retaining chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, needs to be recognised as it is recognised internationally. The addition to those amendments of ensuring that the Scottish Human Rights Commission is consulted on those issues as we go forward with land reform is extremely important. I have said several times during the bill that, ironically, it would not be possible for this chamber presently to pass the Crofting Reform Act of 1886 because it impinges upon ECHR, particularly A1P1, the article 1 protocol 1, about the rights of property. That does not mean that we should not try to undertake radical land reform in Scotland. Of course we should try. Our constituents want it, my constituents want it and people across the country want it, but it is harder to do. I am grateful to the Scottish Government for laying in here and particularly to the minister who undertook the same steps in the community empowerment bill and agreed to similar changes. What we have laid in here is a foundation for future action in Scotland because the foundation, as the law goes forward, will not just consider the important elements in ECHR, but will also consider other documentation and other experience worldwide and will allow land reform to deepen and intensify in Scotland for the benefit of the people of Scotland, because that is not an abstract. That is about how people relate to the land, is how people use the land, is about how we, as the many, access the land of Scotland, which is a common birthright. That is a big step forward. It may seem technical, but it is a vital step forward, and I am grateful to the Scottish Government for helping that step forward to move on. I have harbored the occasional concerns about the concept of relevant human rights ever since it first appeared in evidence in the committee, because there seems to be a sort of unmentioned inference within that concept that the Government could somehow sort of cherry pick whatever convention or covenant most suited its purpose, and that various other guidelines and conventions are somehow on an equal footing with ECHR. Indeed, Dave Thompson apparently believes that we should simply dispense with ECHR when it comes to agricultural holdings legislation, which was an interesting concept in itself. I do sometimes wonder if some of these, of course I will, Mr Thompson. Dave Thompson, I thank the member for taking the intervention. I have no recollection of saying such a thing at all, Mr Ferguson. If I may quote from the official report, Mr Thompson said that the fact that ECHR is written into the 1998 act needs to be looked at, that provision needs to be removed so that we have the same freedom in proposing legislation as any other legislature. I do wonder if some of these conventions could not actually come back to sort of haunt the Government a little bit. Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the Minister mentioned, commits signatories to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. I do find myself wondering where that might lead the Government, for example, on its stance on GM crops if it were to be tested. That is for another debate. What I really would be grateful for if the Minister could address in winding up, if she was able to confirm that ECHR still provides the basis for the human rights and Scottish legislation that is passed by this Parliament? If I may, Presiding Officer, I will just respond on behalf of Dr McLeod just to confirm that the ECHR does form the basis of the point that Mr Ferguson raises. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Call of amendment 14, in the name of Sederbuyde, I will write a debate with amendment 12. Can you hear much? The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. Call of amendment 15, in the name of Sederbuyde, to move or not? Moved. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. I now call amendment 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendment 16 to 22 on block. Many thanks. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendment 16 to 22? As no member does, the question is that amendment 16 to 22 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. We now move to group 3. I call amendment 100, in the name of Johann Lamont, grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Johann Lamont, to move amendment 100 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I move amendment 100 in my name? I declare an interest as a member of the co-operative party, committed to a model that represents a global ideal locally, democratically and practically delivered. Co-operatives and, as identified here, community benefit societies have a great deal to offer as we consider the issue of land reform. I urge the minister to understand and reflect that that is a logical consequence of their position around community empowerment. There is no doubt that community benefit societies have a significant social but critically economic impact and can ensure that in communities where the land is held in common there is an underpinning democratic commitment that ensures the engagement of those who best understand the needs of their communities and critically the opportunities that can be created to sustain those communities. Any consideration of where land reform and community ownership has happened, you can see the flourishing of community engagement and co-operative models to ensure that there is a benefit to the community. That is, in fact, a very modest amendment, but a significant one, I believe, because all it is doing is asking the land commissioners, as part of the programme of work, to raise the issue of benefits of community land ownership and how it can be promoted and how the whole question of community benefit societies can also be promoted. I genuinely believe that that is a way and a means of harnessing all the talent and energy that we see in our communities where there has been engagement around land reform and is a fundamentally important opportunity to ensure that land reform also enriches and sustains those communities. I will not comment too much on other amendments at this stage, but I would obviously commend amendments from Claudia Beamish. I also thank the minister on amendment 27 for acknowledging a point that I made at stage 2, which was to exclude people who work for a local authority from being part of the land commission. I would exclude a whole number of people who are particularly in rural and island communities. Local authorities provide very important employment sometimes only on a part-time basis. I would like to thank her for that. I think that that reflects the approach of the minister in large parts of the bill and I commend her for that. I hope that people can find it worthwhile to support the amendment in my name, amendment 100. Thanks. I now call on Jim Hume to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Amendment 23 and 24 are in respect of the maximum period of tenure of a Scottish land commissioner. At stage 2, I lodged a similar amendment, which was withdrawn on the basis of further clarification coming from the minister around appointment terms. Unfortunately, the position remains unclear on the face of the bill. The bill is drafted per clause 8.3, which allows for each member of the land commission to be appointed for such period, not exceeding five years. Clause 8.5 allows for reappointment with 8.5A, limiting the reappointment again to a period of not exceeding five years. There is nothing at the moment to stop a commissioner serving for 10 years or even more than a two-year five terms. In terms of the principle of an eight-year cap, that would ensure new blood in order to meet the challenges of the commission's strategic plan and programme of work, which itself is subject to review and update and prevent any entrenchment or long-term domination of views or approaches by particular individuals. It is also a sufficient period of time so as not to create any difficulties with the smooth operation of the commission. The amendments that are in the interest of good government tie in with the code of good practice referred to by the minister at stage 2, which does not state how many times a member can be reappointed, but caps the total period for which a member can serve at eight years. The minister said that the bill would allow for the Scottish ministers to adhere to that as it allows them to determine the length of appointment up to a maximum of five years, but is the period beyond that in terms of reappointments, which is still in question and remains unclear. My understanding is that not all public bodies come within the commission and, as remit, they are only recognised as regulated bodies by the commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland, where it is specified. Although some bodies may observe the code in practice, the commissioner can have no locust, but actual appointments are dealt with through the public appointments and public bodies, etc., Scotland Act 2003. Perhaps the minister could clarify whether there needs to be a reference to the 2003 act in the bill to ensure that the appointments are in fact so regulated by the commissioner, because that is not currently referenced in the bill. Re-amendment 101 is important to ensure that our future land commissioners have the desirable experience and knowledge of what may be in front of them. Someone with practical knowledge of land management can easily be able to judge whether land has been actively managed or not derelict or vacant, etc., as farming is still the main use of our land, whether it is owned or occupied or tenanted. My amendment 101 would ensure that agricultural interests are provided with due consideration. Amendment 102, in relation to members of any committee that is established by the Land Commission, will accept that under section 154, the commission may appoint a person who is not a member to be a member of a committee, and that makes practical sense. There has, with other recently established bodies, such as Historic Environment Scotland, for instance, been provisioned stating that such a person is not entitled to vote at meetings of the committee. Unless subsequently the commission itself decides that those non-members attending a committee could have a vote as the bill is drafted, ultimately, matters would normally go back to the commissioners for a final decision and they can make their own rules. In the interests of consistency with other recently formed bodies by the Scottish Government and for reasons of transparency, I propose that that provision is inserted, which does not affect in any way the committee's right to speak or present a case or otherwise fulfil the role. I now call Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 25 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak to amendment 25 and 26 in the group and to make some other comments as well. While I listened with care to arguments put forward in the Racky Committee discussions that there should not be too many areas of skills and experience listed, those in my amendment are, I believe, of fundamental importance in relation to the Land Commission in the development of a fairer Scotland and thus should be listed. I would at this stage like to thank the minister for support in developing my stage to amendment 25. Living in hope, this might be the first amendment in this Parliament that I actually get passed, so we never know. I never know our luck. To be more serious about this issue, section 91A sets out that in appointing members of the commission, the Scottish ministers must have regard to the commission having expertise or experience in certain matters. Amendment 25 adds human rights, equal opportunities and the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which result from socioeconomic disadvantage to the list in this section. Amendment 26 is a consequential amendment to provide that the definition of equal opportunities in section 94 applies to the inclusion of equal opportunities in section 91A and section 91B. I am afraid that I am not able to support Jim Hume's amendment 101, as the word practical makes it too restrictive and specific, although we understand the spirit of what Mr Hume is putting forward. I now declare an interest as a member of the Scottish co-op party and wish to speak strongly in support of Johann Lamont's amendment 100, because I am very clear that co-operative models that involve the members, as she said so eloquently, are one of the ways forward for our rural and, indeed, urban communities in Scotland in the development of their own aspirations. Thank you. Many thanks. I now call on Angus MacDonald, who will speak to us initially in Gaelic and repeat his opening remarks thereafter in English. Matinfa Offaigar-Rhaigal ac esy Matinfa Co-Breken. I now call you in your clever English, as I have omitted a less caring German. Presiding Officer, rather than crucify our Indigenous language any further, I will continue in English. For the record, what I was trying to say in Gaelic was that I appreciate the opportunity to bring this Gaelic related amendment to the chamber, which will deal with a problem that has arisen from my stage 2 amendment, when ensuring that there's at least oneanks speaker serving on the new Scottish Land Commission. At stage 2, I lodged the new such-and-one into section 9, which states that, in appointing the land commissioners, the Scottish ministers must take every reasonable step to ensure that one of the commissioners is a speaker of the Gaelic language. The Scottish Government welcomed this amendment at stage 2, however as it revealed in its text, doesodaeth, ddaeth, fel gyda'r sort caer y sydd yn ddif Weinidog sydd wedi ddod i'n gweithio eu cydwyddoedd i yn gwybod nhw'r ddiddorol. Mae hyn yn cael eu ddiddick yn dod i'n gweithio i siwr i'i i gaelio'r analyse cyfathredd. A sydd i'n gweithio caer y troi'r cyllidau cyfle ar ôl â gaelio, ac yn gyrraedd y tor Saedd, rydyn nhw'n ddiddorol ond y troi'r cyllid yn gweithio i gaelio'r sefydlu, ydy'r diolch rwyngh ar gaelio'r shipwyr ddiddorol three amendment inserts the words at least into section nine one a so that it now reads in appointing the land commissioners Scottish ministers must take every reasonable step to ensure that at least one of the commissioners is a speaker of the Gaelic language so this amendment brings the new Scottish land commission in line with precedents already set at the land court and at the crofting commission and I'll be happy to move the amendment. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 27 and other amendments in the group please. Thank you. We would like to thank Joanne Lamont for setting out the rationale behind amendment 100. As Dr McLeod said to Ms Lamont when she brought forward a similar amendment at stage 2, the Scottish Government supports all types of land tenure and supports ownership of land by community benefit societies as well as other land ownership vehicles. We've clearly demonstrated that this isn't in taking forward the Community Empowerment Scotland Act which expanded the structures that community bodies can use under the community right to buy to include community benefit societies as well as Scottish charitable incorporated organisations. But we believe that community bodies should have the flexibility to decide for themselves how to constitute themselves depending on their needs and aspirations. We would therefore be reluctant to support any amendment that could be interpreted as favouring one particular land ownership mechanism over another. We believe it's not appropriate to amend section 7 of the bill in this way. As far as possible, we want the land commissioners to have operational independence and freedom to determine their own programme of work. We do not consider it appropriate to constrain them in this manner or to prejudge their work. We note that the amendment as drafted would mean that the land commissioners would have to include such recommendations in every single programme of work that they produce. We do consider that Joanne Lamont's amendment would effectively alter the land commissioners programme of work in a way that is unnecessarily given the excellent work that is being taken forward by the 1 million acre strategic implementation group. We have recently funded a development officer post with Community Land Scotland to enable them to build capacity and to support them in promoting community ownership and sharing best practice. We thank Jim Hume for explaining the rationale behind amendments 23 and 24. Those amendments have similar aims to amendments that were lodged and then withdrawn at stage 2. Dr McLeod wrote to Mr Hume to set out why such an amendment is not needed. For the record, we will set that out again to the chamber. Our intention at the public appointments process will be regulated by the commissioner of ethical standards and public life in Scotland. The commissioner publishes a code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland. As a matter of policy, the code of practice will mean that no member of the commission would serve for more than eight years. To ensure that there is the necessary flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances, however, the provisions of the code can be varied with the agreement of the commissioner. At stage 2, session on 20 January, the minister confirmed that it was our policy intention that Parliament should also approve any reappointment of a member of the commission and was happy to support Alex Ferguson's amendment that clarifies this on the face of the bill. Therefore, we would stress that sections 8 to 2 and 5A of the bill mean that the Parliament will be required to scrutinise and approve both appointments and reappointments of members of the commission. So, if Parliament were to have a concern about a particular reappointment, that the balance between continuity and fresh blood on the commission was not being correctly struck, then it would be able to make that concern heard during the appointment process. We also emphasised that in respect of Jim Hume's comments that the bill at section 8, subsection 3, provides for a maximum period of five years. We have stated our intention that the commission of our ethical standards in public life in Scotland's code of practice will apply, and it can as a matter of policy. The result of an order-making power in section 3, subsection 3 of the public appointments and public duties in sector Scotland Act 2003, which could be used to add the Scottish Land Commission to schedule 2 to that act. The reason that that was not expressly done in the bill was because of the deliberate policy choice to give a prominent role to the Parliament in the public appointments process. We also thank Jim Hume for explaining his amendment 101. The list of experience and expertise referred to in section 9, subsection 1A, has grown throughout the bill process and we would like to emphasise again to the chamber that it does not prevent ministers from considering whether candidates for land commission have other relevant experience or expertise. We understand the sentiment behind the amendment and we can assure Mr Hume that it is our intention in the public appointments process to select the best candidates we can to serve on the land commission. However, a balance has to be struck between getting the right people that tick at every single box and getting them appointed with a reasonable timescale to do the work that is required to progress land reform in the future. It was after listening carefully to views of stakeholders that Dr McLeod brought forward an amendment at stage 2 to add land management to section 9, subsection 1A. We do not think the addition of practical to that term and so we do not support this amendment. We would like to thank Claudia Beamish for lodging amendments 25 and 26, which we are very happy to support. I take Ms Beamish's point and I am glad that she has had an amendment accepted. We consider that the supplementary list in section 9, subsection 1A, in a manner that murs the package of amendments lodged by the Scottish Government at stages 2 and 3 to strengthen the bill in respect of human rights equalities and furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome, which result from socioeconomic disadvantage, as Claudia Beamish referred to in her remarks. Given the Scottish Government's commitment to the importance of the Gaelic language and Gaelic culture to Scotland, Dr McLeod welcomed Angus MacDonald's amendment at stage 2 and we are very happy to accept what we think is a helpful revision now. In respect of amendment 27, we would like to thank Johann Lamont for querying at stage 2 the inclusion of local authority workers in the list in section 10, subsection 1, which sets out persons that may not be appointed as a member of the land commission if they have been in certain offices within the last 12 months. Following stage 2, Dr McLeod reflected further on the list and wrote to Ms Lamont to advise her that ministers intended to remove the exclusion in respect of local authority workers since, as she highlighted, in remote and rural communities in Scotland it can be the case that many people are reliant on local authority employment. We would also like to add for the record that the work of the Land Commission will be relevant to urban as well as rural communities the length and breadth of Scotland and we would not wish to exclude local authority employees in our urban communities for applying to be a member of the commission either. Amendment 28 is a consequential amendment to ensure that repairing tenancies created under section 5C of the Agriculture Holding Scotland Act 2003, as inserted by section 79B of the bill at stage 2, are caught in the definition of relevant tenancy in section 10, subsection 3. That will ensure that any tenant or landlord of a repairing tenancy is excluded from being appointed as a tenant farming commissioner, as is already the case for other types of agricultural tenancy. We thank Jim Hume for setting out the intention behind his amendment 102. However, we cannot support this amendment. Section 16, subsection 2 of the bill, permits the commission to regulate its own procedure and those of its committees, including the quorum of any meeting and section 15, subsection 6 requires a committee to comply with any directions given to it by the commission. Those are important provisions as they give the commission the freedom and flexibility to set up their own internal working procedures, including on issues such as voting rights. They also ensure that the commission has ultimate control of its committees. Given the operational independence that the Scottish ministers wish the commission to have, we feel that it will not be appropriate to make this amendment in isolation. We welcome amendments 3 and 4 lodged by Mr Day to section 20 of the bill. The Scottish Government considers that it is imperative that land commissioners can give full consideration to the land use strategy in exercising their functions. However, we are pleased to hear that it is not Mr Day's intention to alter Scottish ministers duties under the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009, and so we are supportive of those amendments for providing that clarity. I move amendment 27 and 28 in the name of Dr McLeod. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendment to section 25 of the bill that I brought at stage 2 was, I thought, quite straightforward and I was delighted to secure the support of both the committee and the Government. However, since stage 2, there has been some traffic from stakeholders around the amendment suggesting that, as drafted, it could be open to misinterpretation. Therefore, at the request of stakeholders and the Government, I have brought forward those amendments to my stage 2 amendment to provide clarity. It was never the intention of that stage 2 amendment to give the land commissioners any statutory role in the implementation and monitoring of the land use strategy. Amendment 3 deweets the words implementation and monitoring of leaving the commissioners to take into account the land use strategy and exercising their functions under section 20 of the bill, which is, as it was intended. I would request the support of the chamber in delivering the clarity sought by some stakeholders. Amendment 4 is a minor and technical amendment to ensure that any land use strategy revised under section 57.6 of the 2009 Climate Change Act, as well as the one prepared under section 57.1, is covered in section 25d of the bill. I move the amendments in my name. I have one open debate speaker request, Alex Ferguson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm afraid that we would oppose amendment 100 because I believe that the proposals within it are already being taken forward. I think that the minister mentioned the 1 million acres working group that I do believe encompasses a lot of Joanne Lamont's intentions. I also understand that the land commission will cover the provision of advice and guidance. The minister made it very clear at stage 2 that the Government encourages a wide variety of land ownership models, and I take her at their word for that. Amendment 100, therefore, seems to me to be overly prescriptive. We will support all the other amendments in the group. I'm sorry to hear that the Government will not support amendment 102 because I think that that is, in the interests of good governance, quite an important amendment. Generally, on the subject of the land commission, I do believe that the success or otherwise of the land commission will be very largely dependent on the ability and the experience of the commissioners who serve on it. I hope sincerely that the range of skills that we have sought as a committee through amendments at stage 2 and as a Parliament at stage 3 will only enhance its operations for the benefit of the people of Scotland. Many thanks. I now invite Joanne Lamont to wind up and indicate if you intend to press her with draw, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I say on the amendments from Claudia Beamish and from Angus MacDonald, that they are important amendments to support as someone of the Gaelic heritage ourselves recognises the importance and the struggle, in the language of our forebears? It reflects a deeper issue, which is the danger that people appointing people to boards look and sound like themselves. Those amendments create the opportunity to think more seriously about how we ensure that there is a range of talents and commitments going into the public body, so we would want to support those. On the question of amendment 1, I will be pressing the amendment, because I do believe that community land ownership is one of the most effective models of land ownership. It does ensure that the record is there in terms of our own history to see the way in which common ownership of land has ensured that communities that may have been struggling have been revived and regenerated. What the amendment asks is to address the potential of community ownership and the potential of community benefit societies to benefit local communities. I do not regard it as over prescriptive, but I reflect in the reality that too often the co-operative model is not included, whether it is in the strategy of the Scottish Government or whether in the past, when we have talked about economic models, we have not looked to the co-operative model, we have not understood its power and the power that it has. The reality is that, particularly in our island and rural communities, there is a natural instinctive means by which people have co-operated, whether it was crofting committees or whatever people have come together, whether it is community shops or community enterprises. That simply locates in the bill the significance of that model in ensuring that why we are engaging with the question of land reform is to address the question of neglect, is to address the question that too often too much of our land has been left unworked, unused and communities are regenerated. I think that it is in that context that I would hope that people feel able to support the amendment that I will be intending to press. Many thanks. Before we turn to that, can I ask the chamber that, if any member wishes to oppose any amendments today, they do that loudly and clearly please so that there is no confusion in the chamber. The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, since this is the first division of the morning. The Parliament is now suspended for five minutes. I will now proceed with the division on amendment 100. This is a 32nd division. Members should please cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 100 is yes, 33, no, 83, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 23 in the name of Jim Hume, which has already been debated with amendment 100 and I ask Jim Hume to move or not to move. I now call amendment 24 in the name of Jim Hume, already debated with amendment 100 and I ask Jim Hume to move or not to move. 1. Amendment 101, in the name of Jim Hume, already debated with amendment 100 and asked Jim Hume to move or not move. 2. Amendment 101, under 1, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 3. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 101 is yes, 21, no, 94. There were no abstentions. 4. Amendment 101, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 100 and asked Claudia Beamish to move or not to move. 5. Amendment 25, in the name of Angus MacDonald, already debated with amendment 100 and asked Angus MacDonald to move or not to move. 6. Amendment 2, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 7. Amendment 26, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 100 and asked Claudia Beamish to move or not to move. 8. Amendment 26, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 9. Amendment 27, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 100 and I invite the minister to move formally. 10. Amendment 27, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 11. Amendment 28, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 100 and asked the minister to move formally. 11. Amendment 28, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 12. Amendment 102, in the name of Jim Hume, already debated with amendment 100 and I ask Jim Hume to move or not to move. 13. Amendment 102, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 14. Amendment 102, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 12 and I invite the minister to move formally. 15. Amendment 29, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 16. Amendment 3, in the name of Graham Day, already debated with amendment 100 and I ask Graham Day to move or not to move. 17. Amendment 3, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 18. Amendment 4, in the name of Graham Day, which has already been debated with amendment 100 and I invite Graham Day to move or not to move. 19. Amendment 4, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 19. Amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already grouped with amendments 5, 6, 31, 32 and 33 and I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 30 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. 20. Amendment 3, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 21. Amendment 3, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 22. Amendment 3, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 23. Amendment 4, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? 24. Amendment 5, be agreed to? Are we all agreed to? 24. By writing my name, please. The commissioner must consult relevant stakeholders when preparing the report and submit the report to the Scottish ministers within 12 months. If I can now come to Mike Russell's amendments 5 and 6, which would ensure that stakeholders were invited to give their input to the review of the commissioner's functions under section 22 of the bill and that ministers must take their views into account, as I made clear at stage 2, the Scottish Government does believe that a wide range of stakeholders should have the opportunity to feed into that review, so we're very happy to support these particular amendments. In terms of amendments 31 and 33, their technical amendments 31 specifies that, before the tenant farming commissioner publishes a code of practice under section 25, they must consult any persons appearing to the commissioner to have an interest in the draft code. That is just a clarification that it's in the eyes of the commissioner that such persons have an interest in the draft code. In the same way, in terms of amendment 33, that clarifies that, before submitting the report to the Scottish ministers under section 33A, setting out recommendations for a modern list of improvements to agricultural holdings, the commissioner must consult any persons appearing to the commissioner to have an interest in the draft recommendations. I move amendment 32. Many thanks. I invite Mike Russell to speak to amendment 5 and other amendments in the group, please. One of the key features in the bill is the possibility that change in practice can take place by encouragement or whether, as I believe, there's a necessity for statutory force. That is true in this section and it is also true in section 4 of the bill that deals with engagement of estates with communities. In this particular section, I know that the cabinet secretary is very keen to see the work of the tenant farming commissioner being one of encouragement and bringing forward good practice so that those who are not observing good practice can be encouraged to do so. I think that many of us fear that there are some people who will not be encouraged. Good landlords will continue to be good landlords. Those who want to be good landlords may find the publication of the information and the codes to be useful. Those who begin to realise that they are not good landlords might improve their practice, but those who don't want to be good landlords, those who frankly don't care about being good landlords, will not feel any force to change their practices and their habits. That is a carrot in this bill. As others believe, it should also be a stick. Nonetheless, I accept that the cabinet secretary believes that that is the way to go forward. When that is reviewed in three years' time, the views of everybody in the sector need to be heard. That is particularly true of hearing the views of tenant farmers themselves. The Scottish Tenant Farmers Association and others will have to be part of that review. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for accepting the amendments that involve the widest group of relevant stakeholders in that review. If, at the time of the review, it is obvious that the role of the tenant farming commissioner in encouraging better practice has been, on the whole, substantially successful, then there is no harm in having a wider consultation. If it has not been successful, it is essential that there is a wider consultation. I will be moving those amendments. Many thanks. I have three bids to speak. Could I ask members to keep the remarks short, please? Claudia Beamish, to be followed by Graham Day. Scottish Labour is supportive of Scottish Government amendments on land agents in view of the concerns that the Rural Affairs Committee heard about the behaviour of a small minority of land agents. We also support the amendments by Michael Russell on consultation with a wide range of stakeholders in relation to the review, and I am clear that the role of the tenant farmer commissioner will bring confidence to tenants and land owners and, through the development of the functions, will be able to better the relations of that small minority of cases where there are poor relations and hopefully keep issues out of the land court. Thus, I welcome further clarification in this section on the functions and the role of the tenant farmer commissioner will enable the new developments in such things as rent reviews and much more to be carefully monitored and developed. We support all the amendments in this group. Some months ago, a land agent asked me why members of the Racking Committee were pursuing the introduction of a code of conduct that would cover himself and his colleagues. He told me that he did not recognise the claims made about the conduct of some in the sector. I shared with him the experience of a tenant farmer constituent of mine who just had a representative of a leading land agency visit his home to tell him that we would have to be a 50 per cent rental increase non-negotiable. He responded by naming two firms of land agents that he thought the person concerned might have worked for. I told him that they worked in a fact for another company and, more important, drew his attention to the fact, his response kind of proved the point that, while those providing agent services might deny that there was an issue deep down, they know full well there is. Let us be clear that the majority of agents will conduct themselves in a respectful and appropriate manner conducive to fostering and maintaining good landlord-tenant relationships. However, if there is one thing that unites the agricultural sector, it is a belief that we need a code of conduct. I welcome the Government's amendments, and I hope that the proposals that come forward will reflect the lived experience of tenants and landlords and get us to a place where fear of the reputational damage that would be caused by those employing people providing land agent services who misbehave that it would in itself ensure the code of conduct that it is adhered to. I hope that Parliament will also support amendments 5 and 6 in the name of my colleague Michael Russell. The negative influence of land agents is far wider than the few exceptions that were mentioned by Claudia Beamish. I think that a statutory code of practice for land agents would be a very good thing indeed. It would be probably the kind of thing that answers the concerns of many people around the country for evidence that we took ourselves in the island of Islay, where a tenant farmer told us that he had to raise three incomes. One for his family, two for the land agent, and three for the landlord. In those circumstances, the question about the way in which land agents work is something that interferes with the potential profitability of many tenant farmers' activities and, as a whole, that their influence is one that needs statutory control and, as soon as possible, I am very happy to support those three amendments. Just briefly to reflect on some of the contributions, I explained to the committee at stage 2 why I do not believe that at this stage it is appropriate for the tenant farmer commissioner, which is, after all, a new office being established by the SPL, to have a broad enforcement role given the conflict with other enforcement agencies. That could lead to that, but it is certainly very much appreciated that many members, and indeed many stakeholders, felt that there may well be cases where additional powers will be required by the tenant farmer commissioner in terms of its functions, and that is why this review is necessary. In terms of the land agents, again, as many members have highlighted, we may be talking about a small minority of land agents that contribute towards poor relations in the sector, but those issues have to be dealt with and that is why it is important that the tenant farmer commissioner is able to bring forward recommendations in due course. Many thanks. The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 5, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 30, and I ask Michael Russell to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. Question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 6, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 30, and I ask Michael Russell to move or not move. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 31, 32 and 33, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 31 to 33 on block, please. Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 31 to 33? Since no member objects, the question is, that amendments 31 to 33 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 5, and I call amendment 34, in the name of the minister, which is grouped with the other amendments, as shown in the groupings. I invite the minister to move amendment 34 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Presiding Officer, those amendments implement the commitment that I gave at stage 2, to amend the bill to include the power for Scottish ministers to make regulations that will provide for the disclosure of information about persons who have a controlling interest in landowners and tenants, and for that information to be published on a public register kept by the keeper of the registers of Scotland. Increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland, Presiding Officer, is a key objective for this bill. During the passage of the bill, it was clear that Parliament and stakeholders felt that we could do more to deliver in this area. So what I am bringing forward today is an amendment to introduce a regulation-making power that will enable the Government to develop proposals to address the many practical and legal issues that arise in this policy area. Amendment 34 puts in place a power that will enable the Scottish ministers to make regulations requiring the disclosure of information about persons who have a controlling interest in landowners and tenants, and for the publication of that information in a public register to be kept by the keeper. To ensure that the policy objective of increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland can be achieved, the definition of persons who have a controlling interest in a landowner or tenant will be one of the key provisions set out in the regulations. It is clear that we will need to consult widely about this definition and the potential to use definitions used in existing legislation. Most notably, definitions used in legislation for the register of people with significant control of UK companies. Another key area that we will have to develop and consult on is in relation to which landowners will be required to provide information. The Scottish Government intends that the information will have to be provided where the landowner is legal entity such as a company or a Scottish limited partnership or an individual is the owner of the land but holds a title to the land under a special capacity such as a trustee. One of the advantages of the Government amendment over section 35A that was inserted into the bill at stage 2 is that the regulations can require the disclosure of information about persons who have a controlling interest in landowners or tenants in respect of all legal titles in Scotland. Section 35A only require disclosure of information in relation to land registered in the land register, which accounts for only 28 per cent of the land mass of Scotland. The Government is determined that the Parliament has a full opportunity to scrutinise the regulations effectively. Therefore, amendments 35, 36 and 37 provide that the regulations will be subject to an enhanced form of parliamentary procedure on the first use of the power. Amendment 34 provides that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure but on the first use of the power, amendment 35 provides that the Scottish ministers cannot lay the draft first regulations unless they have complied with the consultation requirements laid out in amendment 36 and the proposed draft regulations and an explanatory document have been laid before the Parliament. Amendment 36 provides that the proposed draft regulations must be laid in the Scottish Parliament for 60 days and be accompanied by a draft explanatory document. Scottish ministers must consult the keeper and such other people they consider appropriate and they must be provided with a copy of the proposed draft regulations and the draft explanatory document. That means that Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and make recommendations on the proposed draft regulations. In addition, the public will also be able to make representations to the Scottish ministers on the proposed draft regulations. Only after that consultation has been carried out can the draft first regulations be laid before Parliament. When the first draft regulations are laid, they will be subject to the normal affirmative procedure, giving Parliament a further opportunity to scrutinise and take evidence from ministers. Amendment 38 removes section 35A from the bill. The Government believes that bringing forward these regulations is the best way to ensure the transparency of land ownership that we all want to see. We must also put on record that section 35A, as it stands, is outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament and must be removed to ensure that the bill can proceed to royal assent. Amendment 94 provides that all uses of the regulation-making power in amendment 34 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 95 provides that section 101 of the bill is amended to refer to amendment 34 and so exempt for the Crown from being criminally liable in respect of breaches of the requirements of the regulations made under amendment 34. That is simply a consequential change. The Scottish Government believes that those amendments provide the best way forward to deliver the transparency of land ownership in Scotland and we recommend them to this Parliament. We would urge the Parliament to support those amendments and I move amendment 34 in the name of Dr McLeod. We would like to thank Sarah Boyack for lodging her amendments and we acknowledge the work that has gone into drafting them. First, we would like to reiterate that the Scottish Government is committed to increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland and the Government will bring forward regulations that will provide for the disclosure of information about persons having a controlling interest in land. The Scottish Government will publish a consultation this summer on developing proposals for the regulations. The responses will be helpful to inform the drafting of the proposed regulations, which will need to be laid before Parliament as required by the enhanced affirmative procedure to be set out in the face of the bill by amendments 35, 36 and 37. Alongside the Parliamentary and Public consideration of the regulations and the practical issues highlighted in a letter from Dr McLeod to the Rural Affairs Committee on 3 March, the Government will be working on the practical arrangements to give effect to the regulations. Our intention is that the regulations will be approved by Parliament by the end of 2017. I will now turn to addressing Sarah Boyack's amendments. Amendment 34A seeks to provide that ministers must make regulations under Government Amendment 34. The bill currently provides that ministers may make such regulations, and this is the normal formulation for affirmative regulations. The Scottish Government is clearly on the record of saying that we will make regulations, but in these exceptional circumstances there has been such a clear level of support for our proposals, we are willing to support this amendment. Amendment 35A requires the Scottish ministers to lay a draft of the first regulations to be made under amendment 34 subsection 1 within 18 months of the bill receiving royal assent. Having a duty such as amendment 35A could mean that to comply with the duty, ministers would have to bring forward regulations that did not provide for the full policy. A further set of draft regulations would then be brought forward at a later date containing the remaining policy detail. It would only be after these second regulations were made that the full scheme could come into force. Alternatively, if a draft of the first regulations is not laid before the Parliament within the 18-month time limit, the amendment could have the effect of not allowing a draft to be brought forward at all at that time. That could prevent the Government from making regulations. The Government will bring forward draft regulations for approval by this Parliament, and therefore, those amendments are not required. We would ask Sarah Boyack not to move this amendment given the commitments that we have made on timing. Amendment 34B, 34C, 34D and 34G seek to replace the term controlling interests with significant control. We do not think that this change is necessary. What is meant by a person having a controlling interest in landowners or tenants will be set out in the regulations under amendment 34. The definition will be designed to enable the policy objective of increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland to be achieved. The definition will not be constrained by the use of the term controlling interests in other legislation. We would ask that Sarah Boyack does not move these amendments. Amendment 34E provides that the matters that the regulations can provide for may include duties associated with the provision of information. The regulation making power in subsection 1A refers to regulations requiring the provision of information and subsection 2D already refers to information that must be provided under the regulations. Therefore, this amendment is not required. We would ask that Sarah Boyack does not move the amendment. Amendments 34F and 34H attempt to limit the circumstances where a person can request that information about them is not published. Subsection 2H provides that regulations may set out circumstances when information does not have to be published. Subsection 2H provides that the circumstances when a person may request that information not be published may in particular include where publication may result in serious risk of violence or abuse or threat of violence or abuse or intimidation to a person. Subsection 2H does not require that regulation provides that in the circumstance when a person could request that information not be published. Careful consideration will have to be given to determine if the regulations should provide for such circumstances and we would ask that Sarah Boyack does not move this amendment. Amendment 34I seeks to provide that regulations under subsection 1 may provide that the information about controlling interests be available on the internet and searchable by the public. The regulation making power in subsection 1 expressly provides power to make regulation about the publication of information in a public register. The regulation making power is wide enough to allow regulations to be made about access to the public register. The Scottish Government are committed to providing digital public services. We do not consider that these amendments are necessary to provide for online access and we would ask that Sarah Boyack does not move this amendment. Amendment 34J provides that regulations made under subsection 1 cannot be used to amend the regulation making power in subsection 1. It would be very difficult to use the regulation making power in amendment 34 to amend itself as the regulations would have to be within the scope of that power. We do not want there to be any uncertainty as to the validity of the regulations and so we do not intend to make regulations amending the regulation making power. This amendment is not appropriate and is unnecessary and we would again ask that Sarah Boyack does not move her amendment. Amendment 37A appears to be designed to clarify that the Scottish ministers can include summaries of responses to the consultation in the explanatory document that has to be laid before Parliament under amendment 35. There is no limit on the Scottish ministers using the information provided in representations in developing the regulations and reporting in general terms on the representations made, even were this restricted under the terms of subsections 2 and 3 of amendment 37. As a result, we do not consider that amendment 37A is required and we would again ask Sarah Boyack to not move her amendment. Turning now to amendments by Mr Harvey. Amendments 103 and 104 by Patrick Harvey are the same amendments that he brought forward at stage 2. They aim to provide only legal entities incorporated in the EU could be registered as the proprietive land and the land register of Scotland. Those amendments were debated and voted on at stage 2 and rejected by the Rural Affairs Committee. Amendments 105 and 106 seek to prevent the registration of title to land in the land register by entities incorporated when the British Overseas Territories as defined in the British Nationality Act 1981 or the Crown Dependencies, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Amendment 106 sets out that the entities incorporated or established within the British Overseas Territories or the Crown Dependencies that already have a title registered in the land register must take such steps as are necessary to ensure that they are no longer the registered proprietor five years after the date that amendment 106 comes into force. Amendments 105 and 106 have the same effect as amendments 103 and 104, but the entities that are affected are very different. At stage 2, the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform said that the amendments that were lodged by Patrick Harvey in relation to EU entities would not achieve the transparency of land ownership that is wanted and also stated that those amendments were outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. For the same reasons given at stage 2, we consider that amendments 103 and 104 would be outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as they are incompatible with the rules on the free movement of capital and article 63 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Turning to amendments 105 and 106, they have a similar effect to amendments 103 and 104, but in relation to different types of legal entities. The difference between being those amendments restrict legal entities incorporated or otherwise established in British overseas territories and Crown dependencies from registering title to land in the land register. Those amendments appear to be targeting the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as some of those territories and dependencies are referred to as secrecy jurisdictions. As I hope we have clearly set out today, the Scottish Government is committed to increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland. It is clear that there is support across the Parliament for doing this, but in legislating in this area, we have to ensure that measures be put in place to deliver the transparency that we all want to see and do in a way that is within the legislative competence of this Parliament. We understand that the purpose of those amendments is to increase the transparency of land ownership in Scotland, but we are not convinced that those would provide the transparency that is desired. What would prevent a proprietor from reincorporating in a country that is equally as untransparent as some of the jurisdictions that are British overseas territories or Crown dependencies? It has not been demonstrated that all the countries that are affected by the provision are secrecy jurisdictions. It has also been demonstrated that all landowners and tenants registers in those countries are not transparent about their ownership structures. In addition to the minister's concerns about the effectiveness of those amendments, we do consider that amendments 105 and 106 are out with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. As I have said, the amendments would not necessarily result in the transparency of land ownership being increased, as they would not necessarily result in land being owned by a legal entity registered in a country that requires greater transparency. In addition, the amendments would not prevent legal entities registered in the British overseas territories or Crown dependencies from being subsidiaries of legal entities registered in other countries. We are committed to bringing forward the regulations that provide for a public register of controlling interests in the next parliamentary session. There are many legal and practical issues that have to be addressed in bringing forward proposals that will be effective and proportionate. One of those is how we ensure that legal entities who own land and who are incorporated in secrecy jurisdictions comply with the requirement to provide information. We would encourage everyone in this Parliament to work with the Government when we are developing the regulations to ensure that we can achieve the transparency of land ownership that we all want to see. We would ask that Patrick Harvie does not press his amendments 103, 104, 105 and 106. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks, and I now invite Sir Boyack to move amendment 34A and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Well, this group goes to the heart of the ambitions we have for this legislation. And in our committee report for the stage 1 consideration of the bill, there was cross-party support for a stronger framework of transparency. That's why we supported the removal of the original wording of the bill and supported both Graham Day's amendment and proposed our own amendments to strengthen the nature and availability of registration information on who owns and controls land. The minister's amendment today removed those amendments and inserted a much stronger set of proposals, and we support them as far as they go. I am determined that there are no loopholes or ways around the intentions that we have for transparency. I want to make the point on the record that this has been very challenging to scrutinise the minister's amendments. They were laid last Wednesday, late last Wednesday, and we had less than 24 hours to scrutinise those amendments and then decide what amendments we might want to submit. So the purpose of my amendments are to strengthen the minister's new proposals and to remove any doubts about what the Government says is their good intentions here. Now there have been observers around this debate who won't understand why the Scottish Government is removing such a substantive matter put into the bill at stage 2 to create a register of persons with significant control over land, the secret persons who currently can hide their identity in favour of a promise of something better in the future, and some have already suggested that this is to kick the matter into the long grass. I want to make it clear that I'm not attributing that motive to the minister, and in supporting my amendments she could put her intentions beyond doubt. My amendments would require that the Scottish Government must bring forward the regulation, not just leave matters that they may bring forward that legislation, and also to specify a timetable within which they will be brought forward. To oppose my amendments would be to raise the very doubts the minister has been seeking to dispel about the Government's intentions. Presiding Officer, in amendment 34A, which I move, it is not as if I am proposing something without precedent. This Government's record is littered with examples of when they have used exactly the wording that I have proposed today, and the most recent examples being the Carers Scotland Act 2016 and the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015 act approved by this Parliament just a few months ago, and there are many other examples. Members will note that one of the bills mentioned is also one taken through Parliament by the minister with a colleague, the Community Empowerment Act. Of course, all ministers share collective responsibility for what the Scottish Government brings forward, whether they hold particular responsibility or not. If it is good enough to use this term must in those and other bills and now acts, and to bind ministers to particular timescales, why should it not be good enough here? I hope that the minister will not give us a dancing in the head of a pin to say that, in this circumstance, my amendments are not appropriate on every other case they might be. That just does not wash. I really hope that the minister will reflect and regard those amendments as genuinely helpful towards delivering an outcome that we share with the Government. A couple of my amendments were in effect probing amendments, because we were not able to ask those questions at stage 2, but amendments 34B, C and D, I believe, are crucial. Instead of merely setting a requirement to include provisions about those with a controlling interest, the bill would require those with significant control in relation to land to be registered. In speaking to my amendment, that issue was not addressed effectively. A key definition in Scots law of controlling interest, for example, is a single person with more than 50 per cent shareholding of a company, but it is not just through ownership that people can determine the use of our land. The term persons with significant control is used in UK law and can refer to a broader range of ways in which control is exerted, shares, voting rights, informal right to exert control, trustees and so on, and already applies to Scotland through the Small Business and Enterprise Act and would be a much better, much stronger definition to include in this bill. Section 34E, I listened to with interest about the minister, and I will consider what further comments the minister might want to make in summing up. Amendment 34F seeks to make sure that any exceptions to declaring the identity of someone in the register shall only be in exceptional and limited circumstances. That is incredibly important to minimise any loopholes. Amendment 34H, as it stands, implies that there might be quite wide exceptions, and I was very keen to tease out from the minister exactly how those exemptions might be put into practice. I accept that this might be something that we could come to in detailed amendments when we reach those regulations, but I wanted to get a response from ministers on the record today. I particularly wanted to clarify that the risk of domestic violence is an example of exceptional cases. Amendment 34A would explicitly recognise that the new register may be in electronic form and capable of being searched online, something that is already possible for the crofting register heard by the keeper, and sets a good example of what we would like to see. The minister said, and I quote, that the existing provisions on the bill would now be wide enough to allow access, but I would just like that to be firmer on the face of the bill. Amendment J, the intention here, was to prevent amendment of those regulations, which would affect their essential purpose, so it really was just to try and get the ministers to be more firm on the record here that this is not something they would seek to do through regulations to water down the initial purpose. In relation to amendment 35 for the minister, I welcomed this amendment, but I have proposed an amendment to set a timescale for the Government and ministers to follow. I have suggested 18 months from the granting of royal assent, which I think is a reasonable amendment and would it allow ample time for consultation to take place? It is important that we do not lose the momentum built up, and as the minister really telling us that they will not be ready within 18 months, we have had the land reform review group's work, we have had extensive consultation on that, and we have had hundreds of representation to this bill. Are ministers seriously telling us that they are not going to be ready within 18 months to get this through Parliament? My amendment 37A seeks to tease out what the ministers intend by amendment 37, because I have to say that it is not totally clear, and in the 24 hours that we had to put this amendment, we thought that it was unusual and looked like a way of enabling those who make representations against the register remaining secret, which seems utterly the wrong way to go about things. It seems to imply that the Scottish Government would make a disclosure to a committee of Parliament, but they would not make themselves that information available publicly. We really want to seek clarity in this and find out exactly what ministers are intending. It is primarily a probing amendment, so I would like a little bit more in summing up by the minister. If it is something that we return to in the future, then fair enough, but the amendment that is drafted was not helpful in terms of its clarity. Finally, I want to make a brief comment about the proposed amendments by Patrick Harvie. At stage 2, we supported the suggestion that there should be a requirement for those seeking ownership of land in Scotland to be registered to EU entities. That does not prevent somebody who does not live in the EU from owning land, but it does set expectations of tax transparency. Ministers were at great pains to tell us at stage 2 that that would not be legally possible or competent. Again, that was repeated by the ministers. I have to say that there have been several examples in relation to ECHR issues, which we have discussed on several points during the passage of the bill, where there have been examples in relation to ECHR issues, where ministers have on reflection changed their views after extensive consultation with stakeholders with representations from MSPs throughout the bill. We are disappointed that ministers have not wanted to seek a way forward to deliver the ambitions in those amendments. We can think of many examples in this Parliament since its inception, where political will and creative thinking delivered where, at first or even second glance, there were barriers, but determination found ways to overcome obstacles. Because we will come back to the issue of tax transparency, we think that it is the right thing to do. It speaks to the wider concerns that are in our public of fairness and transparency, and we believe that they are in the public interest. We think that they should be supported today. If they are not supported by the SNP Government, I am absolutely convinced that we will come back to them in the future. During the debate on the group of amendments, both the ministers and Sarah Boyack have used the word transparency on a repeated basis. The stage 2 discussion seemed as though that was a point of agreement across the political spectrum that what we are trying to achieve is transparency fundamentally. There are many ways of achieving that. One part of the bill is setting a date for the completion of the land register. That is a step in the direction of transparency, something that I proposed early on in this session in the land registration bill, better late than never. We are now putting it into law in the closing weeks of this session, and I welcome the fact that we are doing it. Addressing the questions of beneficial ownership is also something that I have proposed in the beginning stages of this session in the land registration bill. I am glad that we are doing something in this direction in the closing weeks, better late than never. I very much welcome the work that Graham Day has done at stage 2 and during the stage 1 discussion in bringing forward proposals in that direction. I think that his formulation has an advantage over the Government formulation in relation to beneficial ownership, specifically because it is about using the land register rather than another register. However, if the Government's amendment is going to be passed to change that approach, I think that it should be passed with Sarah Boyack's amendments to that approach. If I heard it right, I think that the Government said that they did intend to support 34A, and I welcome that. There are other amendments from Sarah Boyack, which I think also add value to the approach that the Government is taking. However, it is very consistent with those other approaches. Completing the land register and making steps in terms of beneficial ownership is a need to recognise that getting our own house in order is not enough because there are others using mechanisms such as offshore territories to avoid the level of transparency that we are setting into our own law. At stage 2, I offered the option of an EU proprietorship condition with a five-year period for retrospective application. I bring that back to the chamber along with another alternative, one based on British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. I reject the argument that this is a barrier to the free movement of capital. Even those for whom the ideological attachment to free movement of capital is more important than our agreement on the objective of transparency are just to reject the argument that it is a barrier to free movement of capital. It is entirely reasonable for an organisation to set up an entity that is registered within the EU or preferably here in Scotland if they wish to own and sell land. Representatives of the landowners who responded to the consultation said that they do not see an EU proprietorship requirement as a serious barrier to an organisation that has a committed interest in owning land in Scotland for legitimate purposes. We know that those loopholes are being exploited. We all know it. Just this week, my colleague Andy Wightman, working with Common Space and the National, has exposed the activities of the Baclua estate, where it is an incorporated vehicle in the Cayman Islands, avoiding the level of transparency that we should hold landowners in Scotland to. That is simply not acceptable, and I welcome the fact that the Labour Party is supporting it. I think that there are many in the SNP as well who want this done. This is not a new idea. It was strongly supported in the consultation on the legislation. It was strongly supported by the land reform review group, and it is something that we simply should press ahead with. I will be moving those amendments when the time comes, and I hope that very many SNP members recognise the strong feeling of expectation from their own party colleagues around the country who want those kind of loopholes closed down and want landowners held to the highest standards of transparency. Many thanks. I have four members bidding to speak. I do not wish to curtail the debate, but I would ask members to be as brief as possible. Graham Day, to be followed by Alec Ferguson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As we have heard, the Government amendments before us will replace those that I made to the bill at stage 2. I accepted then that my amendments might be flawed, and I recognise the concerns raised around those amendments being out with the confidence of the Parliament. No responsible parliamentarian should be tied to provisions or amendments that, if featuring in the finished bill, could lead to being subject to challenge. Just as importantly, the Government amendments are, as Sarah Boyack said, a stronger set of proposals. Those amendments provide a framework for delivering competent and appropriate transparency, and they should be viewed alongside the letter sent by the minister some weeks ago. No one could seriously claim that they represent an attempt to kick this issue into the long grass. That said, I welcome Sarah Boyack's amendment 34A, replacing the word may with the word must. I think that that strengthens the messaging around delivery of transparency. Am amendments 103 and 104 would not, as far as I can see, deliver the kind of transparency that we would all want, and could quite easily be circumvented. In legal opinion, from a number of sources that I am aware of, on contested legal opinion, it suggests that they fall out with the legislative competence of the Parliament. I conclude by making one point. That is that we have come a very long way on the road towards delivering transparency. I give due credit to the minister for the leadership that she has provided in that regard. I will be brief. Scottish Conservatives have no difficulties whatsoever with bringing a greater degree of openness and transparency to land ownership, and we never have had. However, I am really concerned, as other members have mentioned, at the lack of time that we have had to really digest and look at the full implications of this whole group of amendments. It is something that really does bother me, because there is a feeling created by that lack of time that we are somehow creating legislation on the hoof here. I have to say that at least the Scottish Government's amendments appear to be within the scope of our competence, unlike Patrick Harvie's, I think. However, I do think that the important thing is to make sure that what we put in place is workable and doable, and it makes sense and people understand it, and it delivers tangible benefits in terms of ownership transparency. For that reason, we will be supporting amendments 34 and 34A. For that particular reason, we will not be supporting 35A, because the important thing is to get this right. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, Patrick Harvie said that he thought that some backbench MSPs supported the concept of transparency. All backbench MSPs have spoken to support that transparency completely. The question is not whether you support transparency. The question is how you achieve transparency, and you achieve transparency by backing the amendments from the minister. Graham Day played a wonderful role in bringing this. No, I would like to finish, Mr Harvie. Graham Day played a very important role in focusing this debate at stage 2. The minister came forward with practical solutions, and we need practical solutions, and if you put into this bill any solution that is not legislative competent, you wreck the entire bill. I am 100 per cent, 100 per cent competitive transparency. I want that register up and running as soon as possible, as everybody else who has spoken does want that register up as soon as possible, but in order to make the progress that we have to make, we have to do it in a way that is more clever than just running at it and assuming that wishes will produce good legislation, it is work that produces good legislation. Thank you. I now call Nigel Dawn, and I have a bet by Rob Gibson who will follow Nigel Dawn. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I rise, of course, as the convener of the Delegated Plans and Law Reform Committee, just to pick up on one issue here. We do very much welcome amendments 34, 35, 36 and 37, and we also recognise that they bring forward an enhanced form of procedure for the first introduction of these regulations, which was what the committee was extremely concerned to achieve. We do, however, note that despite what the minister has already said, the regulations remain as wide for any second and subsequent opportunity when they might be used, but the enhanced, affirmative procedure will not be required. Can I say, Presiding Officer, that it makes perfectly good sense if the grand sweep of these is achieved at the first time and subsequent amendments are technical issues at the edges? However, there is a procedural point to which the committee is concerned about that, if it is completely rewritten, and I do not think that this Government is proposing to do so, but if it were to be completely rewritten, a procedure would simply be the affirmative procedure, and that in the eyes of my committee is not the right way to proceed, and it would not be in any other circumstance. The committee would be very grateful if the minister would be able to confirm on the record that there is no intention of using the wide scope of these for any subsequent amendments and that it will be simply tidying up, as will inevitably be required. I think that the committee would be grateful if that could be put on the record place. I am sure that SNP members across the country who have been following this debate will support our Government's competent, unsensible and legally competent means to take this forward. It is very concerning to me that the lengthy debates and discussions during the time of this bill's passage, which have involved the members of my committee with Government officials and various other parties, should be put aside in order that a proposal brought in at the end, which does not meet the legal competence but which asks this Parliament without any sight of legal advice as to amendments 103 to 106's competence, should pass. Why can we not have these debates in the fashion that the Parliament normally does? That is during the length and the time in which we are talking. It is very important—excuse me, I am just not finished yet—that we are able to hold people who have land to account. That is the practical aim and, eventually, I hope, when the land register is map-based to be able to tax them. Those are the aims. Transparency is a word that encapsulates those things, but it is holding land holders to account that is at the heart of that, and the Government's proposals do just that. First, as Mr Harvey correctly picked up, we did indeed indicate that we were going to support amendment 34A in the name of Sarah Boyack earlier, just in case it was missed. I will repeat that section so that Sarah Boyack has the opportunity to hear it. Amendment 34A seeks to provide that ministers must make regulations under government amendment 34A. The bill currently provides that ministers may make such regulations, and this is the normal formulation for affirmative regulations. The Scottish Government is clearly on the record as saying that we will make regulations but in these exceptional circumstances. With such a clear level of support for our proposals, we are willing to support amendment 34A. I also want to say that, in relation to taking wide regulation and making powers that will be able to pick at any of the amendments suggested by Sarah Boyack if they are supported in consultation. We are keen to make sure that we do all practical steps to take careful consideration of those. It is worth pointing out in terms of the timing that Sarah Boyack raised in her remarks of 18 months and why we were being careful about the timing. We obviously have extensive consultation that we required around the regulations themselves, and I also desire to ensure that we respect the parliaments' right to set the timing of such sessions. I will have permission of appraising off of the bill. Just very briefly, the minister will recognise that there is concerns because this issue has been before the Parliament before and it was voted down by the Government. People have waited a long time for this, so reassurances that it will happen now would be really important. Absolutely, and the Government is keen to give assurances that this work will take place. We are just being careful about the timing. Much of it is out with our control. It is in the hands of parliamentary committees. We do not want to prejudge the timing of the committee's work and indeed the outcome of the consultation, but the Government is sincere in taking forward this work. That is why we have agreed to amendment 34A to put must into the face of the bill to demonstrate our commitment to doing so. I hope that members in the Labour benches take comfort from that point. Registers of Scotland—other point just to make in relation to the section of amendments—is Registers of Scotland taking plans forward for Scotland's land information system. It is a comprehensive information system about any piece of land or property in Scotland. Government and the register of Scotland is taking forward significant steps to improve the transparency and availability of data about land ownership. Michael Russell made excellent points in regard to the competence of any bill. I think that he made those points very powerfully. I do not need to repeat them, but the Government certainly agrees with him on the points that he made about ensuring that all legislation that passes through this place is competent and it takes account of ECHR. Nigel Don, on behalf of the Delegated Powers Committee, makes reasonable points in relation to the use of the powers. We have not just to confirm as requested by Mr Don, we have no intention to rewrite the provisions and to ensure that we remain within the spirit of the letter of the provisions in terms of super affirmative procedure. In regard to the wording of amendment 34, subsection 2H, we would cover an exemption for publication where this would result in a person being at risk of domestic abuse to the Assure Ms Boyack on that point. The wording of amendment 37 is based on the existing legislation in the Public Services Reform Scotland Act 2010, agreed and passed by this Parliament, so there is no variation from that wording. In regard to Mr D's amendments, as he quite correctly said, we were concerned about the amendments that were brought forward not being potentially within letters of competence of the Parliament and there were a number of reasons for that. The amendment, as drafted, did not provide appropriate protections for individuals' rights to privacy under article 8. For example, the amendment does not require a proprietor or a keeper to remove a person's name from the title sheet when that person has ceased to be a person of significant control. I am sure that Mr D is aware of further detail that we do not need to go through just now. In regard to Mr Harvey's point and his reference to Mr Wightman's recent blog in the article on the national, the company's structures lie behind the ownership of the Buclew of States Limited. It is not appropriate for the Government to comment on the individual circumstances of the landowners and the tax affairs of individuals. However, the Government believes that Mr Harvey's proposals would not work. There is nothing in his proposals that prevents a company owning land in Scotland from being wholly owned by another company registered in a British overseas territory or anywhere else in the world that may be termed a tax haven or a secrecy jurisdiction. All those amendments would serve to do with putting another company in the company chain in effect adding to the complexity of the ownership chain. We would also like to stress that there are other countries that can be just as secretive, if not more so, than those that are subject to Mr Harvey's amendments. I will briefly present— I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Would the minister agree with me that some—and confirm that the land reform review group recommendation was that EU ownership should be something that was looked at with great care? It is very disappointing that the risk averse Scottish Government has appeared to not push the system as far as it might do. I believe that both are complementary. It is not about capital, it is about transparency of ownership. I think that, in respect to Ms Beamish, we have made very clear throughout the process of the debate today that we very much believe in transparency of land ownership in Scotland. We are doing everything we can to do so, but, as Mr Russell rightly said and I reiterate, we have to ensure that legislation that comes to this Parliament is legally competent and that it is able to be sustained through the courts if it is challenged. I put that to Ms Beamish that the measures that she rightly says were in the land reform review group report. I remember reading them myself that they are not ones that we can support on the basis of our own understanding of legal competence in this case. However, we need a solution to deliver the transparency of land ownership that applies to all landowners, regardless of where they are incorporated. The ability of this Parliament to legislate in certain matters is limited. It is not within the competence of this Parliament to legislate on matters that are reserved. That includes matters of company law or measures aimed to reduce avoidance of non-devolved taxes such as inheritance tax and corporation tax. In making legislation, we have to take into account our obligations under European law. As we have already said, the Scottish Government considers that the amendments brought forward by Mr Harvey are right with the legislative competence of this Parliament. Above all, it is crucial that we bring forward measures to increase the transparency of land ownership, which are proportionate, effective and within the legislative competence of this Parliament. What this Parliament can do and will do is legislate about land ownership in Scotland. As Alex Cobham, director of research with the tax justice network said in the national, the Scottish Government can take its own steps to ensure that no land is owned without public record of the ultimate beneficial ownership, regardless of which jurisdiction or structure is used. That said, the regulation making power that we have proposed today will allow us to do exactly that. It will allow us to make regulations that require the disclosure of information about persons who have a controlling interest in landowners and tenants and for the keeper to publish that information in a public register. Those regulations can apply to all landowners in Scotland, regardless of where they are incorporated. If I could just go a bit further, I will bring in Mr Harvey in a minute. Unlike Mr Harvey's amendments, which only seek to limit ownership to persons registered in certain jurisdictions, restrictions that would be easily circumvented in our view. The Scottish Government is committed to making land ownership in Scotland transparent, and we hope that everyone here today in the Parliament is supportive. We will work with the minister, the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland to help us to achieve the goal of greater transparency of land ownership in Scotland, which we all want to see if the consent I will bring in Mr Harvey. The minister seems very satisfied that the bill as it stands achieves the level of transparency that he is aiming for. Can he assure us that an entity, registered in one of the secrecy jurisdictions such as Pentland Ltd, will be held to the high standard of transparency that we are not capable of achieving today? Those are clearly matters that Mr Harvey will understand. We are saying that we potentially have a lot of scrutiny on the procedure to develop the regulations, and that is why we are keen to have the time and not setting a time limit on it. We are going to work with the parliamentary process to ensure that the Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations that come forward and make sure that they are robust enough to deliver the kind of transparency that he wants. However, I return to the point that whatever we do as a Parliament has to be legally competent, and it has to be with the competence of this Parliament, we cannot bring forward measures in the bill that would allow the bill to be shot down by those who oppose it. I very much welcome the minister's acceptance of the intent behind my amendment 34A and its detail, so I will certainly be moving that amendment. With brief reference to the other amendments in my name and the amendments in this group, might Russell said that it is work that will produce good legislation? I think that we could all agree with that. That is our point in setting a timetable for the next Scottish Government. It is crucial that the process is actually planned and worked towards and is done effectively. Frankly, the Scottish Government set the timetable with this bill. We need a better timetable for the next bill. We need a commitment, and it would be the Parliament setting the timetable, not the Government. That is the point. That would be the point of our amendment today. Nobody has effectively and adequately addressed my concerns in amendments 34B, CND or F, so I will be pushing them. I will not push a couple of the other amendments. My final point, the minister asked why we could not have debated the issue of tax transparency earlier. The point is that it was debated earlier. It was debated in our stage 1 report that ministers did not reply to until after we had had that stage 1 debate, so this has been out there for months, for years. The land reform review group made the point. Our stage 1 report made these points. It is not a new issue. The point that I would finish with is where is the Scottish Government's alternative? Today is disappointing in terms of that response, and it is a missed opportunity. It will be unfinished business. The next Parliament will have to come back to. The member has pressed to question is that amendment 34A be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 34B in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I invite Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34B be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34B is, yes, 38, no 76. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 34C in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34C be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34C is, yes, 38, no 76. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 34D in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34D be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34D is, yes, 38, no 74. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 34E in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34E be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34E is, yes, 38, no 75. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 34F in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34F be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34F is, yes, 38, no 75. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 34G in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 34G be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34G is, yes, 38, no 75. There were no abstentions to the amendment 34, therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 34H in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has not moved. The question is that amendment 34I in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has not moved. I now call amendment 34G in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The member has not moved. I now call amendment 34G. Fong moved. The question is, is amendment 34 agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I now call amendment 35G in the name of the minister, who is already debated with Felly, wrth dweud, mae'r iaugau ar gyfer maen nhw ydw i fynd i unrhyw ym mleidio. Felly, fydd yn ei wneud o'ch cyfrifio iddo gwrsus y dditwb yn dda, i fynt nhw fydd yn ei ddw i fynt nhw i fynt nhw? Felly, mae'r iaugiau yn ddod, cadw i fynt nhw i fynt nhw, a ddim i fod pan ddod o fod yn ddod yn ddod yn ddod wrth ddod yn ddod, a ddim i fod yn ddod yn ddod. maesaf. roedd pwrnodd hynny'n ddiwethaf—Polwg Cymru—on mynd i ddatblygiadau cadw. Fy yw yw y塵 hon のf, rwyf yn ymgwrdd yth yn ymgyrch, a ddys fan, rwyf yn bryd rydw i fynd ymgyrch. Fy yw ei ddys fan. Rwyf yn ymgyrch, rydw i fynd ymgyrch, rydw i fynd ymgyrch, rydw i fynd ymgyrch, rydw i fynd ymgyrch.  Mae ychwanegwch yn ddiddordeb, mae'n ddiddordeb yn 32nd y ffas ôl, rydw i, yn gyllid oED. Rydw i'r ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb 103 yn gwaith wrth 3 ddiddordeb yn eich 1, no eich 1. Wrth gwaith y cwestiwnes hynny, nid ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb. Mae cwestiwnes 104 yn ddiddordeb yn yr ystafell Patech Harvie ac yn ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb amendment 34. amendment 105. amendment 105. amendment 105. no abstentions. amendment 106, in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 34, and I ask Patrick Harvie to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. That then brings us to group 6 and amendment 39, in the name of the minister, group with amendments 40 to 52, and I ask the minister to move amendment 39. Sorry, at this stage, could I ask any members who wish to contribute to this part of the proceedings to press a request to speak buttons now, please? I ask the minister to move amendment 39 and speak to the amendments in the group. Presiding Officer, those amendments are aimed at increasing the availability of information about land ownership in Scotland. In the report, the land reform review group stated that a lack of consistently accurate information about patterns of land ownership was an issue that hindered them in carrying out their review. To gain an understanding of how land ownership affects patterns of land use in Scotland and the effect of government policies connected to land, it is important to have further information on land ownership. For example, to understand the effectiveness of Scottish Government policy on community ownership, it is essential that accurate information about the amount of land owned by community groups is available. The registers of Scotland are often asked to provide information about how much land is owned by a certain category of owner. This information cannot always be retrieved as it is not captured as part of the land registration process. When the bill was introduced, section 36 provided a power for regulations to be made, enabling the keeper to request information relating to proprietors, including information relating to the category of the owner or tenant, and information relating to individuals having a controlling interest in owners or tenants. In the report on the bill, at stage 1, the Racky Committee recommended that section 36 should be amended so that the keeper could require this information and not just request it. Amendments 39 to 49 amend the regulation making power inserted into section 48A of the land registration etc. Scotland Act 2012, so that regulations can be made enabling the keeper to request and require information about the category of person or body that certain owners or tenants of land fall into. We have already discussed the amendments that the Government has brought forward regarding information about controlling interest in owners and tenants of land. As a result of those amendments, it is no longer necessary for the regulation making power in inserted section 48A1 to be wide enough to allow regulations to be made, requesting information about individuals having controlling interest in proprietors. Amendments 40 and 46 reflect that. It is intended that the regulations under section 48A will enable the keeper to require the provision of information about categories of owner or tenant as part of the land register application form. We consider that providing this information should be relatively straightforward. We anticipate that the land register application form will provide a list of potential categories and the applicant would be required to select any which are relevant to the owner or tenant. The bill already provides that regulations made under inserted section 48A subsection 1 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 52 provides that the crown cannot be criminally liable for any breaches of requirements imposed by regulations made under section 48A subsection 1. In looking at this policy, the Government came to the view that in order to increase the number of owners or tenants about whom the information was provided, it was important that the keeper was given additional powers to add information about the category of the owner or tenant to the land register on her own initiative in certain circumstances. Amendment 50 inserts section 48B into the 2012 act. That contains a power allowing the Scottish ministers to make regulations enabling the keeper to enter information in the land register about the category of certain landowners and tenants on her own initiative in certain circumstances. It is intended that the keeper will only be able to add information about the category of the owner or tenant where this information is already apparent from the land register. For example, if one of the categories of landowner is a Scottish local authority, then it should be evident from the name of the proprietor entered in the title sheet whether the proprietor is or is not a Scottish local authority. It is not intended that adding this information to the land register should have an effect on a person's legal title. Amendment 51 provides that regulations made under inserted section 48B subsection 1 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government intends to consult before making regulations under inserted sections 48A and 48B. I would urge the Parliament to support these amendments and I move amendment 39. Two contributions of a few seconds each please. Claudia Beamish to be followed by Alex Ferguson. I wish to speak in support of the Minister's amendments. This will help to clarify the position on this important part of the bill on availability of information on land ownership. It is very important that the possibility of information on community land ownership is a category going forward for land reform. The additional powers for the keeper on her own initiative are also important on those amendments that the Minister referred to on behalf of the other Minister. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have little to add, but we do not intend to oppose these amendments, but I do want to repeat and place on record my continuing concerns with regards to significant provisions being introduced to legislation by way of regulation with limited scrutiny. It is not the right way to go about making robust legislation and I hope that this does not end up out of the chance. I know that the delegated powers and the Oral Form Committee have concerns as well. I am happy to reiterate the question. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 40 to 56, all in the name of the Minister and all previously debated. I invite the Minister to move amendments 40 to 56 on block, please. Include is any member object to a single question being put on amendments 40 to 56. Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 40 to 56 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Before I suspend Parliament at this stage, I advise members that when we reconvene in the afternoon for the second part of the legislation, there will be a five-minute suspension for the first division of the afternoon. I now suspend Parliament until two o'clock.