subject to other legislation in this regard and, for that reason, I do not see the need to put those provisions in 27 and 28 on the face of the bill. I wanted to say specifically, convener, that there is existing law in regard to poverty, in regard to those matters, existing statutory provision to achieve those aims. The provision is contained within the UK's Equality Act 2010, but Scottish statutory instruments are made under it. As I said at the outset, those matters are already the subject of law, the already subject of law passed by the UK Parliament and Scottish statutory instruments. It is important not to duplicate things for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, such as the risk of creating potential overlap confusion. For all those reasons, convener, I would suggest that Mr Smith do not proceed with amendments 27 and 28, but, of course, I will listen with interest to what he and all other members say on those matters. In conclusion, I move amendment 7. Colin Smyth, I ask you to speak to amendment 19 and the other amendments in the group. Colin Smyth, if you will oblige me, I will just take the amendments in the order in the group in which you should make it more straightforward to cover. In amendment 7, tabled by the cabinet secretary, I very much support this amendment. I think that it is a sensible change. The agency's environmental remit, as well as its social remit, is one of the key differences from the current Scottish enterprise model. I think that it is right that we expand more on what exactly that will entail within the bill. I think that the committee were very clear in our stage 1 report that, in the balance between keeping the agency's aims general to allow flexibility but also giving clear legal direction that the bill that is currently drafted does not go far enough. Given that clear legal direction, I think that amending the aims is important. I therefore welcome amendment 8, which is a clarification that recognises the importance of growth being sustainable. In my name, amendment 19 requires the agency to encourage the development of a sustainable economy as part of its aim. It was intended to highlight the importance of ensuring sustainability when the agency achieves its other aims. I appreciate amendment 8 from the cabinet secretary. It makes a similar point. I believe that my amendment is more comprehensive, as opposed to just growth. That calls for sustainability across our economy as a whole. I think that that recognises the need for wider changes to make our economy more environmentally and economically sustainable and is just focused on the issue of growth. Amendment 20 requires the agency to aim to increase the working age population as part of its aims. The outward migration of young people and the increasing and balanced demographics of the region were raised by a number of stakeholders. That was seen as a major challenge facing the south of Scotland. The amendment is intended to reflect the importance of that issue in the region and to give the new agency the responsibility to pursue policies that will help to address that. It is important to point out that there is precedent for including that principle in primary legislation. If members think back to the Islands Scotland Act 2018, it has increased population levels as the first aim in the section set out the remit of the national islands plan. There is certainly precedent when it comes to tackling some of the demographic challenges in population challenges facing a more rural parts of Scotland. Amendment 21 requires the agency to further the principle of fair work as defined by the fair work framework and promotes collective bargaining as part of its aims. Again, I believe that the agency absolutely has a responsibility to try to drive up wages in working conditions in the region. I believe that that should be clearly stated on the face of the bill. The recent galloway is the lowest-paid region in Scotland, and wages in the border are also below the national average. The region needs high-quality, well-paid, secure jobs, and that should be a very clear part of the bill going forward. I hear the comments of the cabinet secretary again, and maybe he will clarify in his closing comments whether he is proposing an alternative amendment as we move towards stage 3 that underpins the importance of this on the face of the bill. Amendment 21 is simply to clarify the need for support to social enterprises and corporatives, as well as more traditional businesses. Social enterprises and corporatives are of huge importance to the south of Scotland, and I think that that gets to the very heart of the new model that is being proposed in this agency. It is not simply about supporting traditional enterprises, it is about that whole social element, and a key part of that are social enterprises and the corporative model. That adds that emphasis to the aims of the agency. I am very supportive of amendments 23 and 24 in Stuart Stevenson and Richard Lyle's name. They were obviously tabled round about the same time as a tabled an amendment that tackles the issue of transport and digital connectivity. Those are issues that were raised a lot during evidence. If I were to look at my mailbag as a south of Scotland representative transport and digital connectivity, it would probably make up the most significant part of the concerns and issues being raised by constituents. When we had the stage 1 debate and we took evidence from the cabinet secretary, I know that he said that he was concerned that the suggestion that transport and digital connectivity should be part of the aims of the new agency, because that in some way took authority or responsibility away from other agencies, such as Transport Scotland and Digital Scotland. I do not think that it does that in any way, and I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary appears to have changed his position on that matter. That is about the new agency having a very clear leadership role. It is not about the new agency having responsibility to dual-carriage away the A75. It is about that agency having leadership and driving the importance of improving our infrastructure and the region infrastructure, which I have to say is holding the region back. That leadership role is absolutely crucial, I believe, to the new agency. I am happy to support amendments 23 and 24. If they are supported by the committee, I will not move my own amendment, which covers the same amendment 25. I have no objection to the amendment from Gail Ross around changing community organisations to communities, but I will listen to what John Finnie has to say when it comes to his amendment 15 on community ownership. It is important to stress that I do not believe that Gail Ross's amendment goes far enough to enshrine the importance of supporting community ownership of land and other assets in the bill. I believe that this is an important addition to the bill. It was highlighted in the evidence that we took as a committee when we went to Dumfries, and Calum McLeod highlighted that. It is important to note that the Highlands and Islands Enterprise working community ownership has been one of its huge successes. I think that the new agency should have a similar support and role to play in the south of Scotland. There are around 500,000 acres of community-owned land in the Highlands and Islands. In the south of Scotland, there are 800 acres. There are some significant initiatives around the Mull of Galloway, around maybe a lot, but we are so far behind the Highlands and Islands in this that I think that it is important to put in the bill. That is a clear aim for the new agency. I do not think that that is prescribing how the agency should set up—for example, a community land unit in the same way that Highlands and Islands Enterprise have, but it gives clear direction to the new agency that this should be an aim of that particular agency. We should be very clear that there is no expectation from stakeholders who have promoted and supported this amendment that somehow the new agency will take over the Scottish land funds responsibility in terms of funding, but it is about the new agency driving the issue of community ownership and the ownership of other assets. I understand that you have a huge amount of points to make and I know that they are very important. What I do not want to do is limit the debating time for members to discuss the points that you and other members have raised. If I could ask you to bear that in mind as you continue what you are saying, please. Thank you very much, convener. In terms of the other amendments, there are obviously a number of significant amendments here that have a major influence on how the new agency will work. I very much support amendment number nine in the name of the cabinet secretary, which is a welcome amendment. Likewise, amendment number 10 about promoting the sustainable, inefficient use and reuse of resources. The two amendments are very similar to amendments that I tabled a bit with Drew because the wording was slightly different, but I think that I had the same aim going forward. In terms of amendment number 11, I am pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary is supportive of my amendment to his amendment, which would change supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy to supporting the transition to a net zero-carbon economy. If there are technical changes that are required to this, I am sure that they can be made at stage 3 if the amendment goes through. I am very supportive of my colleague Claudia Beamish's amendment number 26, which I am sure will set out in detail how that would work in practical terms. In terms of amendment 27, it seems strange that we are supporting promoting and improving transport and digital connectivity within the south of Scotland, which, as has been argued, is not the main responsibility of the new agency but, somehow, tackling poverty and inequality should not be an aim of the new agencies. I have already said that the broader remit of the new agency, which includes social and environmental responsibility, is a key difference from the current model and the model that we have at the moment. The issue of low wages is a massive issue within Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. That is not to say that this will be the sole focus of this agency and not other agencies and not other legislations, but attracting those high-skill, high-paid jobs has to be a focus of the work of the new agency if we are to be serious about tackling the issue of poverty and inequality. In terms of amendment 28, to allow debate on the things that I would ask you to be as concise as possible, please. I certainly do my best, convener, but the problem that we have is that most of the amendments are in my name. Therefore, it is difficult to have a debate if members are not aware what my aims are in those amendments. I am happy to support or to highlight amendment 28, which is clearly that the agency has a strong social remit that sits on a level playing field with its economic remit. That probably covers most of the amendments. Amendment 29 again in my name enshrines breast practice and law and enshrines that it is going too far. I will leave it at that, convener. I think that I have covered all my amendments before your intervention. Thank you, Colin Stewart. Can I ask you to speak to amendment 23 and any other amendments in the group that you wish to do so? Thank you very much, convener. Colin Smith referred to the evidence that we have on digital connectivity, and I too have heard it and tack 10 of it, because having digital connectivity that is of an appropriate speed and availability is an absolutely crucial way in that more rural parts of Scotland can be placed at an equal distance to urban areas from services that are delivered digitally. I think that notwithstanding the excellent R100 programme that will deliver 30 megabits availability to every premise in Scotland, it is worth perhaps my saying that the first digital system that I worked on in 1969 ran at 110 bits per second and was adequate for its time. The 30 megabits that we are now looking at is more than a quarter of a million times as fast, and in the future the R100 delivery of 30 megabits will undoubtedly be overtaken by faster speeds and different technologies, so it will remain an important part of what the agency must do. It is a vital utility for people living in the south of Scotland as elsewhere. Of course, it also, in definitional terms, covers work that the agency would be likely to want to do on mobile hotspots, as well as wired connections for broadband. The indications are that the committee will support that. In the event that the committee does not support that, I would be entirely relaxed if instead they support Colin Smith's amendment 25. A couple of words on two of the other amendments that I want to deal with them all. I have said what I said at amendment 18 in the previous section in relation to the use of framework and framework convention at 21. I think that the same difficulties apply and I will not rehearse them. In 11A, I suspect that, in the light of announcements subsequent to the submission of the amendment, we might see at stage 3 net zero carbon being substituted with net zero greenhouse gas emissions, which is a broader term that would accord with what the amendments that have been moved forward for the climate change bill that is before the environment committee, of which I am a member. There are numerous amendments in this group that I will give consideration to when we come to save time. I will only speak to my amendment in this group. We know through the work of this committee and reinforced by our specific evidence gathering for this bill how vital transport connectivity is for successful communities and businesses across the south of Scotland. My amendment 24 responds to those concerns, making it clear that the south of Scotland enterprise could undertake activity to promote improvements to transport services and infrastructure across the south of Scotland. In our consideration of the legislation, the committee recognised the need for clarity of roles and responsibilities between agencies operating in the south. The amendment does not confer on south of Scotland enterprise any existing statutory functions or duties such as those of Transport Scotland or regional transport partnership. Instead, it ensures that new agency could complement those activities advocating for transport infrastructure services that support the inclusive economic growth of the south, which we all believe in. That is what we have called for in our stage 1 report, and I therefore move that amendment in my name. Thank you, convener. In the interests of brevity, I will also speak to my own amendment 14. The committee has recently welcomed the remit for the new south of Scotland agency that includes social development and the evidence that we heard at stage 1 showed that there is wide-ranging support for that to be included. It responded to the very clear need for support to help communities in the south of Scotland to further their interests and meet their needs. However, we also heard some concerns about the current wording in the bill at section 4 to subsection C, being too gnarly drafted as it only referred to community organisations. That might inadvertently restrict the support offered and to whom that might be offered, and I agree with those concerns. As the cabinet secretary has stated, amendment 14 adjusts the wording to make it clear that the support for communities that could be provided by the new enterprise agency is not intended to be restricted solely to community organisations, ensures that the agency can reflect and respond to the different needs and interests of communities across the area. The broad scope of the section with my amendment should it pass would allow almost any matter to be addressed, including community asset transfers and land ownership. I also think that John Finnie's amendment becomes unnecessary, but I heard what Colin Smyth had to say. I will listen closely to what John Finnie has to say on his amendment. I thank the cabinet secretary for his assurances in this regard and wait to see if John Finnie thinks that that will suffice. Thank you, Gilross. I would now call on John Finnie to speak to amendment 15 and any other amendments in the Grape John. I think that what we are doing just now shows the importance of this building and the role that committees play in scrutinising legislation. We all want to make good law and we want to make law that is relevant, is not open to challenge, absolutely accept that. The pressure that we all face as elected representatives is lobbying from individuals who want their particular interests put on the face of the bill with some perception, rightly on occasions, that if it is not expressly catered for, then it is somehow devalued. We all know that that is not necessarily the case. On some of the discussion around that, I have to say that I am somewhat bemused about where we are commending the promotion of reserved issues, as Mr Stevenson did there. I have no issue with that. Gilross's amendment 14 does not cover what is required, because, as we heard and we mentioned on community land ownership, in our report, we heard from Dr Callum McHout of community land Scotland that part of the remit of the new agency should be to establish a community assets team within the agency, similar to that operated by HIE. We have made a lot of references to the similarities and the discussions around the power. Can I tell you what our recommendation said? The committee further calls on the Scottish Government to amend the aim of furthering the economic and social development of the house of Scotland to make specific provision in relation to supporting community land ownership and asset ownership. That is specifically what I am doing here. I would hope for support of the committee on that. Callum McHout has touched on the huge disparity between the issue of community land ownership in the south of Scotland compared with the highlands of Scotland, Highlands and Islands, and I would say that there perhaps is a historic basis to that. However, we know, for instance, that community ownership contributes to local economic development in rural and urban settings by generating businesses, opportunities employment and income streams for reinvestment by communities for their collective benefit—again, that is from Dr Callum McHout. There are opportunities, and it was referred to as a glaring discrepancy, the creation of south of Scotland offers an opportunity for a step change. If the cabinet secretary is, as he previously offered, saying that there are deficiencies in the working here, I cannot see how there are, but if there are, I would hope, given that there has always been a significant platform and a commendable approach that has been taken by the Scottish Government into the change that is required in land ownership, then I would hope that that would be supported by members. Briefly, talking about one or two of the others, I hear what has been said in the repetition of some of the earlier discussion. I am supportive of Colin Smith's approach to a lot of those other issues. Given the time constraints that she has indicated, I will not go through them all, but I am broadly supportive of all the others. Thank you very much, John. Before I go on to look at the next amendment, I would like to welcome Claudia Beamish to the committee. She joined us earlier. I have not had an opportunity to welcome her, but having welcomed her, I now call on you, Claudia, to speak to amendment 26 and any other amendments within the group. Claudia Beamish I am very pleased to be here today. I want to preface my remarks by saying how important and significant the bill is in relation to the South of Scotland, which I represent. I should declare an interest as a member of the co-op group of members of the Scottish Parliament. I was pleased to hear the minister say that he will listen to what points I want to make in relation to the amendment, which would again add to the aims, which is the section 5 that we are looking at. It would be to encourage persons and bodies with an interest in the environment to co-operate in achieving environmental objectives. This is a probing amendment, and it would relate to a whole range of bodies and individuals, farmers, land managers and communities—actually both urban and rural—being enabled and facilitated in working together for these aims. I would give you three quick examples. One would be on the basis—it would be difficult for groups to do without support and advice, and I would encourage them to take things forward on an environmental basis. One would be river catchment-wide work—actions, for instance, to mitigate flooding, such as riparian planting. Another would be for agroforestry schemes, which would enable action on a scale, which makes it likely that tree planting across smaller landholdings might be possible in a way that it would not be otherwise because of economies of scale. Another would be woodland planting, of which there are good examples near Peebles and in other places in South Scotland by communities already, but that would support and facilitate communities working with advice from the agency. I would stress that, in view of the recent UK Climate Change Committee report, this week's UN report on nature and the shift to net zero emissions by 2045, which the Scottish Government, as we know, has now committed to—I am delighted to hear—I am clear that this amendment adds to the aims in a way that would facilitate positive environmental objectives on a co-operative basis. I look forward to hearing from the minister on this. I would also like to say that I support John Finnie's amendment. I know that I am not a member of the committee, but I do think that it is vital, having been on the rural affairs committee in the previous Parliament and having gone to gear and understood about the support that has been given by high to communities who are looking to move forward. I think that it is very important that this is part of the bill. We have some other contributions. Peter Chapman would like to follow by Mike Rumbles. Thanks, convener. I will try and be as brief as possible. Amendment 7 and 8, as Cabinet Secretary's name, has no problem with that. Amendment 19, likewise, from Colin Smyth, which is very similar to amendment 8. Amendment 20 in Colin Smyth's name, I think that it can support. It is obviously commendable that we try and get more working aids people into the region. Amendment 21 has basically been debated already, the fair work framework, so I would be supporting that one. 22, again, I have a problem there. It seems to be very restrictive in promoting co-operative societies. I would like to promote all kinds of business models, and I do not agree with picking out one. Stewart Stevenson's amendment 23, I very much support, but I just have a concern that we are committing the enterprise board to funding some of this work. I do not believe that it is within the remit to fund it, but it is certainly within the remit to support and encourage, and I will absolutely give way. I thank the member for giving way. The word used is promoting, so I think that that would be much wider than just financing, would it not? Well, that is my point. If that is the case, then I am happy to support it, but we need to be sure that it is not being expected to fund. Again, Richard Lyle's amendment 24 speaks about funding strategic reviews, so I think that we can support that one. I cannot support Colin Smyth 21 or 25, but I heard what he said that if the committee supports 23 and 24, then he would withdraw 25. Gail Ross's amendment I can support, and I heard what the cabinet secretary said that that might mean that John Finlay's 15 might be withdrawn, but I suspect that John will push, and if he does, I think that I could support 15 as well. With that, I will wind up. Thank you, Peter. Mike Rumbles, followed by Jamie Greene, might. Thanks very much, convener. I do not think that anybody has yet, but I think that it is important that we recognise what the cabinet secretary has done. In our stage 1 report, we specifically asked him to come forward with amendments on the environmental aims and everything else, and he has done that. I will be supporting the minister on those in preference to any other approach. I have also said to several members privately when they have asked me about their amendments that I would have an open mind and listen to the debate in which I am sure we all do, but I have specifically got an open mind on this. Before I heard John to support Gail Ross in her amendment, but from what John eloquently said, I think that I will be supporting his amendment 15, because it is what we said in the stage 1 report, and I think that that is appropriate that we do so. I have to say that I certainly will not be supporting John's other amendment that he brings forward later on, but I will certainly be supporting this one. Thank you, Mike. Jamie, I was unclear if he wants to come in on all of that. Thank you. A lot has already been said in this group. It is a large grouping with 18 amendments, and my colleague Peter Chapman has eloquently expressed our views on much of it, but I thought that it is worth making a few quick general points for the benefit of the other committee members. There is a bit of a choice to be made between amendments 23 and 24 on digital and transport infrastructure, and Colin Smyth's amendment on digital connectivity and transport. It comes down to the nuanced wording of each. I am minded to go in favour of 23 and 24, because they promote the concepts of improving digital and transport, rather than supporting the enhancement of it. By default, the enhancement of it could be read as having a duty or role to do something, and that requires a budget that it may or may not have. However, I am always mindful of the problem that we have in these debates. There is no surprise that the aim section is the biggest one, because there are so many asks and demands of the committee and of the new agency that they want it to be as expansive and comprehensive as possible. I think that that is something that we all share, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary agrees. However, the problem with lists is that they become exhaustive or non-exhaustive, and we have had this debate many times in this committee. I am uncomfortable with starting lists that we do not finish, but we have to be cognisant of the feedback that we had in the public meetings. There were very specific asks around some specific elements, social enterprise, the environment, digital and so on, so I think that we will support some, but perhaps not all of them. I am equally happy with Gil Ross's clarification on amendment 14. I was a bit unsure at first as to the rationale behind it. I think that I have come around, like Mr Rumbles, to amendment 15. I think that our group would be mindful to support that, because it was in the stage 1 report. I do not think that there is any problem in supporting community ownership. It does not say that there will be huge swaths of budget to give to organisations to buy pieces of land, but supporting is, I think, suitably positive and suitably vague in this respect that I would be able to support it. I think that it really comes down to the wording. Supporting and promoting are helpful words in those amendments, whereas when you put a direct duty on the agency that inherently leads it down a path that it may not want to go down, I think that that is—oh, thank you. Thank you, Jamie. John Finnie, followed by Finnie Carson. Thank you, convener. I just wanted to speak briefly on Claudia Beamish's amendment 26. I thought that it was an excellent presentation that we heard there. It is about the challenges that we all face collectively, and I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary's response to that. It is about dialogue, and some of the examples given there will be about the leadership that is shown in relation to that and about collaborative working. I hope to hear a positive response from the cabinet secretary. Thank you, John Finnie. Thank you, convener. I just wanted to put it on record that my concerns are the same as Jamie Greene and also John with the creation of lists. If we have too long lists and there are certain interventions that are not expressly mentioned, he could suggest that they are not quite so important and lists then become a bit prescriptive. I certainly think that Gail Ross' amendment broadens the opportunities without concentrating on any one particular intervention. I am not sure why social enterprise and businesses should only be emphasised if they are co-operative societies. I think that Gail Ross' amendment would open that right up. I think that the wording of that particular amendment talks about social enterprise and co-operative societies not only co-operative societies. It is an important point. It is wider than just co-operative societies. It is all social enterprises, which is clearly a change in the remit of this agency in comparison to, for example, Scottish Enterprise. My reading of it suggests that it is supporting social enterprise and businesses that are co-operative societies. It suggests that it potentially excludes social enterprise and businesses that are not co-operative societies. I think that we need to be very careful about creating lists. In amendment 9, maintaining, protecting and enhancing the natural heritage, it could be argued that it should be enhancing the natural and cultural heritage, so it may be that we bring back further amendments at stage 3. The cabinet secretary, could I ask you to wind up on this big group of amendments? Yes, I am very pleased that we have had a detailed discussion around the aims of South of Scotland Enterprise. It is right that we give this full consideration, as Mr Finlay has said. That is in a sense what we are here to do. Although I do not support all of the amendments that have been brought forward by members of the group, for the most part I agree with the intention behind them. As Mr Rumbles has said, we listen very carefully to what the committee said in its report and brought forward the amendments, particularly with regard to the reflections that the committee made and recommendations about the environment. I was grateful for Mr Rumble's comments on that. On issues such as equality and fair work, those will be matters included in the strategic guidance letters issued to the agency. I wanted to say to the committee that they will also be dealt with in the strategic board's strategic plan. If it would be helpful to the committee convener, I will write to you with a bit more detail about how strategic guidance letters deal with those. I will give examples of SE, Scottish Enterprise and HIE, and indeed the strategic board, stating and showing the way in which those important matters—those vital matters—are in practice dealt with, not in the face of legislation but in letters of strategic guidance. I think that that would perhaps help inform stage 3 so that perhaps there is a clearer understanding on all sides about how those matters can be dealt with in practice but not on primary legislation. I would encourage members to support amendments 7, 8, 23, 24, 14, 9, 10, 11 and 11a which will more clearly demonstrate that the activities of the new agency will balance a range of economic and social and environmental objectives to deliver inclusive sustainable growth and sustainable development. Can I just ask a quick question? What the cabinet secretary is understanding is the difference between amendment 19 and amendment A. One is adding sustainable to list of aims for economic growth, whereas the other is adding the development of sustainable economy to the list of aims. I guess that there is a similarity in wording, but I am unsure as to which achieves the best result and indeed if the two are compatible. We do not surprisingly prefer our own amendment and not for largely technical reasons because the alternative, Mr Smith's 19, does not quite express the aim in the most felicitous way, but we will reflect very carefully on those matters prior to stage 3 and come back. That is our recommendation, having Hither 2 looked at the technical detail of all amendments very carefully. It is not really good versus bad, it is effective against slightly less effective, it is clarity versus potential vagueness. I will come on to illustrate some of those general points in relation to specific amendments in a moment. We should bear in mind that the bill has been drafted to provide flexibility with regard to the activity of the agency and that was, convener, recognised by the committee in its report. We want the new agency to be able to take a fresh approach, a tailored approach, to meet the needs of the south and not be constrained by legislation or artificial boundaries, and many members alluded to that as a desirable and indeed a necessary aim. If I turn to some of the specifics, again, Mr Finnie set out aspirations that and aims that we support. He has set out in amendment 15 his proposals. The reason we prefer Gail Ross's amendment 14 to 15 is firstly that, by accepting Gail Ross's amendment 14, it will simply mean that the bill will provide that we are supporting communities to help them to meet their needs. It is very simple, it is very straightforward, supporting communities to help them to meet their needs. Can I just finish the argument and I am happy to give way to Mr Mason, I think that Mr Finnie perhaps wants to intervene, happy to intervene, but just maybe let me develop and complete all these arguments. Mr Finnie quite rightly and others, I think that Mr Mason referred to the good work that HIE has already achieved in this field, and it has achieved these things and the community land unit was alluded to as the operational way in which it gave focus to these issues, rightly so. I just point out that the legislation setting out the aims of HIE does not mention any of this at all. It was able to do this work in community land and support community land purchase without that being referred to in its establishing legislation at all. It is precisely because the wording of the legislation establishing HIE is broadly worded that it is able to act in this particular way. It is not necessary to specifically confer power in respect of the way in which Mr Finnie's amendment seeks to do. In preferring Gil Ross's amendment, we are simply making a judgment about what is technically preferable. It is important to say that, so I am happy to accept all interventions, convener, if members wish to raise further questions on these matters. Can we just go in the order that they arose, if we may please say? It would be John, followed by John Finnie, followed by Mike Rumbles. I am grateful for the cabinet secretary for taking intervention. I tried to fairly lay out groups' aspirations regarding what would be on the face of the bill, cabinet secretary, and I am absolutely ready to accept that, and I will be supporting Gil's motion. It was part of our initial report on the basis of what we received, but I cannot say that I have intimate knowledge at the moment anyway of HIE's initial legislation, but I am quite sure that it would not include promoting digital connectivity, for instance, in it. Our position evolves in relation to things, but this is something that I quite frankly would have thought the Scottish Government would want to trumpet rather than have it contained in a generality. That is good news by the Scottish Government in relation to the Highlands Islands. That is why I would have thought that it would have been expressly catered for and that you would not have a difficulty with it. It may be appropriate to hear all the points raised and then come back. What would you like to do them individually? I will hear all of the answers. That seems the logical way. It should have been John Mason first, and then Jamie Greene. Thank you, convener. It is similar points to John Finnie. I am struggling a bit to understand why I accept that it was not in HIE's legislation community ownership of land and other assets, but it is something that this Government and our party is very committed to. We have put a huge amount of money into buying Alva, which I wholly support, and we did hear in evidence that, whereas in the Highlands and Islands, there is quite a lot of community land ownership in the south of Scotland, there is virtually none. I am very inclined to support this amendment, because I think that it would be really underline what we are trying to do. Jamie, do you want to… Mike, I think that it feels that the question has been asked as well. Jamie, do you want to come in? Yes, thank you. I was just picking up on the comments that were made by the cabinet secretary. I do not think that amendment 15 confers or even infers that the ministers will have any additional powers. It simply does not state that. It just says supporting community ownership of land. Now, we each and all have our own political views on that subject, but I think that that is a fair and reasonable statement to make. I do not think that it genuinely deviates in any way from a legislative point of view as to the powers that ministers may or may not already have, or that the agency may or may not seek to have. If it can use existing powers that exist elsewhere to purchase land, it is welcome to do so, but supporting, again, we use that word in other amendments, which I think that the committee supports, I think is acceptable. I do not see the direct relationship between supporting community land ownership and the powers that the minister thinks that amendment 15 confers or infers. I am grateful to the members for their points and I will try to respond to each of them. First, Gail Ross's amendment is wider than ownership, but it encompasses ownership. Gail Ross's amendment, if it is accepted, will have the effect that the new agency, South of Scotland Enterprise, will be able to do what HIE can do. It will be able to do everything that HIE can do, and it is wider than ownership. There may be other ways in which communities may wish to be assisted than community ownership, so it confers a wider range of powers. I would have thought that it is desirable to ensure that there is the widest range of powers for communities, for example, that they wish to pursue options other than direct ownership of the land that they have. That said, we are completely committed, as Mr Mason has said, and have been for as long as I can remember in my party in that set over four decades to community land purchase. There is no question about the aims. We are not saying, convener, that Mr Finnie's amendment is bad and another is good. That is not the issue at all. If the committee decides to go for Mr Finnie's amendment, we would have to look at technical amendments that were necessary to avoid restricting the scope of the new agency at stage 3. I would certainly ask my officials to do that to see if that were necessary. However, I can assure, in response to Mr Greene and Mr Mason, that the purpose behind our advice that Ms Ross's amendment is to be preferred is to do exactly what Mr Finnie and others and Mr Mason and Ms Ross have said that the new agency should be able to do. It will be able to do that, but it will be able, in my view, to do more because the wording of Gail Ross's amendment allows it to do more. The objection is entirely technical, convener, but that is the nature of drafting legislation. We are not in doubt about political policies in the pursuit of them. The question is how best to implement and enable them to be enacted. I am happy perhaps to park that one there and maybe turn to Claudia Beamish's amendment if I may. First, I thank her for coming to the committee and making this point that it is absolutely essential that everyone works together and cooperates together. However, that is not really about the agency and the bill does not really have its purpose of telling third parties what to do. It is not really the scope of a bill. Obviously, across the whole scope of government, people need to work together, and that is expected and desirable. However, it is not really the scope of a bill and any bill that will establish a body to state that third parties should co-operate together. That is something that should happen anyway. The point that I am making is not that they should do this, but that is a permissive, facilitating and supportive amendment for groups who may not be able to have the capacity to do things collectively. It is not that they should, but that they could. Again, I support the aspiration, but the point that I am making is that this is not something that is really suitable for containing in primary legislation. How can we enforce what third parties do together? Indeed, the definition of encouraging persons and bodies with an interest in the environment is vague because who is to say that someone has or does not have an interest in the environment? Arguably, everybody should have an interest in the environment, so that means that everybody should co-operate with each other, which is not really to do with setting up the agency, convener. Again, in suggesting that members resists this amendment, I am not in any way opposed to and I agree with the aim, but it is not really one that is habile to be included in primary legislation. However, I am happy to do that. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. Given that things in relation to the environment are moving at such a rapid pace, I wonder if the cabinet secretary would, before stage 3, perhaps take on board a way of redrafting some of the amendments to take account of the climate emergency that we have now declared we are facing in Scotland. Yes, I am very pleased to give the assurance that, of course, we will, prior to stage 3, look specifically at that issue and in relation to Ms Beamish's amendment. I hope that she would accept that assurance. Moreover, the bill in various parts does import a duty to consult. That is very important. That duty to consult will, I think, bring about what Claudia Beamish wishes to achieve. Indeed, I think that we will come on to debate Maureen Watt's amendment 39 shortly, which proposes, I think, just that in a particular context. I think that the way in which to achieve what Ms Beamish sets out to achieve is achieved by other means. If she agrees with me, given the undertaking that I have provided happily to Maureen Watt, as to the bigger specific picture of meeting climate change and the new agency being able to do so most effectively, I hope that she would not press her amendment. Again, I fully recognise Colin Smyth's desire to emphasise the importance of the new body tackling inequality and poverty in the south. I addressed that in my opening remarks, but I do not think that amendments 27 and 28 are the right way to achieve that. I would urge the committee for the reasons that I set out earlier, and I will not repeat not to accept those amendments if they are pressed. I reiterate the undertakings that I have given previously, convener, to come back to the committee and, indeed, individual members, as well as the STUC in good time before stage 3 to have further discussions on those matters, which we are happy to do. Aside from the drafting, I think that there is enough in the aims should the committee support my amendment 8 to allow clear direction to be given on wider government priorities, like tackling poverty and promoting equality. I would also specifically undertake to do that in the agency's first strategic guidance letter. I think that the last issue that was raised in the debate that I wanted specifically to talk about was the debate between the transport options, one promoting and the other supporting. The reason, convener, we used the word promote was after careful internal deliberation with Transport Scotland, with lawyers and others. We felt that the word promoting was the best word to use in respect of the role that the new agency should have. The option of supporting the enhancement of had an element of vagueness because it could import an obligation financially to contribute to matters that are the actual responsibility of other bodies. I think that Mr Greene set out the difference between the two quite well. I entirely agree that the option with promoting should be preferred because it encapsulates the role that stakeholders wish the new body to have, and it should have without encroaching on the legal and executive responsibilities of other bodies, including Transport Scotland. I wanted to read all that stuff out, which I listened earlier, to try to respond to members' concerns. I am grateful for them having been raised. I hope that this collaborative, consensual discussion will lead to improving the bill, convener. Whatever the committee decides, we are very happy to continue to work with all members to get the best possible bill and to achieve that, to progress that work prior to stage 3. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I would now like to move on to look at the amendments. The first question that I have is that amendment 7 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Therefore, I would like to call amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 7. Cabinet secretary, can you formally move? Thank you. The question therefore is that amendment 8 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Therefore, I would like to call amendment 19 in the name of Colin Smith already debated with amendment 7. The question therefore is that amendment 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against? The result is that there are five votes, four, six votes against, and there are no abstention. Therefore, amendment 19 is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 20 in the name of Colin Smith already debated with amendment 7. Colin Smith, to move or not move? Move, convener. The question therefore is that amendment 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Therefore, I call amendment 21 in the name of Colin Smith already debated with amendment 7. Colin Smith, to move or not move? Move, convener. Therefore, the question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. The results of that vote are, there are two votes in favour, nine votes against amendment 21. Therefore, it is not agreed. I therefore would like to call amendment 22 in the name of Colin Smith already debated with amendment 7. Colin Smith, to move or not move? Move, convener. The question therefore is that amendment 22 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Sorry, could you keep them hands raised? It's very helpful if you raise them high, might say. Thank you very much, Richard, for demonstrating that. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. The results are that there are eight votes, four or three votes against. Therefore, amendment 22 is agreed. I therefore call amendment 23 in the name of Stuart Stevenson already debated with amendment 7. Stuart Stevenson, to move or not move? Move. Therefore, the question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 24 in the name of Richard Lyle, already debated with amendment 7. Richard Lyle, to move or not move? Move, convener. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Therefore, I call amendment 25 in the name of Colin Smith already debated with amendment 7. Colin Smith, to move or not move? Not move, convener. Colin Smith, to move straight on to the next one. Therefore, I am going to call amendment 14 in the name of Gail Ross already debated with amendment 7. Gail Ross, to move or not move? Move. The question therefore is amendment 14 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Therefore, I call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 7. Cabinet secretary to move member four. canımりました. We are agreed. We are agreed. Therefore, I call amendment 10 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 7. Cabinet secretary to move member four. We are agreed. Therefore, I call amendment 11 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 7. Cabinet secretary to move formerly, please. I will now call amendment 11A by the name of Colin Smyth. It was already debated with amendment 7. Colin Smyth to move or not move. Let move, convener. The question therefore is that amendment 11A be agreed or we all agreed. Cabinet Secretary, do you wish to withdraw amendment 11 as amended? Yes, press. Rhyw ddwy Never is amendment 11. As amended, be agreed and we all agreed. We are agreed. Therefore I call amendment 15 in the name of John Finnie, or any debated with amendment 7, John Finnie to move or not move. Move, comац. Thank you. The question therefore will be amendment 15. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, therefore there is division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. Felly fel datblygu yn fwy o'r cyfreigwyr yn zufwydd Cymru yn fwy o'r cwrnod, yn fwy o'r cyfreigwyr yn fwy o'r cyfreigwyr yn fwy o'r cyfreigwyr yn llaw deithas, neu yn ei amser i'r ddaraff fawr ond Iadleidol. Felly yn fwy o'r cyfreigwyr yn llaw deithas ac yn llawer o Cymru, cyfieinogi venuell, ac yn fawr eich cwrnod, Therefore, amendment 26, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. The results are three votes in favour, eight votes against, no abstentions. Therefore, amendment 26 is not agreed. I'd like, therefore, to call amendment 27 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 7. Colin Smyth to move or not move? The question, therefore, is that amendment 27 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. The results of that vote are, there are two votes, four at nine votes against, there are no abstentions. Therefore, amendment 27 is not agreed. I call amendment 28 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 7. Colin Smyth to move or not move? The question, therefore, is that amendment 28 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. The results of that vote are, there are two votes, four at nine votes against, therefore, amendment 28 is not carried. The question, therefore, at this stage is that section 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I would now like to call amendment 29 in the name of Colin Smyth, grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Colin Smyth, please move amendment 29 and speak to this amendment and any other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm happy to move amendment 29 in my name, which simply sets a requirement for the new agency to ensure that it reviews its action plan on an annual basis. That's not a commitment. It has to change that action plan if it concludes that it still meets its requirements, but simply to carry out an annual review to make sure that it is up to date. That simply enshrines best practice in law and ensures that the action plan can't simply be forgotten for years to come. The amendment number 31 in my name requires the agency to consult local authorities while developing that action plan. I believe that this is a sensible provision that will ensure that there is local consultation during the development of the action plan itself. The amendment number 32 in my name requires the agency to submit its draft action plan to local authorities for comments. There is an amendment from John Mason that requires the action plan to be submitted to Parliament, which I think is perfectly reasonable, but I think that it's also important that there is local input to that action plan. Therefore, my amendment requires the agency to submit its draft plan to local authorities for comments. In some ways, that is an alternative to the approach that I have set out in amendment number 33, which I will speak to in a moment, but it is an effort to ensure that local authorities have an opportunity to give feedback on the action plan as we get towards the end of the process. Ideally, along with the consultation requirements set out in amendment 31, we will provide useful insight from local authorities in help to ensure that the agency works with and in partnership the two local authorities. Amendment number 33 requires the agency's action plan effectively to be agreed by local authorities as well as Scottish ministers. This is effectively a stronger version of amendment 32 requiring local authorities to sign off the action plan. Again, this is to guarantee local input and collaboration between the agency and local authorities. I think that some kind of mechanism, given local authorities a chance to respond to the action plan, is crucial, but I'm happy to take a steer from commenting on whether that should be a statutory right to comment or a requirement to be specifically supportive of that action plan. It's worth noting that there is precedent in law at the moment for that particular proposal. At the moment, the local plans from the police and from Far and Rescue have to go to local authorities to sign off at the moment, so there is precedent for that particular process. Amendment 37 follows on from this amendment. One of the weaknesses around the sign-off process for the police and fire service at the moment is that although local plans have to go to local authorities to sign off, there is no mechanism in place should a local authority say that they don't agree with that particular local plan. That was an issue that I know that the Justice Committee highlighted very recently. What amendment 37 in my name does is ensure that there is a process should there be a dispute between the local authority and the new agency, although it's an issue that shouldn't arise if both organisations are working closely together. Amendment 34 in my name requires the agency to engage with the local communities on a regular basis to gain feedback on its performance and receive views on what it should be doing in the future. I believe that there should be a requirement for community consultation set out in the face of the bill. I don't think that it's good enough to simply say that this is best practice that will happen anyway. It's important that we underpin that with a legal requirement. I've said that a few times today that there's no downside to enshrining best practice in legislation. It provides clarity in what is expected and helps to future-proof the principles that has driven the establishment of this agency. That amendment is not prescriptive in what the consultation process should look like, given the agency's flexibility in how to approach it. It simply clarifies that it's part of the responsibility to keep their action plan under review. They should regularly consult with the local community to gain feedback on both their performance today and their work moving forward. I'm aware that Maureen Watt is proposing something similar with amendment 39. I do not think that the amendment would improve the bill. I believe that the requirement for regular consultation set out in my amendment is more appropriate than the requirement to consult specifically on the development of the action plan itself. Amendment 35 expands on amendment 34 by clarifying that local authorities, businesses, third sector bodies, social enterprise etc. and trade unions should all be consulted as part of the agency's community engagement. I believe that that provides some additional clarity on what is meant in amendment 34. The list is by no means exhaustive, but rather a starting point to make clear the proposed scope of the consultation, in addition to the proposed requirement to consult those living and working in the south of Scotland in amendment 34. Each item on that list has an important and unique perspective to inform the work of the agency, and the amendment would make clear that it should be included in the consultation process itself. Amendment 37 follows on from amendment 33, and I think that I've covered that in my comments earlier. Amendment 38 requires the action plan to be revised at least every five years if it's not being revised in this time. As with the requirement to review the plan annually, that simply sets a floor in terms of how regularly it must be revised. It's not unreasonable a timeframe and indeed I'd hope that the plan is revised regularly enough that this is never used. Again, there is precedent around setting a timescale when it comes to reviewing a plan. Members will be aware of the passing of the forestry bill that was driven by the committee. A timescale, a specific timescale, was included in that bill when it came to revising the forestry strategy. I think that it's important to set that timescale so that there is an upper limit as to when that should be revised. I think that that's all the amendments in my name. Sorry, I apologize. I think that's all the amendments in my name, so I'm happy to cover them. I'm going to call on Maureen Watt to speak to amendment 30 and any other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. As we took evidence on this bill, we heard loudly and clearly that people across the south of Scotland wanted to shape the work of their agency. They're excited by the opportunities that it will bring for growth, but they want to ensure that their voice continues to be heard and the agency listens to their views and their priorities. Enshrining that approach in the bill was something that we, as a committee, wanted to see. My amendments 30, 36 and 39 do that. Amendment 39 will require the new agency to consult on its action plan, including the development of a new or modified plan. It goes further and ensures that the agency sets its consultation strategy, making clear who and why it will consult. This gives local people a formal channel through which to provide feedback on the performance and strategic focus of South of Scotland Enterprise Agency. As such, it will enhance both the accountability and transparency of the new enterprise body. Amendments 30 and 36 are technical amendments to make all this work. Amendment 30 flags the consultation duty section. Amendment 36 makes clear that consultation must take place on modifications, as well as replacing an action plan. Like Colin Smyth, I agree that it's important that local authorities are consulted, but unlike Colin with his amendments 31, 32 and 33, I don't think that their voice should have primacy nor should they be given any sort of veto over the plans. Nor do I think that Scottish ministers should prescribe through regulations who the new agencies should consult. I think that that is best left to those in the south of Scotland. I'm also reluctant to see timetables for review prescribed in this bill. Public bodies are already required to do this. I don't think that we need to make additional provision for this new agency. I believe that my amendments strike the right balance. They strengthen the bill by clearly providing a greater role for the people of the south of Scotland in shaping the new agency. I would ask members to support those amendments and I move amendment 30. Amendment 29 requires an annual review of the plan. In other words, the whole Shing Bang has to be looked at every year. It is worth saying that in the draft bill that is before us at 6.1.C, the power is created for Scottish Enterprise to modify its action plan at any time, subject to Scottish ministers approving it. I think that that is appropriate. I can see that south of Scotland Enterprise may well wish to make amendments in a time frame of a year or indeed less. Given the whole wean of consultations and so on and so forth that Colin Smyth is proposing through his various amendments, an annual review would carry the real danger that south of Scotland Enterprise spent all its time reviewing its plans, whereas its real objective is to support economic development, et cetera, et cetera. That is the general point. I look at amendment 35. I have concerns about the specific wording in that at 2DB it says businesses operating or otherwise having an interest in the south of Scotland. I just do not know how you would find the answer to that. It is all-encompassing. It appears to create a duty on finding all businesses that operate or otherwise have an interest. I think that that is impractical. With the same token, at C third sector bodies and D trade unions, the same observation would apply. Looking at 38, we are at 5 in 38, the insertion of 5. If it is not previously modified in its action plan in five years, then it must modify it. It might be a brilliant plan. It may not have needed modification in five years, but it did not need modification in five years. Fair enough, it does not need modification. I am curious that the approach that the member takes to this bill and the approach that he took to the forestry bill in which he voted in support of the Government amendment that set a timescale on when the forestry strategy should be reviewed and amended. However, some always think that that should not apply to the south of Scotland enterprise agency. I am simply looking at what is in front of me here. I confess absolutely to have the words related to forestry in front of me, so I cannot make that comparison. I am sure that Colin Wood would not mislead me in that regard. However, the bottom line is that if a plan is the plan that you need, I am not sure why, statutorily, you would require it to be changed because the change that you would then have to make might be artificial. It is about the wording. I spent very few plans with the five years without being changed in the real world, but it is just a slight odd wording. I am happy with what my colleague Maureen Watt's amendments. I will try to rattle through these in some form of cohesive manner. Can I take 29 and 38 together? It is topical at the moment. I do not have a problem in inserting an annual review. It is the sort of thing that the board in nature would probably do anyway. However, I do not think that there is any harm in putting it in statute that they have to do it. That does not mean that they spend the whole year doing a review, nor does it necessarily mean that the review means that it must change every year. It does not say that. It just says that they must cast their eyes upon their plan at least once per year. I would like them to do that. I think that that is an expectation that they would have. It could be that that review simply says that we are happy with the plan as it is, and we will keep calm and carry on in which case they have done the review and it signed off appropriately. It does not necessarily need to be a naval-gazing, laborious piece of work. Therefore, I would support 29. However, I was originally mindful to support 38 in the same respect, but I do read the technicalities of it. I have a concern that what if, at the end of the five-year period, the plan has not been modified because the board sees no need to modify the plan. It could very well be that this is a long-term plan that, after the annual review that I support, after the fifth annual review, we are at that stage where the board has continued to continue on the path that it is going. Therefore, there would be no need to modify it. I do wonder on a technical level if amendment 38 requires it to modify it. I am sympathetic to the aims of what Mr Smith is trying to achieve. I think that I am sympathetic to what you are trying to achieve by it, but I would not want any unintended consequence to put a duty on the board in the future to do something that it does not need to, happy to take an invention. Colin, you will get a chance, obviously, to comment on it when you wind up, so if it is a brief comment. I was just keen to know why the member's approach was slightly different to the approach that was taken in the forestry bill, where the wording is exactly the same in the forestry bill as the wording that I am proposing. The timescale is different, I have to say, and I remember that we had that debate, but the wording is exactly the same. That is not the forestry bill, first of all. It is a entirely different bill from an entirely different agency with entirely different objectives. We are perfectly entitled to take different views on the wording of the bill. I appreciate that you have taken similar wording. As I said, you can maybe think about it as other members speak, but I am still unclear as to if, at the end of the five-year period, the enterprise agency would have to modify its plan or not. Or, could a modification be a continuation of the plan, in which case I would be happy to support 38? You could maybe reflect that in summing up. On some of the other amendments in this group, it comes into a bit of a choice of camps. That is the amendments put forward by Maureen Watt and some similar lay-worded amendments by Colin Smith. I am sympathetic to both, but I can outline my position on them. I would be mindful to support amendments 30, 36 and 39 from Maureen Watt. I think that they provide the sufficient consultation that people are looking for in the south of Scotland. By being too prescriptive, it is important to include local authorities. The feedback that I have had from speaking to people in south Scotland is that they do not want local authorities to have a veto over the agency's decision making. Indeed, some people were very adamant that they did not want any local authority involvement whatsoever. To be sympathetic to local authorities' role in the south of Scotland and the important role that they play, they should absolutely be part of the consultation process. Colin Smith's amendments to that effect are perhaps too prescriptive and binding on the role that they would play. Although I do not support amendments 35 and 37, if they were to pass, there are other amendments later in other groupings that are technically linked to those, namely 45 and 46. Even though we would not support 35 and 37, if they passed, we would support the technical tidies up. I am, however, pleased to tell Mr Smith that I support amendment 34, which sets a more general and perhaps less prescriptive view on who should be considered in the board's activities. I like plans. I read a book about the Soviet Union in a dairy farm where they used to have monthly production plans. People liked the break from monotony, so they had fortnightly production plans. They became very popular, too, so they had weekly production meetings. The phrase that I recall from it was that eagle-eyed zealots were always on the lookout for anyone who would seek to put a plan into practice. Therein lies the problem with a lot of this. I think that it is entirely well-meaning, but despite what is being said, I do think that the focus will be—certainly not by the whole cohort of workforce, but a significant part of the workforce will be populating plans to put in here to gather dust on shelves. I think that there is a balance to be struck. I am not going to speak to all the amendments, but I think that, in this instance, I think that Brian Scott has the balance right, and I will be supporting her amendments. John Ritchard. In reply to my colleagues' comments on communism, I do not think that it worked out very well, did it? Basically, a company can have a plan, but in the daily running of any company, there has to be flexibility. Basically, most companies do have a plan. When I was in the council, planners continually reviewed and reviewed plans, and sometimes nothing got done, as far as I was concerned. You have to have the day-to-day flexibility in order to ensure that your plan works. That is what being a businessman or being an entrepreneur or being an official within a business is. That is what you do every day of the week. As a boss said to me when I work with the Royal Bank, you have to look at the bigger picture. Cabinet Secretary, it is now down to you to give the bigger picture. I will try to rise to that occasion. I am grateful for members for their contributions to the debate. I think that we all want to achieve the same thing. I am mindful of the fact that the committee asked us to do this at stage 1. It asked us to find a way better to consult the people who live and work in the south of Scotland. I welcome Maureen Watt's amendments 30, 36 and 39, if she had not brought them forward. I might have been minded to do so. They ensure that consultation with people across the south of Scotland will continue by introducing a specific requirement for the new agency to consult with local people. That was what the committee wanted us to do in principle. That is what we believe should be done, without enfangling the new agency in an overly burdensome framework of rules and regulations that are overly prescriptive. Maureen Watt's amendments are less prescriptive than, for example, 34. At the same time, they are prescriptive—Mr Smith's amendments 34—but also vague, because it says that it must regularly seek representations from people. It does not define a particular criticism of Mr Smith, but it does not really say what regularly means. If there is vagueness in legislation, that allows people to argue different things. Becoming enmeshed in side issues is never a good thing. Mr Smith's amendments 31, 32, 33, 37 and 46 deal with consultation with local authorities. The main reason for not accepting them is that they would effectively give local authorities a right to veto plans. I do not think that that is something that the committee wants, nor do I think that local authorities have, so far as I know from my frequent engagement with them, that they would wish that either. No local authority should be able to direct an agency for the whole area about its plans. The real desire is that the local authorities and the new agency work together. I am very confident that that will happen, convener, because of the will that exists for that to happen. I would urge members to reject the well-meaning, well-intentioned amendments from Mr Smith. Prior to stage 3, and in order to try to be as helpful as possible, on the key issue of accountability, we will consider any further specific proposals that members may wish to put to me. The onus is on members, but if there are any further thoughts after stage 2, I give them the undertaking that we will carefully consider them in the same way that we will collaborate with others. I want to turn to the timetable and the timing issues. I think that I should point out that all public bodies are required by the Scottish Public Finance Manual, which applies to public bodies to review their corporate plans every three years. That is a requirement across the board. They are also required by the finance manual to produce an annual business plan. Those are the rules that apply to Scottish Enterprise HIE. I do not think that there should be a disalignment or disjunct between the other enterprise agencies and the new agency. I think that it should be bound to operate in the same way with regard to review and business plans as other public bodies. We have made clear to those other bodies that we expect them to align their planning cycle to a common three-year cycle, not different three-year cycles as well. I am just a bit confused. Are you saying that the current enterprise agencies have a one or a three-year review of either its action plan or which plans are reviewed when? As it is currently worded, 29 asked for a review of the plan at least annually. I presume that that means the action plan. It does not explicitly state. I am just trying to get my head around the difference. The position is that the bodies of enterprise agencies are required to review their corporate plans every three years. What I am putting to the committee is that it makes sense that, since the enterprise agencies require themselves to collaborate, there are often issues that transcend boundaries. For example, companies operate in different parts of Scotland getting help from one enterprise agency. Agencies very often have to collaborate. It makes a lot of sense that there should be alignment in their corporate plans and the timing of those so that the three-year cycle is effectively the same. That will require a little bit of synchronisation, if that is the right word, but that can readily be achieved. I do think that a one-year requirement is too frequent and it would impose a significant burden on the agency and on those who are consulted. There is just one specific point that I want to make about that. I get the sense that it will happen that Ms Watt's amendments will be accepted by the committee. Bear in mind that her amendment 39 imports an obligation to consult where a plan is being modified. If Mr Smith's proposal to review a plan every year is accepted, one must accept that if a plan is to be reviewed, the cororally is that there must be the opportunity to be modified as a result of that review. In order to modify it, there needs to be a consultation. That would import an annual round of consultations. The consultation process is not straightforward, so that I think would impose an undulating approach. I am sure that Mr Smith does not wish to do that. Therefore, I want to make that point. If members are minded to accept Ms Watt's amendments, I urge members not to accept the one-year review suggestion from Mr Smith. I will make one final point. If Mr Smith is agreeable not to press those amendments, I am happy to undertake, convener, to bring something back at stage 3, which creates the provision for an aligned three-year cycle, so that we have clarity on those matters. If I am permitted to give way to Mr Carson, I will do so. I think that it was quite a simple question. Is there an expectation or a written-down guide or policy to ask what our review, how extensive a review requires to be? I am not sure that there is, although I will come back to the member if I am incorrect. If one agrees that there should be a review of a plan, the review of necessity and by definition would encompass the whole plan. If, by contrast, there was to be a partial review, that would need to be specified. If a bill says that there has to be a review of a plan, then, by definition, all of the plan falls to be reviewed. Also, by definition, the outcome of that review must have the opportunity to modify that plan. If that were to happen, that would entail a duty to consult every year. I think that that would be an unreasonable burden. If so minded, convener, I am happy to take further amendments from everybody. If the enterprise board had to continually review and then go out to consultation, because people would then say that they hadn't consulted on their particular plan and they hadn't went to the local people to consult. That's one of the reasons why we want to establish the Scottish Enterprise Board to improve things. Would it not be, would it not get mired in a lot of paperwork, a lot of meetings, a lot of time spent, and that whole year could be a way? I think that there is merit in what Mr Lyle says. I think that plans are important, but implementing plans that are even more important. Doing the job that the body is expected to do is what we all wish to see, and it's my how it does that job that will be judged, not I suspect, by the content of its plan, no matter how perfectly worded and comprehensively drafted. I encourage members in conclusion, convener, to support Maureen Watt's amendments. I would invite Mr Smith not to press his amendments and I refer to the undertakings, which I again have given this committee. I've certainly made a lot of comments and a lot of assertions on some of the amendments that are being proposed, and I have to say that many of those assertions do not reflect either the wording of the amendment or the practical implementation of what that amendment would mean. For example, the amendment 29 requires a review of the plan, at least annually. It doesn't say that the plan has to be modified, it doesn't say that the plan has to be changed. I'll take an intervention on that. Maureen Watt, if you're going to have a review—I meant that the mic was slow coming on, so sorry, my fault—please carry on. Thank the member for taking an intervention. If you're going to ask for a review annually, you know new Colin Smith. You would be asking that local people would be consulted. If they would spend the point that I made to cabinet secretary earlier, if you're going to spend time, I'll ask you to do that. If you're going to spend time consulting and go out to review and hold public meetings, we've all held them and we've all been at them, and we know how long it takes to get a view together. If you're going to do that annually, you're going to waste a lot of time. The requirements on consultation are the requirements that would be, for example, set out in this bill. I'll come to Maureen Watt's amendment in a second. It makes no reference whatsoever to consulting every single time the board would review their action plan. Modifying it and changing it is what Maureen Watt's amendment says, then certainly there would be a requirement for consultation, but the wording does not say when it's being reviewed. The simple point that we make is that Highlands and Islands Enterprise publish an annual operating plan. The one that I've got in front of me says operating plan 2018-2019. It's an annual plan that they set out every single year. I'm lost as to why people think that that is something that shouldn't be pursued in the south of Scotland, where there's an annual plan, but it's something that happens in the Highlands and Islands. I'm confused. I'll take an intervention on that. I said at the outset that I'm sympathetic to the idea of an annual review of the plan. I think that it's a bona fide request of an agency, but I do, having listened to the debate, have a subsequent concern that if, because I do support Maureen Watt's amendment 39 on the consultation of the action plan, and I do worry that we do, I don't want to end up in a position where I've supported both. We were left in a situation where the plan is reviewed annually and has to be consulted on annually. Even if that, as you've said, means there's no modification to the plan because that's the view of the board. It's a perfectly acceptable view to have. However, if they've had to go through the consultation process, which I think is a right and due process, before that decision is made, then this will become into the onerous task that I said it wouldn't be in my opening comments. I am in a difficult position on that. I think that every member is addressing this from an important angle, but I'd like to think that this is a stage 2, therefore I hope that we can get this right at stage 3. I do wonder if there's a better way that we can, as a committee, reflect on all the very valid points that are made and come back with something that works at stage 3. I think that it's important because we are in a kind of debate at the moment that is inventing all sorts of myths as to, first of all, what consultation should look like. In my view, any organisation should be consulting on an on-going basis. That happens at the moment with the current predecessor to the South of Scotland enterprise agency. They've done one set already. They're only in their second year, and they're about to carry out a similar process this year. The idea that consultation is a very prescribed view is not something that I'm setting out anywhere in my amendments. I don't think that anybody is. It's up to the new agency to set out how they plan to consult. It's not something that we're prescribing here, and therefore it shouldn't be. I know that it's a task, but I come back to the point again that Maureen Watt is not proposing that there is a consultation every single time that the annual action plan is reviewed. I make the point again that the Highlands and Islands have an annual operating plan, and I'm a wee bit lost as to why we shouldn't have that in South of Scotland. We've had four different descriptions or terms as to what the plan is. It's been a strategic plan, an operating plan, a corporate plan and an action plan. Are those all the same or are they different things? What is it that we're actually being—because the HIE won the operating plan, is that different from an action plan or would it be a corporate plan? I'm a bit confused as to the terms that are being interchangeably used. You would have to ask the cabinet secretary why the phrase action plan is the one specified in the legislation before us, but that's what is described in the South of Scotland enterprise bill, an action plan. It's not my language, it's a language of the people who wrote the bill and they specify an action plan, so I can only go on the basis of the language that's used in the bill before us, therefore that's why we're referring to the action plan. Obviously, that language is different from the legislation that established the Highlands and Islands enterprise agency. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to ask the agency to review its plan on an annual basis. I think that it's very different from saying that it has to modify its plan on an annual basis. That would very much be a decision for the new agency. Colin, would you take an intervention from the agency? Just to try and add a bit of clarity on this, I too am confused in the plans and I've noticed from what the cabinet secretary said that there is some willingness to discuss this. To me it seems appropriate that we try and get a plan right that isn't a plan for a plan for a plan to be reviewed on a reviewable basis annually or on a set period of five years. The plan must suit purpose. I personally would favour and I wonder if you would support me in getting the cabinet secretary to draw up a process at stage 3 to ensure that the plan was appropriate and reviewed at the appropriate time, which then could be discussed at stage 3. It's a very point that I was going to convener that there are two aspects to what's being proposed. There's the requirement to review the plan, but there's also the requirement to make sure that changes are made to that plan or that it's modified at a certain upper period of time. As I said earlier, the precedent for that is in the forestry strategy, whereas a committee we supported an amendment to that bill that came from the Government that said that the forestry strategy had to be modified after a set period. I've got here, around my modifying of the action plan, exactly the same wording. Timescale is different, but it's exactly the same wording as the forestry strategy. I would support a process coming forward. What I'm concerned about is that there is currently no timescales within the bill before us, and therefore that's what my main concern is. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have that debate if there is a commitment there that says we'll bring forward proposals at stage 3 to set timescales and requirements on the new age as to when. It reviews its plan and when that plan has to be modified if there aren't any changes at a set of five years, because it would be astonishing if we had an action plan from the new agency that wasn't modified at all within a five-year period, given how changing the economy is. It's certainly a view that I share in the comments that the convener makes. Just specifically on a couple of other points in terms of Maureen Watt's amendment, the one slight concern that I've got over the wording of the amendment is that it talks about consultation before making or modifying its action plan. That's quite restrictive. It means that we would only consult the agency, we would only consult, first of all, when it's making its action plan at the start of the process, or if it was modifying its plan. My view is that consultation needs to be a more on-going process, so I'd be happy to support that amendment, but I believe that the wording should be looked at in more detail to make sure that it's not just at a certain period of time when it's modified the plan, because that could be five, ten years down the line. It should be something that's a more regular basis, so I'm concerned about the specific wording within that, although I'm happy to support that at this moment in time. The cabinet secretary made the point that I was aiming to have a veto on the action plan by the local authority. I would stress that there are two amendments in my name. There's amendment 32 and there's amendment 33. One of those amendments talks about having regard for the comments of the local authority. That's not a veto. No lawyer's going to tell you having regard for something as a veto on it, so I think it's important that we don't mislead people by implying that that amendment gives the local authority a veto over the action plan. It purely says that it should be consulted on, and the agency should have regard for the comments from the local authority. I'll certainly take an intervention now. You're saying that the Scottish ministers must, by regulation, make provision of how the South of Scotland Enterprise proceed to where a draft or draft modification of its action plan is rejected by the local authority. If you don't think that the local authority is going to try and interject on the South of Scotland Enterprise board, I'm sorry, Colin. I certainly disagree with you, because that, to me, is something that the local authority could possibly do. I would, in finishing, if a cabinet secretary was saying to me, I will work with you to try and sort out what you're asking for. I would be grasping that as soon as possible and removing my amendments. I would ask you not to press any of them. I would ask you to work with the cabinet secretary to get what you want, because that's what we all want. I'm happy to take advice from Mr Lill at any opportunity, but I think it's important that we don't mislead the committee based on what Mr Lill said, because I'll come back to the point that there are two amendments, and I made very clear in my comments that one was an alternative to the other. There is one amendment that would provide the local authority with the opportunity to decide whether they agreed with the action plan, and that's exactly the same as the situation that happens at the moment with the police and the fire service. That's a law that Mr Lill supported when it came to the local plan for the police and the local plan for the fire service. The weakness in that piece of legislation is that, if there is a dispute, there is no resolution process. It's a point that the Justice Committee made recently. If we went with that amendment, there would have to be a resolution process. However, amendment 33 is an alternative to amendment 32. Amendment 33 does not give the local authority a veto over the action plan. It simply requires the local authority to be consulted and for the agency to have regard for the comments of the local authority. Nobody suggests that having regard for the comments of the local authority is giving the local authority a veto. It's important that there are two amendments that are effectively given the committee's options, and that's an important point that needs to be in mind. I was arguing that section 37, in the name of Mr Smith, would have the potential consequence of conferring a veto on local authorities. The reason that I made that point is that, if one looks at the wording of amendment 37, it specifically says that where a local authority rejects the plan or a draft or a draft modification of the plan, then Scottish ministers must, by regulation, make provision for how south of Scotland enterprise is to proceed. What happens is that there is a draft plan put forward by a local authority rejects it, then Scottish ministers, the Scottish Government must then tell the agency what to do. I don't recall anybody in any of the consultation process suggesting that the Scottish Government should step in and have the power as set out in amendment 37, basically to direct the new agency about what to do in those circumstances. To explain—perhaps I didn't fully explain it, convener—how I interpreted amendment 37 and why I would suggest that it not be accepted by the committee. I don't think that I can because I'm not the speaker of the committee. Hold on. I'm going to have to let Colin come back, but I am getting to the stage where we are debating, I think, in a certain emotion around these various motions. I'm close to coming to a stage where saying that I think it's time for Colin to either press or withdraw the amendment so we can look at the other one. Colin, I'd like to come back to you and, if you feel appropriate, to let Richard under— Nothing is important to respond to the cabinet secretary's point. Amendment 37 is in direct reference to amendment 33. If we go down the route, which is the same with police and fire service, of allowing the local authority to decide whether they agreed with the action plan or not, then my view is that there should be a resolution process because that is one of the current major weaknesses in the legislation on police and fire where there is no resolution process. If a local authority disagreed with the local plan for the police service, there is no process. I come back to the point that the Justice Committee made very clear that it thought that was wrong. I'm asking the Government to change that. Amendment 37 is in direct reference to amendment 33, but the alternative amendment, and I make this point again, is that rather than allowing the local authority to have a vote or a veto on the action plan, they simply are allowed to comment on the action plan and those agencies should have regard for those comments. Amendment 32 is an alternative to amendment 33. Amendment 37 is purely an amendment that would be moved if amendment 33 was moved. I think that it's important to place that on record, convener. Hold on, with the greatest respect. If members want to intervene, this is critical stage 2 legislation, as far as I'm concerned, and it's right if members want to intervene and if the members are prepared to listen to them and take the intervention that they should. Colin, it's up to you whether you want to take in Mr Lau, and then I'm going to ask you to wind up formally on this amendment. I'm happy to take the intervention, convener. You've just explained that you've said you've got two counter amendments, but I've still come back to what's written in 37. It says that if the council objects, it has to go back to the Scottish ministers. That is surely not the intention. At the end of the day, I again would say to you, if you're getting the good grace by the cabinet secretary to say, let's work on this. I would suggest that you work on it. To work on the amendments, what I'm not happy is that people keep making references to amendments that, frankly, are not accurate. Amendment 37 is in direct reference to 33. Yes, there should be a resolution process if there is a dispute, if amendment 33 was carried. I come back to the point that the Justice Committee made recently over the current legislation on police and fire service. If amendment 33 was carried, amendment 32 would provide a resolution process. What I'm saying is that there is an alternative to amendment 33, which is amendment 32 that doesn't require a resolution process. I am going to say that this is the last intervention. As he has gone on, he has shown why it's important that we have flexibility and balance. The way that Colin Smyth is speaking, you feel that the enterprise agency is going to be bound up in consultation all the time. It's very important to have consultation on the initial strategic plan and on any flexibility. It needs to be built into that, but otherwise it needs to be getting on with the job rather than constantly out at consultation, which I feel his amendments bind the enterprise board in doing. Colin, I am now going to ask you to very briefly summarise and then press or withdraw your amendment, please. I've certainly been trying to summarise for some time now, convener. I think it's important to point out that people's interpretation of the amendments is certainly slightly different from the actual wording in those particular amendments going forward. I'm happy to leave it at that, convener. I think what's really important is the principle that is missing from the current bill, which is the need to consult with the community in the south of Scotland. That's a major weakness in the bill, as it stands. I think that we can find a way between now and I hope stage 3 if there's a commitment from the Government to find a wording that meets that particular requirement, which so far has certainly been missing. Thank you, Colin. I'm going to ask you now to press or withdraw amendment 29, please. I'm quite happy to withdraw amendment 29. Thank you. Therefore, as Colin Smith seeks to withdraw amendment 29, I have to ask that any member object. As no objection, the amendment is withdrawn and therefore I'd like to move on to amendment 30 in the name of Maureen Watt, already debated with amendment 29. Maureen Watt, to move or not move. Thank you. The question therefore is amendment 30 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 31 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 29. Colin Smith, to move or not move. I'm happy to withdraw the amendment. I'll not move at this stage. The amendment is not moved. Therefore, I call amendment 32 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 39. Colin Smith, to move or not move. I'll not move based on the commitment to look at what's done as we go towards stage 3. Thank you. The amendment therefore is not moved. I therefore call amendment 33 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 29. Colin Smith, to move or not move. The amendment is not moved. I therefore call amendment 34 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 29. Colin Smith, to move or not move. Thank you. The amendment is not moved. I therefore call amendment 35 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 29. Colin Smith, to move or not move. Sut eich annустwyd yn ymddiwch chi i chi wedi yw'r companyfau sy'n ddylay'r cyffredin? Graf ythgen i flasgfa, ddyliwch chi'n ddwylo? Therefore, I call amendment 36 in the name of more than what or age debated with amendment 29. More than what to move or not to move. Move. Thank you. The question therefore is amendment 36. I agree to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 37 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 29. The amendment is not moved. Therefore, amendment 38, the name of Colin Smith, has already been debated with amendment 29. Colin Smith will decide whether or not to move. Again, not move at this stage. We have the commitment to look at the word on it. The amendment is not moved. Therefore, section 6, if agreed, are we all agreed? entonces arrived it now. In this commitment should be done, that is to share my Jeonghway TingWee network loop. I'm not saying it has to happen now, not saying that it's due though. Caerbrough walk? My hope is that I understand that work is running aggressive. If we need to talk about that, not working on it has to be about ladw in people, So, calling amendment 14 and the number of commenters within the group, on its own, call as還 so, to move and speak to amendment 14. Thank you very much, convener. amendment 14 Ac feel free to give us a j你們 Pass assassin Att掰掰 gwaith i'r yrgyrchu, ond y cyd-dweud o'r gwerinu o'r cyd-dweud, byddem i'r dwell yn之. A gael'r newydd o'r agennau, cyd-dweud yn ei fod rhywbeth sydd mewn cymdeithas ar gyfer dweithlo i ddweud, sydd gae'n hyd o gwaith gwneud i gydadau yng nghyrch oedd mae'n ddweud i'r strategiaig. Mae'n byw i'n rhoi'r wcwysgwysg wrth hynod, ac mae eich troes o'r dweud o'r dweud o'r gwaith o'r agennau. Producing strategies and reports of this nature is something that is relatively common practice. Skills development Scotland, for example, report regularly on progress with regards to equality. This amendment will require the agency to proactively think through what they can and should do in this regard, set out specific plans and crucially be accountable in their progress, all of which are highly likely to improve how these agencies are handled and the priority that they are given within this agency. This should be best practice in organisations of this and, as a result, it should be specified on the face of the bill. Let me reassure the committee that equality will be integrated into all the new agency does, but essentially my argument here is that what is being sought is already in law. Once established, the agency will be added to the list of public bodies that are regulated by section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The public sector equality duty will automatically apply to the agency because the Scottish Government will make the necessary consequential legislative changes as soon as possible after the bill is passed. That is the normal practice, but because it is linked to convener to reserve legislation, we cannot do that through schedule 2, as we have done for other legislation. It is not within the Parliament's legislative competence, so to do. All public authorities in Scotland are already required to produce reports on mainstreaming equality. The amendment would place an additional reporting requirement on a new body, which is neither necessary nor proportionate, but I will undertake to give further consideration to how we make clear the importance of equality and tackling inequality as part of the agency's work, as I appreciate fully the point that Mr Smith is seeking to make here. For those reasons, I hope he will not press his amendment and, if he does, I would ask members not to support it. Can you wind up and press or withdraw your amendment? It is important to point out that what the amendment is stating is not currently something within law, because it is quite specific about the role of the new agency. For example, it states that the action plan of the agency must include a strategy setting out how the south of Scotland enterprise will comply with its duties under the Equality Act and promote equality in pursuing its aim. We are very specifically asked for that to be included in its action plan and to report on particular performance. That is very different from what the law currently states. There is no requirement for the agency to set that out specifically within its action plan. However, I am happy to take on board the comments that the cabinet secretary has taken that we should look at this to see how we can be more specific in the role of the agency going forward. I hope that that will see an amendment or a very clear process from the Government ahead of stage 3. As Colin Smyth wishes to withdraw amendment 40, does any member wish to object? No member wishes to object. Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. I will call amendment 41 in the name of John Finnie in a group of its own. John Finnie to move and speak to amendment 41. Thank you, convener, and I do move the amendment in my name. That is about powers not to be used to contribute to the arms trade. A lot has been made about the comparisons with Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Highlands and Islands Enterprise does not have this power at the moment. I made a number of inquiries with Highlands and Islands Enterprise to establish what moneys they had provided to the arms sector, and I got to reply detailing several companies, some of them receiving substantial six-figure sums, following which I had a meeting with the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I want to be fair and balanced as ever on matters and to make it quite clear that, for instance, if you own a company that makes batteries, then that battery might go in your and my car, but that battery might also go in a tank, just because you are making batteries doesn't mean that you are necessarily involved in the arms trade, so there is very much distinction there. Members will be aware that both myself and the previous session in Green College in this session have asked a number of the questions around that. Most recently, my colleague Ross Greer asked a question, which, through the unequivocal reply from the Scottish Government, I am very reassuring that the Scottish Government has not used public money to support the manufacture or export of munitions from Scotland. That is a very clear statement. It is very unfortunate that the next sentence begins with the words, however, we recognise the vital role that aerospace, defence and marine engineering sectors play in Scotland's economy. Having taken reassurance from the meeting with the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, I was therefore surprised, and this won't come as a surprise to you, convener, because I'm sure, along with Ms Ross, you will have received it too. It was a falling week. I received an invitation too, and I quote, the free workshop that will be held at the Inverness campus inviting local businesses to find out how the region can benefit from opportunities in aerospace, defence, security and space industries, organised by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and ADS, Scotland-based branch of Aerosmith, defence, security and space industry organisations. We've heard repeatedly fine words from the Scottish Government where they talk about the UN Sustainable Goal 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions, and they were asked about the assessment that has been made in relation to that. People may well ask where the definition comes from. It comes from the Swedish yes, I think it from Stockholm international peace research institute. It's very clear that there are finite public resources and what public resources are available to be spent in the south of Scotland should be directed to constructive and productive uses that benefit the whole of humanity, particularly the people of south of Scotland. I'm optimistic that the Scottish Government members will, given all the previous pronouncements, have no difficulty on ending their support to this modest proposal. Thank you, John. Mike Rumbles, fuller by Stuart Stevenson, might. Thank you, convener. I'm just sure that the public are aware of listening to this, should know a little bit about my background, so I'll preface that by saying that I've spent 15 years in the army, both at home and abroad, involved in military aid as a civil power and other issues. I would like, rather than what John has just done to talk about the arms trade, to talk about his amendment, because the arms trade is not what his amendment is about. The arms trade is a serious subject that deserves to be treated seriously, but this amendment doesn't do that. The amendment doesn't treat this issue seriously, because what the amendment does, it would lead to serious situations facing the people of the south of Scotland. In the definition that John refers to, it refers to domestic procurement, sales and investment. In the further definition, it talks about anything to do with operational support. If there was, God forbid, a crisis in the south of Scotland, just to give one example, if this passed into law, this would prevent the agency working with any other organisation or body to support the military aid given to the civil power and emergency. That is, in my view, an irresponsible amendment, and we should have nothing to do with it. Right at the top of the amendment, the south of Scotland enterprise may not do anything that contributes financially to the arms trade. That is an all-encompassing definition that creates substantial difficulties, and I will come back to that in a second. Moving on to 3B and the definition of military services, services specifically provided support military purposes, including information technology. That would certainly appear to be the case, where the military buy a computer retailer and buy some software to run on a PC. That is information technology, and it is specifically provided support military purposes. That is the definition. I want the intelligence services to continue to do the job that they do, the security services, the subsequent intelligence services. In 1967, I was a laundry van driver. One of my customers was a GCHQ outstation, where I took the roller towels in and collected the soiled roller towels on a weekly basis. That would be supporting the intelligence services. Presumably, we contribute to their financial viability. One of the important parts of training that John Finnie would wish to support is training that relates to diversification of companies that are currently involved in the arms business into civilian. The providing of training that would help diversification would appear to be something that would be banned. Without seeking to particularly engage in the principle that I think John Finnie is trying to address, the construction of the amendment creates very real difficulties. It would be all but impossible for South Scotland Enterprise or, indeed, any other enterprise agency to comply with this specific warning. In the interests of time, I do not think that amendment merits a huge swalls of our time, but it is an important point to address. I can commend Mr Finnie for using the bill to make his point. I think that he has made his point very well, but I think that it is in terms of amendments going or erring on the side of bonkers. Let us look at some of the strategic small local SMEs that operate in south of Scotland. It will really look towards this agency for assistance. I point to companies such as Penman, in Dumfriesshire, who make armoured vehicles for military services. What would happen if they approached this agency and said that we need support to expand and develop our business and employ more local people or take on more apprenticeships? The amendment restricts the agency from dealing with companies like that. We just cannot have that situation. I think that Mr Finnie has made his point around his views on the arms trade. Unfortunately, the amendment is so all-encompassing. It includes things like logistics support and facilities management to our military services, which could mean anything. It could mean the production of UHD milk for forces and squads. It could mean people making wooly jumpers in the borders. With all respect to the member, I cannot see how the committee could support an amendment that restricts so many small and medium-sized businesses that could or operate in the south of Scotland. The agency should be arms open and all-encompassing. I would love to live in a world where people did not supply arms to other people to kill people. That, sadly, is the world that we live in. I think that Mr Finnie has put across about the arms trade. To me, that is guns, planes, bombs, whatever. What about tyres on a plane that is getting made in the south of Scotland? What about plastic that is getting made down there? What about anything that is into a vehicle, a plane or personal equipment? The point that you were saying about might be going to the Arctic, so that they need a type of jumper or undergarment that is made in the south of Scotland. John Finnie, I agree with you on the supply of arms. I wish it would stop, but, sadly, it will not. My amendment does the cut it, and I want to support it. I want to strongly urge the committee to reject this amendment. As Jamie Greene has already mentioned, we have a successful company based on the free-making specialist, Narmour Vehicles, which is a fantastic example of enterprise and entrepreneurial behaviour in the south of Scotland, and it would be dreadful to think that an amendment like this might restrict that company's ability to grow and employ people. I briefly would like to make a comment that operational support for the armed services needs to be very careful that the armed services that I speak from experience are sometimes deployed on peacekeeping, and to deny the ability to carry out peacekeeping would be detrimental. That would be a second point that I mentioned, is that there are soldiers deployed in preventing poaching in Africa, which would be operational support. You would be denying them. I am not sure that that is what you intend to do, but that is the way in which my amendment is written. For that reason, I will not be supporting it. I am sorry that I should have made it. Just to say that I am a committee member of the Highland Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. I am sure that, as you do not receive any remuneration for that, that would be fine. Cabinet Secretary, I am going to call you in and then I am going to come back to John Finnie. As the First Minister has made clear that the Scottish Government and its enterprise and skills agencies do not provide funding for the manufacture of munitions, our agency's support is focused on helping firms to diversify and develop non-military applications for their technology. Our enterprise agencies do not support the manufacture of munitions, but they do recognise the importance of aerospace defence and marine sectors in Scotland, which, for example, employ many young graduates in STEM subjects. They work proactively with those sectors to help them to diversify their activities and grow and sustain employment. That position, convener, would apply to the new agency as well. Mr Finnie's amendment would, however, penalise businesses applying for such. It would also impact on small businesses that dominate the rural economy in the south of Scotland and who may provide goods or services to main contractors, as Mr Greene and Mr Lyle specifically pointed out. As the committee will be aware, there are companies in the south of Scotland that operate in the area of defence. The new agency should be able to support them with diversification and non-military applications for their technology. The defence aerospace and marine sector in Scotland is very important to our economy, and if past this amendment could damage the contribution that companies in the sector make to putting jobs in the south of Scotland and potentially elsewhere at risk. The new agency provides the opportunity to deliver a fresh approach and promote economic growth in a balanced way, able to support businesses in the area to establish and grow, as well as attracting inward investors. We want to ensure that it has the flexibility to do that. For that reason, I would invite members not to agree to this amendment. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. John Finnie, I invite you to wind up and press a withdrawal. Thank you very much indeed, convener, and I thank members for their contributions. I think that members have not read the motion, which, of course, is competent or it would not be in front of you. Specifically, Mr Rumble's comments are incorrect, because, of course, the key phrase in the term military goods, as set out in 3B, A and B, is military purposes. So, likewise, your poaching issue, or likewise, your woolly jumpers, I think that we need to get the terminology agreed there. Diversification, of course, is commendable. Absolutely commendable. Still, for instance, the Scottish Government gave £2 million to Lockheed Mart and a company that had made three and a quarter billion dollars profit a couple of November's ago. It was dressed up as money for Glasgow University. Raytheon has received money. Raytheon, of course, is complicit in the slaughter of innocent people in the Yemen, where there is a famine now. Everyone wants to encourage diversification. I thought it a bit surprising that Stuart Stevenson said that he was not seeking to engage in the principle. The principle is behind this, and it is about opportunities. If there is an opportunity to provide public monies to two bodies and one is involved in providing military goods for military purpose and one is not, I hope that the decision would be taken another way. The evidence suggests that that is not the case. That was an opportunity to do something very modest. I hear what member said. I do wish to press the motion, please. The question that I have to put at this stage is whether amendment 41 agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Those abstentions, please. The result of that vote is that there was one vote for, there were nine votes against, and there was one abstention. Therefore, amendment 41 is not agreed. Can I ask the question that section 7 be agreed? Are we all agreed? The question therefore is that sections 8, 13 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Thank you. At the outset of this meeting, I did say that we aimed to complete stage 2 today, but I did say that we would see how we get on. Unfortunately, it is clear that we are not going to be in a position to complete the rest of stage 2. We have got as far as we are able to go today. Therefore, we will have to pick up next week where we have left off today. I remind members that amendments to the remaining sections bill can still be lodged, and the deadline for doing so is 12 noon tomorrow, the 9th of May. I would like to thank the Cabinet Secretary and his officials for attending today. I would also like to point out that we had other items on our agenda, which unfortunately we are unable to get to as well. Therefore, they will be rescheduled. I would like to thank everyone for their attendance today and look forward to the early start of the committee meeting next week.