 Fy calling me. Welcome to the 28th meeting of the committee in 2014. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones. Another electronic equipment is the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during this meeting. This is because we provide meeting papers in a digital format. Agenda item 1 today is an oral evidence session of the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill. We have one panel of witnesses giving evidence this morning. I'd like to welcome the panel, Derek Mackay MSP, Minister for Local Government and Planning, Alistair McKinlay, Head of Community Planning and Community Empowerment, Jeane Waddey, Bill Manager and Dr Amanda Fox, Food and Drink Policy Leader from the Scottish Government. Welcome and good morning. Would you like to make any opening remarks, minister? Thank you very much, convener. The outset is a very helpful way that the committee has endeavoured to be proactive in your research and studying of the bill. I know that people appreciate it just this week, as in Dumfries, and they were telling me about the committee's visit there and using new ways of working. It is also helpful in exploring the potential of the bill. The bill essentially creates new rights for community bodies and new duties on public authorities, providing a legal framework that will promote and encourage community empowerment and participation. Of course, there is a difference between engagement and consultation participation and community ownership and leadership itself. The new rights will empower communities through the use and ownership of land in buildings and strengthen involvement around participations. I think that we will be very helpful for democracy, too. Of course, the bill cannot come a moment too soon. I think that people have got an appetite to take that forward, and it is very timely, clearly, the referendum. We may disagree on what decision we sought through the referendum, but surely it is a further clarion call for action for people to be empowered and engaged in public services in their communities. Hopefully the bill will help to create the conditions in which that sense of enthusiasm and engagement can prosper. If I could turn, first of all, to the finance committee's comments about the financial memorandum in which the finance committee is somewhat critical, would you like to comment on that, please, minister? Of course, convener, I understand and we take very seriously the work of the finance committee and this committee to look at the financial assumptions and the ability to provide best estimates for any piece of legislation, but I am sure that this committee will be well aware that it is very difficult to put a cash figure to essentially quantify the cost of an empowering piece of legislation, because there are so many variables that may come forward. For example, in an asset transfer request, what the value of that property may be, what the value will be transferred at, how many, where, how it happens, the costs involved from each local authority. It is just an example of how the variability is such that I would not want to offer this committee a flawed figure. I would rather not do that, but what we have been able to do is showcase in evidence the nature of costs across the country on examples of, for example, asset transfers or other matters to show how there is a wide range. Essentially, what Parliament is expected to understand is the potential cost of a bill and there are checks and balances within that. Of course, any public authority in considering the transfer of an asset would have to consider economic impact and wider benefits. Again, I say that we have endeavoured to give the best possible information that we can. I can simply agree with Coslaw on this occasion that the bill is not overly onerous in terms of its finances on the public sector. If you take another example on participation requests or indeed how local authorities engage with their communities, they should already be doing it now in terms of engagement anyway, so it is not adding a particularly cumbersome new burden upon those local authorities. It is creating consistency, removing barriers and strengthening people's rights, but the infrastructure to engage is already there. We cannot quantify that. We are not going to make up a figure for a nice city, but we have absolutely set out the kind and nature of costs that would be involved in an asset transfer. I am happy to go on further if the committee requires me to do so, but it is not through lack of effort or any difficulty with local authorities. I spoke to the relevant spokesperson yesterday on the community empowerment bill, so it is not a matter of conflict, it is simply a matter where we have put the evidence on the table as to what the cost may look like, but we feel that it is not appropriate to come with a false figure. That would be both misleading and it would give the false impression to communities that will say either a floor or a ceiling or an arbitrary target, which we are not doing. This is about empowerment, not an accountancy exercise, but we do believe we have fulfilled the requirements upon us by the finance committee, but it is quite right that you probe me further on what costs may be involved and what ramifications the bill may have, of course. If I could harken back to a few years back when there was great concern about the implementation of freedom of information legislation and how that would affect local authorities financially and it transpired that it was not as onerous as was originally thought, do you think that something similar is likely to happen with participation requests? Was there any analysis done at the time of FOI to look at the actual differences that there were at that point? It is very fair to say, convener, that some of the pressures that freedom of information brought about was able to be proportionate and public authorities were able to deny those requests that were too costly and it has generated extra costs to the public sector, but this legislation is encouraging best practice and I think it would be worth it and I think it will focus the mind of public servants in considering how they engage with communities in the decisions that they make and then when requests are made to be involved that that will also be proportionate and some we argue that it is too costly and just let the decision makers get on with it and don't engage, but that is entirely not in the spirit of this legislation or indeed the current guidance around good consultation and the spirit of community plan partnerships and what should be done already. Indeed, the Accounts Commission have said that there should be greater involvement with communities so put it into context I think cost would be both reasonable and proportionate but there would be that on-going monitoring to all parts of the public sector and to local authorities and in their engagement with Scottish Government that if this bill did have the kind of financial impact that raised concerns then I'm sure we would monitor that. Local authorities have a duty around balancing their books and understanding the strength of their assets as well so let's say this bill is so successful and so empowering that there are many groups across the country that come forward to acquire assets to take on new lands and so on and so forth and then local authorities and other parts of Scottish Government would have to consider that and look at the financial consequences but I think that it will be reasonable and proportionate, it will remain under review and essentially I don't think there'll be a rush to purchase assets and therefore values will be wiped off public sectors asset register and their books and so on but I think it'll be far better engagement and I think it'll be more asset transfers because if you asked us what success looks like it's more community ownership it's more transfers the bill should encourage that to happen but in a way that's very mindful of our wider financial responsibilities bearing in mind of course that some transfers better involvement better prevention will also make financial savings equally difficult to quantify but if we're serious about the preventative approach then we recognise that there's financial gains to this as well as some potential loss to the public sector in terms of the value of assets but I think the bureaucracy the cost of servicing this could easily be subsumed if you take example the common good requirements it's already the case that the register the understanding of assets as they relate to common goods is already separate from mainstream council funding so it shouldn't be too onerous to be able to produce a register of what's in the common good fund and what the assets are how you then engage with communities and if public sector does it more collaboratively through community plan partnerships for example then it could replace some of the duplication costs of various consultation exercises rather than doing it once properly and I think more effectively okay I think that's very useful and we have your assurance that there will be that on-going monitoring of the situation and I think you know seeing a list of some of the assets that have been transferred and Dumfries and Galloway for example which is quite extensive thus far it would be interesting to hear from some of the authorities whether some of these assets were actually assets or were actually liabilities in their books but I'm glad to hear that we'll that you will be continuing to monitor as well we Cameron Buchanan please sorry good morning minister just to say I think it's in the finance committee report it said that best estimates have not been provided can is it should there not be some sort of estimate should we not have some sort of costing I really heard what you were saying earlier but there should be something there because the finance committee was pretty critical of that in both sections of it I understand the rules of the parliament I understand the wish and the desire of the finance committee to have a full understanding of cost if mr Buchanan in this committee want me to fabricate and make up a figure I will do that but I think that would be utterly flawed I think it would send the wrong message in terms of a floor of a ceiling of what this legislation is about you see it's fairly easy for local authorities to produce a cost of how much it costs an official to do something that's quantifiable what's not quantifiable is what does this legislation release in terms of community engagement and empowerment which groups will come forward to acquire public sector assets from where and at what value is impossible to predict so if we make up a figure as an account and say nicety it can be done but it's utterly misleading because it's a figure for the sake of a figure whereas we believe we've provided the best estimates in that we can show the bureaucracy of the bill can be absorbed it's not in causula's words overly onerous and I tell you negotiating with causula if they thought it was overly onerous they would be saying so and if they thought there was substantial new cost then they would be stating that we'll continue with negotiations with causula of course but we believe by setting out what we have done through current practice through current asset transfers through the kind of burdens that would be added upon public authorities then we've provided as reasonable an estimate and as figures as we can but to be able to say this bill will cost in a range of A to B is not possible because you can't predict what the demand will be from the community but of course it's something that will continue to monitor so it's not a lack of effort it's the falseness of providing an arbitrary figure and I would rather not mislead Parliament or the committee by fabricating a figure. I don't think you've been accused of lack of effort it was just that the finance committee needed some sort of estimate and some sort of cost some sort of basis if you like before and after top and bottom costs so if I I mean I understand the reason you wish to do this and if I said that it's our prediction then that so many groups will come forward at a certain level to a value of you know 10 million pounds that's the value of which communities may want to transfer that would be a completely false figure because no one will know this bill unlocks the potential locally to have asset transfers greater participation requests greater understanding of common good it's easier to quantify the bureaucracy of servicing the machine i the state and understanding asset register and so on but what we can't predict in all reasonableness is what communities will come forward to acquire what at what value and what the committee of course will want to be reassured of that this won't wipe off the capital assets of the public sector and one fell swoop that would be incredibly empowering but not particularly affordable so that affordability that that public benefit test those checks and balances are all built in to every single asset transfer decision that would be made for example and the wider considerations of how a local authority or public authority we're very mindful this goes beyond local councils it's into all parts of public sector would be very mindful of the requests and the decisions they are making in view of their financial outlook and the assets that they hold but I say again if it's recommendation of this committee to produce a figure for a figure's sake I can do it but it would be utterly false and therefore I would encourage the committee not to make such a recommendation rather than to it's not for me to to to ask you what to do but I think it'd be more credible if I was to provide an analysis of what asset transfers are happening across the country as a consequence of the legislation and how do public finances look at as a result and take any necessary action that's something we would do anyway that's something that the public authorities would do anyway but to set a figure we'd have too many variables within it for that figure to be credible thank you minister as you will know this committee continues to to look at things after the event and I think we would be monitoring that Cameron that's okay thank you I want to stick to the financial situation at this moment I've got three names Ann, was yours on finance. Good morning panel and good morning minister I'm just still to stick on this I've got loads more other questions but I'll ask them later I've heard your every word this morning so far but can I ask for some reassurances within around the area of allotments? Councils are worried about the financial memorandum they are worried about having to provide the duty for the additional allotments what words of wisdom and advice and reassurances can you give them? I'm not sure about words of wisdom but maybe words of reassurance I can offer to local authorities which is really that the legislation updates and simplifies that which was there before and the new trigger point in terms of demand for allotments and then providing them has that reasonableness test the councils must take all reasonable steps to satisfy demand so it's not an absolute trigger point that when you reach a certain level you must produce allotments inside time inside place for said people because that leaves the flexibility of local authorities to adapt to circumstances so it's about taking all reasonable steps to be able to meet that provision we're also quite flexible and leave up to local authorities around the size and the nature of the allotments as well so we're not being too prescriptive and I think much of the legislation simply simplifying what was there before so hopefully that reassures local authorities that this is not a huge new burden placed upon them but certainly is moving along the lines of being more proactive and I welcome that minister thank you but now for to try and reassure the allotment tiers their concern is that for the local governments to meet those duty requirements whatever that allotment sizes may well be reduced or half quartered and for some people that that's fine and for your dues they they wish for that to happen you know they want a smaller allotment size however it would be easy or it could be easy for to enable you to get your figures as a local authority for to have for quarter the size of the allotment to fulfill your duties I think it's fair point I think it's very skillful the way Anne McTaggart's playing both sides of the same argument to make sure that I'm completely grilled but I like the word allotment tiers as well we might use that indeed not to be confused with the growing lobby incidentally allotments and the growing lobby are two different enthusiasts as my officials advise me to protect me I think it's a fair point but you know to meet the spirit of the legislation the trigger point would encourage a local authority to meet the demand but the demand might be a space to grow and it doesn't have to be a set space for the size of the allotment we do want to leave that to local authorities to be able to define I think again it would send the wrong message about empowerment and localism if I determined everything centrally in Edinburgh including the size of an allotment when there may be local variations required for good reason for example the size and nature of a site or the size of an allotment that local people may want to have people who have different needs and demands not everyone might want the full scale allotment with all the work that goes along with it so in essence I'd like to put a bit of faith in local authorities that generally try to meet demand and get the right size of allotments and spaces that would be required for local communities in view of circumstances and I don't think let's say if we have established allotments already in place that the council would then just try to reduce the size of those to meet needs because that would be changing what people have already I think this will be about new sites but my experience over the last few years not just as a minister but as a constituency member indeed before that as a ward councillor is that some people will want the full scale allotment to do the variety of things and other people will just want some space to grow some basic vegetables so people's needs are different now we do have we will have powers if required if councils did go down that road of being so minimalist and meager in their approach which I don't think they would but if they did then we would have through the legislation the ability to prescribe the size of allotment if we felt that was necessary so we do have that power thank you minister okay thank you Alec Rowley please there's a keen allotment grower I wouldn't disagree with what the minister has to say although I would say that if we were serious about actually looking at people growing food and actually driving that agenda for health and wellbeing reasons and fitness reasons then it will have a resource implication and it's the resources I suppose that that that's part of the question and so on I mean I look at cos land cos laxley state minister that local government will incur extra costs as a result of these provisions and it is not possible to allocate money to these costs from our budgets without taking it from other activities we would expect central government to add to our settlement any money necessary to fill the provision of the bill and that I suppose is the finance committee's concerns glasgow city council raise it and basically say it will be challenging to meet these costs from existing resources umber Clyde council north north airstriar north Lanarkshire all these councils are raising that they believe there will be significant financial implications from this bill I get what you say about not being able to quantify it but do you intend to to ensure that any costs that are coming through the result of this bill will be in the settlement minister yes it's been a custom in practice with this Scottish government that if the government produces a new burden upon local authorities that we fund that burden of course that's as Mr Rowley well knows a matter of negotiation with cos land local government at what figure that we arrive at that ongoing monitoring will assist us but it has been the case if we have as a consequence of the government's work imposed a burden on local authorities that we fund that so yes in essence is the commitment of course bearing in mind that the provisions of this bill extend beyond well local authorities in terms of allotments is specific to them but if you take participation requests or asset transfers or the wider duties and community planning extend beyond local authorities so there'll be costs to government and government agencies to health and police and justice and other departments that have not necessarily had the same exposure to that level of community engagement or participation or asset transfer requests there'll be costs there as well but remember what we're trying to achieve is empowering local communities through participation and public ownership and community led regeneration so on there'll be a cost to various parts of the public sector but yes we'd continue to discuss it with with local authorities and it'd be remiss if I didn't make the main point or the general point around finance in Scotland which is in terms of the Scottish government's bloc roughly two thirds goes to health and local government and one third to everything else and within that of course the budget will increase in terms of grant support to local authorities from 10.6 billion to 10.8 billion which is a cash increase with new responsibilities of course but I think the budget protection proportionate as it is that we've been able to provide to local authorities compares I think very well with what's happened south of the border because we don't see the transfer of assets as the disposing of liabilities to communities but very empowering legislation so yes it will come at a price and we'll continue to discuss that with local authorities in all parts of the public sector as to how it may affect them. Mr Riley. I think in terms of the evidence that we've been taking here and certainly the evidence I know from the FEMON area it's not so much in terms of losing a capital asset if you take Fife's case where they've been doing a major review over the last two and a half years for the new administration went and they've been quite happy for community organisations to take over buildings. They're actually trying to get rid of the loaded buildings and they're trying to pull services together into one building so if you take for example in my constituency there's three or four council buildings being pulled into one and a new community centre being built as a result of that. There's a lot of that being happening and there's successes in Wellwood for example where the local churches have taken over a building and running it as a community facility so that's been encouraged but what's come up through this bill is things like the allotments where if you were seriously going to roll out a strategy then it needs resourced. Another issue that continually comes up in terms of the evidence we've been taking is the capacity within communities. If we're saying that this bill is to empower communities and we're actually trying to look at areas of high social deprivation then often the capacity and exception would certainly be one area would be Dundee where we heard some excellent work that's actually going on there in terms of community capacity building and community organisation but for a lot of these communities the concern that was being expressed is does the capacity exist within those communities where will the support come to build that capacity and how will it be resourced? Minister I think they're all fair points and fair questions and actually one of the motivating factors of this bill is somewhat revealed by what Mr Rowley said in terms of and you quote in terms of an asset transfer approach that many local authorities are currently undertaking some quite successfully which just goes to show that there isn't a huge financial burden in allowing the community access to let's face it sometimes underused and unused buildings. You see if a building's sitting empty at the moment it's probably paying non-domestic rates 90% off probably thanks to my legislation and unoccupied properties changes but if a community group was to go in and had charitable relief they're probably paying nothing so you see how better use of violence can sometimes save money that's just an example. Mr Rowley said you know some local authorities are getting rid of a load of buildings and I know what is meant but that's actually part of the problem. The local authorities choose what they want to dispose of rather than sometimes the community being able to say we could do better with that. I've sure I think in evidence I've given before when I was a council leader I took the approach that me and the councillors and the council would decide what was being transferred and the nature of it rather than the community necessarily be able to request the transfer in a way that was proportionate and fair and reasonable so I think that's where the bill can make a big difference but Mr Rowley is right co-location is absolutely the way forward in our public service reform agenda but in terms of capacity and support the billions of pounds that are already in the system should be aligned to support this agenda community plan partnerships should be made to work to have a full plan for place that's a requirement at the moment genuinely share out the planning of resources and assets and to do that I think just requires a recalibration of some of the bureaucratic that support that's there at the moment. In terms of government funding even in these times of austerity and financial reduction we propose an increase in the relevant budgets now give some examples so in the people and communities fund that would support these kind of projects we're recommending an increase from £7.9 million this year to £9.4 million in 2015-16 and that's the community led regeneration work of course through the people and communities fund we've allocated an additional £900,000 over three years to the community ownership support service that will support people on the ground that are taking on land and buildings and helping to develop their communities and specifically on that capacity question through a £3 million strengthening communities programme will support 150 community led organisations to build their capacity and have a great multiplier effect at the local level as well and in terms of right to buy and community land ownership we're also increasing the budget in the Scottish land fund as well so that's another £3 million on top of the £6 million for 15-16 to show that there'll be more financial support for community ownership of land as well so that's just what the Scottish Government's providing as well as that budget increase admittedly in cash terms to local authorities and making other public authorities aware of their duties in relation to this and that's why we've rewritten the much red Scottish public finance manual to reflect the nature of community transfers and asset disposal and other priorities. That's a very fair point to say that we need to expand the capacity of our community but if we make it more consistent I think if we build in legislative provision to tackle inequality I think if in the guidance we're very mindful in inequalities and there's not a level playing field out there you know if you just create this legislation without that added support then the better off communities will acquire the better facilities and the less well off communities won't have the skills and the support and necessarily the professionals to make best use of this legislation and that's why we're tooling up the kind of groups that'll support this agenda at a national and a local level but I would agree we have to ensure that all parts of the public sector are considering this and the support that they provide to communities to make the legislation even more powerful. Alexi, finally on in this area I noticed that Leslie Riddock described this bill as toothless and has said that there's a missed opportunity here and I do wonder when we talk about communities we could be talking about villages, towns, we could be talking about neighbourhoods, indeed it's been pointed out in the evidence that we could be talking about communities of people but I do wonder how far do you actually think this bill goes to empower communities. I've raised the question for example that I think there's a mention in here of community councils but no more than that and one of my own constituency right now there's three or four community councils that are having elections for the first time in some 20 years and part of the argument is that why would people stand for an election to a body that does not have any powers. Are we satisfied that 32 local authorities as they stand now is in power for communities or should we not be much more bolder than this bill actually goes and look at those community councils or something similar and look at putting real resources down there and something about community plans that communities do draw up for the types of services and statute that they can expect. Is this bold enough I suppose as the question should we not be going much further if we're serious about empowering communities to be able to be in charge of the services and indeed the environment in which those communities operate? I would disagree absolutely that the bill is toothless and I would reflect on the evidence that you've received and I've received through the reference group and elsewhere that actually the bill is broadly welcomed and when people are specifically asked will the bill make a difference the answer is almost universally yes it will and I think it will make a difference but what I'm not doing is removing the democratic authority of locally elected members who also have a mandate as well as this Government and this Parliament so we could go further in disempowering local authorities transferring more to communities and we'll see if such amendments come forward but this was about swinging the balance of power towards communities and I think it does that in participation requests which will empower groups and communities to be able to initiate decisions and consultations that affect them on their terms I think that's very empowering asset transfers extending community ownership to urban Scotland and making it more flexible as well bringing in compulsion where there's not a willing seller in terms of the land when abandoned and neglected so I think there's a range of provisions that will be very empowering for local communities especially as to how we have reflected communities and definition of communities in the bill and again I take heart from the evidence and the consultations that you've received that the the bill will make a difference to people's lives in terms of further amendments I've said to opposition spokespeople and others and the groups that I've been engaging with if you want to toughen up this bill and do things differently I'm all ears and that's why as the legislation has gone on we've built in a presumption in favour of transfer to the community that wasn't there at the start and that presumption is very important because we're not changing who gets to make the decision for example about asset transfers but we're absolutely changing how the decisions are made and where the balance of power lies with that presumption and that'll put I think that very strengthening the hand of communities in doing that in terms of participation requests new rights to be able to initiate in that dialogue but Mr Rowley's right if you were to design local authorities you wouldn't design them the way they are right now 32 councils are a consequence of the Tory general general sorry mr Buchanan but it's Tory gerrymandering from before but I'd be concerned that if we tried to reorder the structures of local authorities at this point it would consume our energy and end up in boundary disputes and court battles a bit of a power struggle and people vying for senior jobs and those new organisations rather than focusing on outcomes which is in essence what this bill in the wider work of government is trying to do we're encouraging people to work across boundaries geographic and institutional and organizational to focus on those outcomes and that's why we don't propose any change to the number of local authorities or indeed their boundaries but we do expect new ways of working which saves me to your final point around accountability and I particularly agree with you on that in terms of the accountability of community plan partnerships and all parts of the public sector through community planning you've heard evidence I've heard evidence or that Scotland has given statements around the accountability of community plan partnerships met with them very recently on this as well but even if we embed even if we give a set of equal duty to contribute to community plan partnerships I really think we still have to do more around the accountability of community planning community plan partnerships and there is something in that about who holds them to account if it's not just the audit agencies how do communities hold community plan partners to account and how do they access that and I think if you want to pursue this I'm happy to get further consideration as to how we maybe produce a stage two amendment to strengthen the accountability of community plan partnerships to their community I think that's a very fair point but I would disagree utterly that the bill is not empowering it is but you see we're not trying to empower people in a patronising way of suggesting they're not living their lives properly it's by removing barriers creating consistency giving people access to resources and that which is already theirs through you know public ownership essentially that's empowering and I think that builds on the momentum that we've experienced this year but if Mr Rowley or any other person wants to bring forward amendments for me to consider that make it stronger or radical then I'd happily consider that and that's the challenge I've put to other commentators who may have views around what we should do and finally on say land reform Mr Wheelhouse has made it clear that in response to the land reform review group the government will set out a timetable including a land reform bill that will capture some of the other elements of land reform in other areas that would be relevant in a future bill but I don't want this bill to be impeded to get on with what we've committed to do thank you Stuart was your question on finance no in which case I'll take John Wilson first please thank you very good morning minister it's really to go back to the financial memorandum and the fears that COSLA have expressed in terms of additional costs that may be incurred by local authorities has the minister considered discussing with his ministerial colleagues some of the benefits that may financial benefits that may be accrued in terms of the community asset transfer proposals particularly in terms of health well-being economic and employment opportunities that may be created in many of those communities and the benefits that will accrue to say the health boards and other government agencies who are currently spending money tackling issues such as obesity and surely if we're asking communities to be no responsible in drawing up business plans and looking at financial sustainability that we should be asking the other agencies to indicate what the benefits could be accrued in terms of these asset transfers to communities from their budgets rather than just thinking that this is all a one-way street minister I think that's a very fair point that mr wilson makes that there are there are benefits that will derive from this legislation and these actions that won't yet be quantifiable indeed they may never be quantifiable but the importance of the prevention agenda I think is front and centre in the minds of all ministers and the government's approach indeed that was a key pillar of our response to the christie commission in terms of public service reform and if you take an area of wider well-being and health of course part one of the bill is about national outcomes for Scotland and embedding the scotland performs approach in legislation that the government would have to consult upon and produce the outcomes and that outcome focus going forward and it's way beyond just GDP or economic growth it's that wider understanding of well-being and if you relate that to projects on the ground one of the first projects I visited for example was lamb health stable so they had great community base great community activity a range of organisations met there in Glasgow they had some allotment space it's some growing space nice community garden and there's a piece of land that they wanted to expand into but computer says no council said no my memory serves me correctly now no reason why they couldn't expand no understanding why and you see how the legislation would put a process in place for them to request that transfer the presumption would be in favour of a transfer and and then it would be a transparent process and crucially with an appeals mechanism if the answer was still I know and the council would have to produce solid grounds for why it was I know why am I raising that as an example because that's specifically the kind of project in an area of Glasgow that benefits from more active lifestyles and if people had access to that land then it would expand the options available to them so it's a great example of how wider health and well-being getting out with the environment aligning with the resources that were going on in stables in the facility should be expanded and encouraged now it was one of the key organisations that convinced me this was the right thing to do and they understand how it can make a difference to their agenda and their objectives so I think the connections well made from government would be in focused on wider measurement of well-being and how the preventative approach and allowing communities to lead for themselves the kind of projects that will make a difference. You know I was a council leader I represented furgusley park and sometimes the best community champions for life changing actions they weren't actually the social workers or the council employed development workers as worthy as they are it was the community champions that led the projects and delivered the projects let's free them up to do more of the good work that they do rather than have them mired in bureaucracy and refusals from the state so I think that the point is very well made. Mark McDonald please. Thank you convener I want to touch on a few different areas if possible I think the minister touched in his one of his responses to Alec Rowley around the difficulties in some communities of perhaps taking advantage of this legislation I'm thinking particularly communities of deprivation where there are undoubtedly a lot of very active groups and organisations but perhaps not having some of the skills bases for example to draft up business plans now our evidence session in Dumfries some of the local authorities there said they would be reluctant to assist groups in that process because of potential conflicts of interests wonder what the minister's view would be around how we can ensure that the support is provided so that we don't have those communities with the skills base in place taking advantage of this legislation and other communities being left behind minister I have to say convener now raised the bonus that sounds like an excuse to me if a local authority thinks they can't support a community group in compiling a solid robust business plan for the benefit of a community which leads to an asset transfer conflict of interests when they'd be compromised and I see no reason why a local authority can't support local groups to to produce such a case and you know local authorities and other public authorities other parts of the public sector might frustrate community groups by not providing the information that's required and that's why there'll be provision in legislation to produce the information that's required to understand what the assets are and what buildings what the nature of the assets are but no I mean if we need to produce guidance to to inform local authorities of the responsibility here then we'll do that but if we were to say local authorities can't support community groups in building the business case for transfer then who will all external organisations of government support so I think that more liberty than they've suggested they are. Okay, thank you. Moving on to look at the role or otherwise of community councils and also community planning partnerships both of these have statutory functions statutory underpinnings there is a view of field that often they're not representative of the communities that they serve some communities of deprivation find it difficult to be involved in community planning partnerships and there are community councils which may cover a geographical community but nobody from that geographical community is actually represented on the community council and I wonder if the minister has concerns that those groups which have that statutory underpinning may be looked on more favourably or be given more support than those groups community organisations which perhaps don't have that backing minister it's correct to say of course that community councils have a statutory function of statutory consultees in the planning process and a go to organization for most local authorities and other organizations when seeking out the opinion of local communities but it's also fair to say and this connects to Alec Rowley's point as well around the variability of community councils some are very good and actually provide services run things others might be more mid range some are a talking shop and some are barely legitimate frankly and that's why we won't pick one group over another group as a key community anchor organization and say that group's more important than another group because it will differ from one community to another it might be the housing association it might be the community council it might be the parent and toddler group there's a range of community led organizations carrying out a range of work but in terms of the statutory responsibility they have to abide by the regulations as laid out but I know we have to improve the health and vibrancy of our community councils and that's why we continue to work with the improvement service and COSLA to try and support our community councils it'd be wrong to say this bill doesn't touch on community councils it does if you take common good when considering the disposal of the change of common good assets then that consultation should happen with community councils so there is some reference to community councils but a continued performance continues to be variable across the country it's quite telling though that in this year of empowerment and engagement again irrespective of how we all might have voted in the referendum the fact that so many people registered to vote and then voted and are now involved in political parties and I would like to think we can harness some of that energy into further community action and activism as well but it may not be community councils um the committee will be mindful that before the referendum I launched a consultation in turnout in elections and look what achieved in the referendum and all seriousness it wasn't about how easy it is to vote or where you vote and which day you vote is is the subject of an election or indeed the referendum meaningful enough to motivate people to vote and it was so as the business at a community council meaningful enough for people to come to participate in it that's the question but I'm not proposing a whole transfer of powers from local authorities to community councils but by unlocking the potential of communities through this legislation a range of groups can come forward to participate in process to initiate dialogue or consultation to challenge the running of a service or indeed to take over assets and property for the benefit of a local community all of that will assist but you're right I'm not prescriptive about community councils and there has been no action plan presented to me that proposes to radically shift the power towards community councils I'm sorry to say that if I was to do that then the general competence of many community councils would have to drastically improve mark appreciate that point on the community planning partnerships the committee has received evidence from scottish enterprise that it does not currently set locally based targets nor share resources does the minister have concerns that scottish enterprise may not be fulfilling its duties as a cpp partner under the terms of the bill minister no i don't and to give me further reassurance of that I met with the scottish enterprise just a few weeks ago and their location directors scottish government has location directors so that's one very senior civil service official that represents the government supports the agenda at every community plan partnership every area also has a scottish enterprise location director which is also a very senior level within scottish enterprise that enterprise agency as well they don't commit it's true to say that the point is fair in that scottish enterprise doesn't commit specific budgets or targets at the most local level although some community plan partnerships through their single outcome agreements do actually have targets on economic growth and and some councils have set out how many organisations they aspire to see account managed by scottish enterprise but I can absolutely guarantee the member and the committee that scottish enterprise is very mindful of their obligations around community planning and that was reinforced by my recent visit as this legislation moves forward and lina wilson a chief executive is very clear that they may not be bringing a budget to the table but they should be bringing their expertise their support their networks of contact to the table and that's the kind of support that a community plan partnership would want of course the legislation talks about what's agreed at community plan partnership level but what scottish enterprise can bring is their business expertise and one of the key themes in community planning is economy of course they are well placed to do that and so I hope that reassures the member scottish enterprise functions very clear the remits very clear and their growth areas are equally clear sometimes I find that the one of the pressure points for local community plan partnerships or indeed councils may for example be town centres a very important matter in my own portfolio not something that scottish enterprise would ordinarily associate themselves with but that's not to say they can't get business support contacts and make the right connections to support that agenda at the most local level so I do believe that scottish enterprise will be far more engaged with community plan partnerships than they were before and finally to assist with that the chief executive of scottish enterprise now sits on the national community plan group good mark on the issue around participation requests and asset transfers we heard evidence in them freaks about local difficulties in terms of timescales for asset transfers do you see a role in the bill or in the guidance for establishing timescales for these processes to take place or reasonable timescales for these processes to take place because obviously for many community groups and organisations funding that they have access to is often time limited and if a local authority drags its heels the funding that they have acquired can be lost can I give you some examples of that because our evidence session in Dumfries two of the local authorities stated that they would hope to have proposals in front of elected members within six months. Dumfries and Galloway hoped to have things done by by a term of 18 months which seems that they haven't kept to doing at least one case that we are now involved in. Do you think, as Mr McDonald said, that there should be some general rule about how long some of these processes should take? At Mr McDonald's right to identify this there is some provision in the bill around timescales and that may be to make further orders in relation to specific timescales is that correct, Jane? Yes and the reason for that is that they don't want to create an overly bureaucratic process that sets arbitrary deadlines but it may be required in the planning system something of responsibility for an applicant challenge if they think the planning authority is taking too long that it essentially goes for decision elsewhere to ministers through appeal so we can look more closely at the timescales issue but I would rather that authorities act in good faith and consider and respond timunously in any request that's made of them, I would just be slightly fearful if I set an arbitrary timescale that they then simply say no but fortunately because of the provisions of the bill and the presumption then there would be a meal at a meal there may be a meal after it for celebration but there'll be an appeals mechanism which will ensure that the organisation will be heard but I'm happy to give more consideration to timescales if you and your evidence think that that's necessary it just feels ever so slightly centralising for me to set timescales rather than leave it to local authority but if you've got specific cases we feel that that process has been dragged on well that's unreasonable clearly and we'd expect local authorities and other authorities to be reasonable. Thank you Mr McDonald back in you know from what we have heard in evidence for some organisation timescales are critical and you know I think that we're all very understanding that circumstances can be different in various places and there may be funding issues big lottery has been mentioned sometimes as being something that can cause a little bit of delay but you know I think we haven't seen any penalty written into the legislation for any council who who may be intransigently holding something up and I wonder if you could comment on that because there doesn't seem to be any any stick if you like to deal with a local authority who are stalling for no apparent reason. Well again I'm listening very carefully to what the committee's saying around your examples I have to do two things first of all as I've said before in your your exploratory sessions is ensure that we better calibrate and organise the various funding streams to support community groups rather than go through the process time and time again so there's something in that around timing and alignment of resources to support worthy projects. In terms of the provision we were looking at prescribing the period in regulations made by ministers as to how long it should take for such a request to be considered so I can be specific in that and regulations I wouldn't want to do it in primary legislation but regulations feels more proportionate and relevant but of course there might be a reason a community group might want to take longer that may be funding or it may be another matter or reason for them to do that so we had proposed even within that specific time frame to have in a clause potentially a longer period as may be agreed between the authority and the community transfer body because there may be exceptional circumstances so I'll take on board your evidence and reflect on that in regulations. I think beyond the evidence we'll send you a communication that we've had from one of the King's House which I think would be interesting for you to see. Sorry, Mark. Yeah, no community, I think the minister makes a fair point and I think I was keen to ensure that we perhaps weren't setting an absolute timescale but perhaps looking at how that could be reasonably reflected and I think the minister said he's willing to consider that on timescale still and looking at the common good aspect. I note in your correspondence to the committee that you discussed the benefit in requiring relevant authorities to publish registers of assets and I know that that's going to apply in terms of the common good assets. One of the pieces of evidence that we've taken or some of the evidence that we've taken suggests that for some local authorities identification of common good asset is proving to be a difficulty which I think would be a significant understatement on some of the evidence that we'd heard so there will be some local authorities for whom this will be a much more simple exercise than for others and I wonder about the issue around timescales there as well because from the evidence that we took it suggested that without some kind of defined timescale on this there are local authorities who could potentially drag their heels in perpetuity in terms of putting together an asset of common good that is a register of common good assets. Mr McDonald again it's a valid criticism that some local authorities may take their time however current SIPFA guidelines are clear that the best professional practices at local authorities should maintain a separate register of their common good assets so it should not be a significant cost or bureaucracy or exercise to fulfil the requirements of the bill. I fear that the understanding of some local authorities might be that they have to clarify title deeds and have them registered, that's a different interpretation. I'm looking for an understanding of what common good assets so that local communities can understand what they are and then have a say over how they're constructed and disposed of. Essentially it's a register that I'm pursuing. Of course you could have a whole bill dedicated to the history of common goods and I'm not proposing to go through every complication as they relate to common goods but quite simply greater participation and identification of common good assets in a register that the public can understand. As to the timescale issue, I do believe that we will be producing guidance and similar to the point that you've made around timescales to consider an asset transfer request. I'll also consider if that's something that we should set out in regulation. I'm very mindful that again the land reform group is considered to common good matters so that that might well be something that could be considered in a future land reform bill as well as the provisions that I've outlined in this bill. I'm aware, convener, that I'm testing your patience on this so this is my last question. In terms of the allotment section, looking at local authorities, do you feel that there should be a broader approach taken in terms of the public bodies who have a duty here, given that there are a number of public bodies who own large areas of land and who could perhaps make a significant contribution to allotments and to the food-growing strategies? Yes, I think it's a very helpful suggestion. I have to place the responsibility somewhere and as it currently rests with local authorities it seems most appropriate but in taking all those reasonable steps that I mentioned earlier and addressing provision I would expect absolutely a local authority to be able to work with other public service or even private sector partners to identify those sites. Maybe it's in the interests of a private sector project, a stalled space or whatever it happens to be to try and address provision. So whilst the absolute duty rests with local authorities I would expect them to work with other public sector partners to meet that need because it may well be police, fire, health or whoever to meet that demand and that would be true joint planning and resource management in the way that we would intend for community plan partnerships. Stuart McMillan, please. Thank you. Good morning minister. I have a couple of quick questions on allotments section as well. Last week in evidence from Ian Welsh from SAGS he written evidence that they'd suggested in terms of the 250 square metres should be the defined allocation, the fine size for an allotment and then in evidence last week he said in a quote, we want the 250 square meters there as a reference standard not as an obligatory standard that has to be applied in all instances. I was very much aware of what you said earlier on and I heard what you said earlier but with the comments from Mr Welsh last week we just suggest that that's actually a fair option that he's trying to put forward in terms of an actual size for an allotment. Minister? Yes, it gave the reasons why we didn't want to immediately legislate for the size of an allotment because it would be inflexible but we will produce guidance and that guidance will state what we suggest a good size of allotments and that be provided for within legislation but I say again that the bill includes provision of Scottish ministers to prescribe the size of an allotment should the need arise in the future so if the scenario that Ann McTaggart was talking about the local authorities race to give folk tiny sites to meet their needs then we have provision to legislate if that's required. Hopefully that wouldn't be required and we would produce guidance along the lines of your question Mr McMillan but also have that flexible approach so hopefully we meet everyone's needs in the balanced way that you suggest. Stuart? But if that particular action had to be taken in terms of prescribing the size at some point further down the line could that not be stopped now in terms of having a defined size in the face of the bill so that we could certainly save on time and save on public resource further down the line? Minister? No because to then change if we sought to change that for whatever reason to produce a bill dedicated to the size of an allotment I think would incur the wrath of the population of Scotland that might wonder why we can be a bit more adept and flexible as a Parliament. I say that of course knowing that you're sitting beside the member in charge of the high hedges bill. I'm not saying that these are not important matters but if we're not flexible if we don't take account of local need and local geography then I think we're taking a far too centralist approach on this subject so we provide the guidance expect people to apply. We have the provision if it's required and we can make change through regulation which is far swifter way to affect change if it's required than through primary legislation for the size of an allotment it seems utterly disproportionate so the provision is there if it's required. Other committees might accuse me of being a centralising minister but I'm actually trying to allow for local flexibility here but reserving the right to prescribe the size of allotment if we're required so to do. Another question on part 3 is on the participation requests and part 5 the asset transfer requests. We've heard in evidence certainly from representatives from Dundee when they suggested that having a named officer from that local authority was actually very beneficial for them and actually trying to go through to do the work that they wanted to do and I'm just keen to find out certainly the Government's opinion on this and whether the Government actually supports having a named officer in public bodies to actually support groups wishing to make requests under part 3 and part 5. It's really a matter for local authorities to consider how they conduct it. It might be helpful, it might be as a procedural function or for purposes of contact be more helpful but we want to make sure that there's a shared understanding of community participation so having clarity on who community groups go to is a good thing but we're not passing all the responsibility for community engagement or participation within a full public authority to one named person. You might have one named person, it might be good practice for that person to be a coordinator, share information but that's a matter for that authority. As long as there's a clear channel of who you go to and how you get information, how you initiate it all, that's fine, we won't specify that there shall be, there must be a named officer. I remember in the exploratory consultation some people were concerned although it might give some clarity but then it might just shift responsibility from every other officer, every other person, every other official to that one named person. So, if you take liaison of community councils, it's good that community councils have, normally a council has a community council liaison officer but that person is not the only person responsible for engaging with community councils, it has to be much wider. So, it's good practice but we see no need to legislate for it because it diminishes responsibility into that one person where it should be a responsibility of the whole organisation to think about community participation, hopefully that answers your question. It's on the delegated powers memorandum report, that should be where I sit in that committee as well minister. It was an issue regarding section 10 from that particular report and just in terms of just to find out how the how yourself as minister would propose to address any of the concerns raised by the delegated powers and law reform committee that no specification has been provided by why the power in section 10 has been taken nor the circumstances in which it could be exercised. Minister? Don't concern yourself with asking me unspecific questions. It's my understanding that ministers have agreed general power to issue guidance which doesn't have to be covered in the delegated powers memorandum and the committee's concern was that community partnerships must comply with the guidance rather than have regard to it but there would be no parliamentary scrutiny of this binding requirement so the committee's proposal concerns would not apply if CPPs only had to have regard to the guidance and we're happy to make that change. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you minister. If I could move on, you said a minute ago in terms of named officers you didn't think there was a need to legislate. One of the things which there has been some discussion about is a definition of common good and there has been debate within the committee about how you could define common good. Can I ask you minister why it is that the Government has chosen not to include a definition of common good in the bill? Because there's really an understanding of what it is at the moment, if people are carrying out their duties with the SIPFA guidance in mind then they should all really have that understanding of what common good is. There's a range of definitions and legislative provision that's come up in the past because they're very historic but if we were to create new legislation, new legislation to define it would invariably miss a bit and that is an unintended consequence of writing new legislation for something that's quite historic. Because there's an understanding of what it is at the moment, I don't feel the need to provide a new provision. Is there a possibility that if there was a definition on the face of the bill that you could lead to circumstances where rather than empowering communities you'd be disempowering them because of that definition? Essentially yes because they'd be lost. People would interpret the new definition and trying to reassess what was common good and we could lose common good assets that people have understood to be common good. It's a legal minefield and I don't think it's one that would enable and empower communities. I think it would be a feast for lawyers frankly and I don't see the need to do that. That said, I'm well aware of the committee's concerns around previous common good battles and how some have to be progressed through the court but that would impede the progress of this bill if we were to have that. A feast for lawyers is I'm sure something that we don't want to see. Does the same reasons apply for not defining alienable and non-alienable common good and notice that I changed the last one because it nobody can say the way it's normally defined? Essentially yes because of how the common goods have been constructed over the years. Some are centuries old, some are the construct of the changes to local authority structures so it would be so complex and bureaucratic and I don't think there's a proportionate benefit from doing it. That said again the land reform review group has covered some of these issues so it may well be picked up in a future bill but I don't believe it's necessary for the community empowerment bill. I was very interested in your response earlier on about the common good registers and I think that the experience of many of us around the table who have been in local government and what we have had in evidence is that there seems to be this need to go back sometimes through centuries of paperwork to ensure that something belongs to the local authority. Some of us could possibly argue that it should go on the register until somebody else challenges it being on the register. Do you think that common sense needs to come into play in the construct of common good registers and beyond that do you think that Audit Scotland and its evidence have a light touch on that issue? Do you think that it would be helpful if they looked at this a little bit more than they currently are? I think that that's a very helpful reflection because common sense is applied. Bear in mind that not all common good assets is actually land. Some of it might be artefacts, some of it might be investments or resource so that you won't have a title for everything. The register is a collection of what we believe to be common good, to be a promise chain, for example, from a former borough. Wouldn't it be good practice if in that register, which we say is constructed in consultation with communities and communities are involved as to how they are used or disposed of? It doesn't do any harm if there is doubt over an asset to put it on such a register, because all it means is that for those items there will be greater community engagement and participation over the disposal of assets. It's not as if I'm requiring all common good assets to be somehow registered with the keeper or the land registry of Scotland. It's a register that people can understand in a user-friendly way, and that then triggers their involvement when decisions are taken about our disposal. What you've suggested is common sense and should be applied. There has been suggestion from some witnesses that there should be a national register. Do you think that that in itself may cause difficulty if that were to come into play, because it may give opportunity for some of these folks who in the past have tried to gain title to land and make their job easier? Do you think that a national common good register would be workable? Not particularly. I suppose that you could produce a live update of the 32 councils registers, but I don't see what purpose it would serve when this is about local empowerment and participation, so I don't see how it helps us with the national picture. What we know is the value of the assets and investments, as reported by local authorities, but I don't think that a national register would help. When you understand that some of the common good assets are important, as they are to local communities, might be paintings or artefacts or provis chains, some of its investments, which will change daily the value of those investments, and some of it, of course, is land. They're all different to each local community, some within local authorities particularly. The accountancy in the legal world would have as wind-up common good funds and put them into mainstream budgets for local authorities to distribute as they see fit. It's been this Government's position to protect the common good portfolio in that it reflects the inherent success of a local community, so we propose not to wind them up and put them in with general funding. Finally, on this particular subject, minister, in terms of the asset transfer provisions in part 5 of the bill, how do you see them operating if the land is deemed to be common good or building for that matter? I think that there are specific provisions and this is where you're inalienable. Non-alienable. Non-alienable provision comes into play, so if it is inalienable, let's go for that, that would be a restriction on the local authority's ability to transfer the asset in the same way as any other condition or burden in the title deed. The local authority could seek court approval for disposal in the usual way, however that's because it's a common good land asset. I don't think that depending on the use of some common good land, there is actually a problem with how they can be used. There would be no restriction on a community body using, managing or leasing the asset. It's transfer, ownership, disposal that's the issue there. As long as it fits with the use for which the property was acquired. Good morning once again. I should have made a declaration earlier, convener, that I'm the chair of a community organisation currently going through negotiations with the local authority regarding community asset transfer. It is the issues around that that I want to bring. Stuart McMillan raised the question about the named person. The minister will be aware that, in some of the evidence that this committee has heard from community organisations, they have claimed to have been sent round the council departments trying to pin down the responsible council officers that can actually deal with and give an answer to questions that they may have regarding community asset transfer. While minister you stated earlier, you were in favour of having a named person. Would the minister be mindful to review the position if we found that many community organisations were being, what they would effectively say, being blocked from making a community asset transfer application because they could not identify or the council were not prepared to identify the relevant officers to deal with those community asset transfer requests? Minister? We think if there's legal provision and a presumption in favour of both a participation request or an asset transfer, that procedures should be in place that take account of that legal provision. In the same way, as was mentioned earlier, on freedom of information, there is responsibility for it to be processed. The legal parameters and requirements should encourage authorities to have a good process in place, because if they don't, I suspect that the Scottish Public Services ombasman would have something to say about it if a request was not handled competently and effectively. That takes us back to the timing question that, if an authority messed around with a bid or a request, then the clock is ticking for them and I think they would be at greater risk of not being seen to be handling a request competently if they didn't even get the right person involved. I don't want to be too specific to answer Mr Wilson's question about how local authorities should conduct themselves. Again, I say local authorities, but it will be all parts of the public sector how they should conduct themselves specifically, but they will have to evidence how they've seriously considered any bid and in doing so should do it timuously and effectively. There will be a burden upon them to show if they're refusing on what grounds they're refusing. Leaving that to the last minute would seem careless on their part, so I think it would risk challenge if they didn't carry out the process properly. Minister, thank you for that response and I'm glad that you put on the record the legal requirement of local authorities to engage actively with communities regarding this issue. The other question is that it goes back to something similar to the convener's question about the asset transfer, the value of either the land or the property that is being transferred. At the present moment, I know from discussions with other community organisations that some local authorities are putting a market value on the land or the property that is to be transferred, which can be a disincentive for some community organisations, particularly when they are looking at the issue of drawing down funding from other organisations such as the big lottery to carry out major improvement works or to carry out building works on the land being transferred. What advice would the minister care to give local authorities where requests are made by community organisations to look at asset transfer at either zero value or low-cost value in relation to taking on those assets? Just to make a point on the previous question about the named officer, it's an important point of emphasis. Before the ombassment or the courts would not have had any legislation to point to other than good or bad practice to say that they did not handle that bid for an asset transfer competently, whereas with the presumption in all the legislation in here, the courts and the ombassment will be able to point to what councils should have done. I think that that is a game changer in terms of where community rights are in this. In terms of the value of asset transfer requests, local authorities can already transfer assets without realising the full commercial value, and they have been able to do that for some time. That has already been within their provisions. It is wrong to do it in a transparent way, but I reflected that the Scottish Government couldn't do that because the Scottish Public Finance Manual had no mention. In fact, I think it expected market value to be realised in advance of this legislation. I have already changed that so that right now it is a consideration that if there is an asset transfer to a local community that the wider social benefit can be considered, not just realising commercial value. That is a change that has already happened. It didn't require the law, it required a change to our accountancy practice, which we have done. That now extends to Government. The bill will raise expectations and deliver the kind of culture change that is required. It will be for each legitimate local body to determine what level of transfer or contribution is proportionate and relevant, but it could be zero if the public benefit is such that it justifies that the local authority might not want any transfer or any cash value for transferring the property. Some groups may choose leasing or use of rental rather than ownership, but we are not specific that it should be a zero-sum game, but we keep that flexibility locally. I think that the council would have to show a reasonableness around that. If the answer is no or a refusal or it is challenged, then that can go to appeal at the local level. To be clear, local authorities right now do not have to realise the commercial value and valuation of a property and that will be made very clear in the guidance that comes from this bill, but that is already the case and they should know that. I will focus on outcomes and a couple of questions on outcomes. First, the duty of Scottish ministers to develop, consult on and publish the city national outcomes for Scotland. One of my questions would be what currency, what value do those outcomes have and where do they sit alongside national organisations working to set national targets? For example, it is often said within community planning partnerships that the NHS is working to set targets and some of those targets can conflict with the outcomes that are trying to be achieved through the community planning partnership. Is there going to be a joining up there and is the national outcomes going to supersede targets or do organisations still have that conflicting competing interest? We should all be operating as Team Scotland at a national level and the national outcomes, the 16 of them, feed into the local outcomes through the single outcome agreement. There should already be an alignment. What that will do is put it on a statutory footing. It is recognised internationally as good practice and how the Government conducts its business in aligning the Government's agencies and departments towards these national outcomes, towards our purpose, and that does work all the way through in partnership to community planning partnerships. There are indicators beneath each of the national outcomes, but the national outcomes are difficult to argue with, but they give you some clarity as to what you are trying to achieve as a Government. However, I would expect even closer alignment because it is on a statutory footing and agencies that are aware of it at the moment will be even more aware of it as it is placed in legislation in terms of the duty on ministers. I think that heat targets is the one that is commonly referred to by people in NHS where they have said that they have attended meetings with themselves and the finance secretary have been present in NHS chairs. I have raised the fact that there is sometimes a conflict between the different targets that they are trying to meet and the set outcomes that are agreed by NHS, but perhaps the minister can therefore explain his thinking about more in terms of those national outcomes coming into community planning partnership outcomes and how that relates if communities have to have a more proactive role in how services are planned and delivered. I think that the convener has given an example where we have been taking evidence from his own constituency where a local community were arguing that one of the key priorities for them was mental health. They were being told that one of the key priorities of the partnership because it was within their health and wellbeing outcomes was smoking cessation and they seemed to conflict a bit. How do those things operate in a joined-up way so that we have joined up government and joined up services and that then filters through into community planning and somehow filters up through the communities and the views and communities of what their priorities are? I should clarify, it was not in my constituency, it was in my previous council ward and it was before the days of the integrations that we are now going through. Sorry, I had to clarify that minister. Well certainly most of the community empowerment bill is about people empowerment and that preventative approach, but another pillar of public service reform is integration of course. At the national level, the outcomes are straightforward things that we can all agree on and they are not in conflict at all with the accountability of local community plan partnerships or departments and agencies within. For example, national outcome, our children have the best start in life and are ready to succeed. If we take health, as Alec Rowley has done, we'll have longer healthier lives. Well the next one we've tackled is significant inequalities in Scottish society, so I could go on, but they're all I think quite clear national outcomes and public bodies should align themselves to support those national outcomes. Certainly Cabinet does, ministers do, departments do and local community plan partnerships have the range of indicators and the menu of options, what's most appropriate at the local level. Now to touch on the critical issue that you have done, the health service, yes, are very driven with heat targets, very specific health targets of course. Local authorities are driven sometimes by other targets, statutory targets and increasingly their own benchmarking, but they all have that sense of responsibility to their own organisations, but community plan partnership level, they should be sharing the responsibility and accountability for each other's actions at meeting the plan for place in a single outcome agreement, because you can't resolve most of these outcomes nationally or locally in isolation. Children won't have healthier lives if public bodies aren't working together, so the targets all matter, because we're accountable as the Government, as MSPs for meeting those targets in the way that councils are accountable for meeting their local obligations as well, but the bill and the legislation and its nature expects public sector partners to work together to focus on outcomes as delivered by the process, but there will still be room for that localism, but it's about sharing the goals and the targets, having a greater sense of shared responsibility, because that's what the Accounts Commission has identified. It won't be too departmentalised, but think more as a partnership on how you provide local services, sometimes far too often. You gave some examples, great partnership projects have happened in spite of community plan partnership boards, rather than because of them, so they've got to create the right culture of partnership, mindful of their own targets, because I'm sure that if we abandoned heat targets for indeed input measures, the Labour Party would be first to criticise us for doing so, so we have to keep targets in place, but they're not in conflict with each other, because working in partnership to focus on the outcomes and increasingly as a Parliament, we have to move away from outputs to focus on outcomes, and this process is recognised as world leading practice in that respect. I suppose, Minister, that it's trying to, and I'm not saying there's easy answers to this, it's trying to get to a point where there's a tangible outcome that you can measure and say, yeah, that made a difference as a result in these organisations coming together and planning. You referred earlier to the Christie commission, but the Christie commission was very clear, we couldn't go the way we were going, we needed to see much more preventative work actually happening, and if you take something like children that you mentioned earlier, the number of children that are being taken into care, or the care of local authorities across Scotland that is continuing to rise, despite possibly community planning partnerships having had that outcome and it being a strategic outcome, at what point does this actually become real for people, real for communities and measurable, so that you're actually saying that's what that means, that's what community planning partners are signing up for, that's the role of the third sector, it's the role, it's where our funding is being driven, at what point is that happening, or are we just simply talking at high level in the reality on the ground and the two never meet? I think it's something that's very difficult, and I think you helpfully identify this, it's very difficult to legislate for, thou shall work in partnership to focus on outcomes, I think is already there and it's certainly been strengthened on this because local community plan partnerships have to be consistent with the national outcomes, but there's flexibility as to how it's done locally, so I think the analysis is right that we need to take more of that preventative approach, but it can be done, I don't think through legislation unless we're amending structures, for example health and social care, but the best interventions are coming from projects and partnerships and joint working, if you take something like a positive parenting programme or partnership nurseries, they're largely delivered in partnership between health and local authorities, not one part of the public sector, but a partnership, aligning resources, sharing good practice, co-locating, and that's something that we shouldn't have to legislate for, that should be happening through the statement of ambition, through the preventative approach, through the general approach to public service reform. The change funds, over half a billion pounds, were intended to achieve some of that transformational change, health and social care integration should achieve more of that, so that's about doing what we can within our existing resources, I don't think that we need a further legislative basis to achieve that, it is about leadership and practice on the ground. I wouldn't disagree with you about the legislation, that's why I think we've got to be careful about claims of what this bill can actually achieve and there's something more fundamental if we're going to tackle some of these national outcomes that are out there, but I'm going to focus on another example, on the role of Scottish Enterprise, because Scottish Enterprise did come and give evidence to the committee and they did talk about their role as a community planning partner, but they will have national outcomes, I assume, in terms of the very focused on inward investment, they're very focused on large companies and jobs that come from there, but actually a local community planning level, there are two key issues, there is the issue targeting and supporting the growth of SMEs because that's where the real job creation at the local level will actually come from and secondly it's about people being able to have the skills at the local level, it's about holding to account the education authority, the colleges and working together and therefore at that local level I would argue that Scottish Enterprise's input into a local community planning partnership is fairly limited and actually what we need is local employers engaged and actually playing a more leading role. At one of the sessions that you attended with COSLA, one of the criticisms to the third sector was that they felt that the community planning partnerships were dominated by the local authorities and the health authorities, what was their role, but I would argue what was the role for business and industry at a local level as well and should we look again at that and look at what can immeasurable outcomes have put in place and who's in charge of actually driving that agenda? Mr Rowley will be aware that if you take local economic development that is the responsibility of local councils, that function was transferred post 2007 post concordat and from that business gateway provides some of that interface and the smaller and the new business startups and so on, but that said as I mentioned earlier Scottish Enterprise would still have a role to play in bringing their expertise to the table. They've got a very clear remit and they're actually very good at their remit and I would argue being able to bring in hundreds of jobs to a specific site or sustaining jobs or expanding jobs on scale is equally important to a local community than the small and the medium size enterprises, so it's all about balance. I think that there is something about greater engagement of the private sector, be it chambers of commerce or key local employers in understanding what a community plan partnership is doing because it will then connect to the employment agenda preparing young folk for vocational opportunities and understanding the nature of a local population as well, so there's some benefit of that. We might create a new bureaucracy, but there is a greater role for the private sector to be party to community plan partnerships, but their first engagement has to be with the community to establish what they want, so don't disagree that we have to make the right connections with the business and industrial world to make sure that our young people have skills and opportunities for the future. Equally someone from Scottish Enterprise might sit at a board meeting on a community plan partnership and listen for hours about inequality and health inequality and deprivation and housing and might think, why does that matter to me or Scottish Enterprise? They'll understand the local workforce and some of the challenges that it's faced and some of the difficulties through geographic inequality and deprivation as well, and then in partnership they can work out how they support that and produce strategies going forward, so I don't object to greater private sector exposure to community planning because it's not just a seat at the table, it has to go much wider and deeper than that. Thank you, Cameron Buchanan, please. Thank you very much, convener. Can I go back to this common good land and the minefield that we've got in it here, and any common good? Is it such a minefield? Would you not consider leaving it out of the bill since we haven't got any definition? I could do for an easy life, Mr Buchanan, but I'm proposing to have it in because in all of our work and in the exploratory work, people wanted a greater say over how resources, their taxes and their resources are spent and used in their local area, and even more so with common goods because much of the population at a local level understands that there's a common good in existence and that's for the benefits of the inhabitants of that area. There was criticism, there's not enough engagement, not enough understanding, not enough transparency and not enough community involvement in all of that, and I think that the bill will address that with participation and transparency, the registered involvement. I'm not trying to undo hundreds of years' worth of legislation and accumulation of common good disputes, but as a principle, we want greater involvement with local communities as to how their common good is used or recorded, and that's been welcomed. It can't be defined, that's the problem, surely. It cannot be defined, therefore it's going to be very loose. Are we not just going to hang up on this bit of common good land rather than the rest of the bill? That's what I'm concerned about. No, because my time's only been consumed in terms of common good with one act through Parliament, and that was Portobeil a high school and a very specific request from the council through a private bill to be able to use that land for a different function. Other than that, I have to say it doesn't dominate my mailbag or inbox as it is in modern times, of course. It's not absorbing my time, but if we try to define it, my fear is that we'll leave something out and that will disempower the community rather than empower them by an admission. I don't see the urgent need to define it, but I do see a need to give communities greater involvement with what our understanding is right now. Because SIPFA, the accountants within local authorities, already know largely what common good assets there are, all we're asking is that it's put on a register so that the public can understand what it is, and they then have involvement as to how it's used. That is not a huge new burden. That includes movable assets as well, like pictures and things like that, did you say? Yes, and I don't think that you can exclude elements. There should be an inventory of those things. There probably is in most cases, but in some cases, it won't necessarily be. I was just trying to clarify that. Thank you. Thanks, convener. To share with the minister on one of our fact-finding visits, I had met a plot holder who is a single parent and told us, my allotment is my garden, my kitchen, my dining room, my gym and my social worker. Can the minister, which was all very good and enriching, and it just shows what the allotment community, how it supports itself and the impact that it has on the lives of people involved in it? Can the minister answer how the provisions of the bill will further highlight the help with those with mental and physical disabilities, what help they will receive to run an allotment plot? I don't think that the bill would say anything specific about that. Anne McTaggart has identified some of the benefits of having an allotment and participating in that healthy lifestyle. I think that many of us could enjoy that. However, I am proposing to insert an amendment that talks a bit more about inequalities, because I think that that is necessary, so that when people are weighing up decisions around asset transfers and so on, they think about inequalities. That may well be something in terms of allotments that local authorities want to consider more fully. The benefits are well understood, and those who could benefit most may pursue allotments, but I will not put anything specific within the bill about who benefits and being corrected. If Dr Fox, the other two are silent. The provisions in the bill as drafted only apply to physical disability. We have had ongoing discussions with stakeholders since the bill has been drafted, and we recognise that that needs to be extended. We are suggesting that, at stage 2, an amendment will be included to broaden the definition in relation to disability. Minister, within the bill, there is talk of annual reports on local outcome improvement plans. Can you give us an idea of how important those annual reports will be, and how will they encapsulate within them the involvement that there has been with communities and the CPPs? Clearly, the improvement plans will identify what needs to be done and how it will be done, particularly in partnership. With the extended, expanded duties to consult with people, then you would expect local communities to be involved. The plan for place is really important. I said that I want to strengthen accountability in community plan partnerships, so I think that that will need to make reference to the national standards on engagement, which are already in place and not everyone keeps to them. I think that that legislative provision that I should be able to bring forward at stage 2 will sharpen that and refine that. Of course, we would expect people to take the local improvement plans seriously. There is the proportionate inspection and auditing of community plan partnerships and local authorities through the quality assurance programme that we have undertaken. On auditing, we have heard from the Accounts Commission and the Auditor General on various points. How can the Government and Parliament hold CPPs to account for the delivery of their local outcomes? We look at the national picture and clearly you will see reports. As I will, Government's role will have a location director and every community plan partnership will see the indicators. I am not sure that the committee and the Parliament should have a specific role in probing individual community plan partnerships, because it feels slightly centralist picking on community plan partnerships. We should understand the national strategy, the national themes, the legislative framework and, of course, you absolutely hold the Government to account on our performance as well as ministers and collectively local authorities. I think that what more energy has to be spent on is how local communities hold their community plan partnerships to account. That is a fair criticism as to how we do that. We cannot just wait for the rolling nature of the audit agencies to reach a community plan partnership. I think that that has to be something more specific to local communities holding them to account, rather than us and Edinburgh holding each 32 community plan partnerships to account. It does not feel proportionate. How will we know better what is right for a local community than that local community? That is who needs empowered, not necessarily Parliament, although I am sure that we will execute our national duties adequately. I look forward to your recommendations if you think that there is a further process that should be considered. Indeed. In terms of all of this together, consultation with communities being the key. They are involved at various levels in their own communities. They will be involved in terms of the local outcome improvement plans. How do communities deal with the national outcomes? Will communities be consulted with on the formulation of national outcomes? Yes. It would be a expectation to consult widely to publish and review those set of outcomes. It is about the people of Scotland. Of course, we should engage with the people of Scotland, but I would not want to specify how that should be done in primary legislation, but it absolutely should be done. Finally, as we have been out and about, often we hear a lot of the negative stories, the things that are not working out there, but there is also a huge amount of positives. I know that it is very difficult to legislate to ensure that common sense goes across the board. However, how do we ensure that best practice is exported throughout the country? I am loath to say a website, convener, because we tried that. It did not particularly work, but new social media is showcasing great community projects and great third sector projects. We will work closely with What Works Scotland, which is a particular piece of research and an exercise into what is working well in community plan partnerships. That is a quite specific piece of work. We will work closely with the national community plan group and third sector organisations nationally and locally to showcase what can work. However, the best projects speak for themselves, whether they are transformative or life changing. We can replicate much of the projects around the country. It will be worth looking at those projects that have received funding. I have mentioned the funds that we are expanding. I hope that that will have a domino effect on others, whether it is land acquisition or transfer of assets, as to how it can make a difference to local communities and be very empowering. However, we do have to notwithstanding some criticism, raise expectations of the bill so that people take advantage of it when it is commenced.