[S3M-3325] Decision Time — 29 Jan 2009 at 17:00

This looks like the vote on S3M-3325

The description in the bulletin on 2009-01-28 is:

*S3M-3325 Sarah Boyack: Forestry—That the Parliament notes widespread and clearly expressed public concern about the potential effects on biodiversity, access, employment and the ability of Forestry Commission Scotland to continue to carry out its functions effectively as a result of the Scottish Government’s proposals to lease large tracts of the forestry estate to the private sector for decades into the future; notes that the Parliament is being asked by the Scottish Government to scrutinise a proposal that it has now said does "not necessarily represent the best or only option" to achieve its objectives; also notes that the Scottish Government has not set out what it believes would be the other or better options; further notes the lack of published detail or business plan and the inability of the Scottish Government to answer a series of questions on the full implications of its proposals at this time, and calls on the Scottish Government to reconsider its plans to proceed with the leasing proposal and end the uncertainty surrounding the proposals by dropping the provisions that would permit this from the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. Supported by: Elaine Murray*

You can search for this motion (S3M-3325) on TheyWorkForYou

Text Introducing Division:

The next question is, that motion S3M-3325, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on forestry, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

Debate in Parliament | Source |