 Good morning and welcome to the ninth meeting of the committee in 2015. If you wish to use tablets or mobile phones during the meeting, please switch to the flight mode as they may affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting. This is because we provide meeting papers in digital format. We have received apologies today from Cara Hilton. I welcome Margaret McCulloch to the meeting, who is substituting for Cara this morning. You are welcome, Margaret. If we can move on to our first item of business, which is our consideration of the community empowerment bill at stage 2, and this is day 2 of those proceedings, I welcome back to Marco Biagio, Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment. I also welcome Tavish Scott to the meeting. Later in proceedings we will also be joined by Michael Russell, who is currently debating amendments with our colleagues in the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the latest marshaled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in each group to speak to and move their amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged the amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way. If he has not already spoken in the group, I will invite the minister to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding up speech. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press their amendment to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question in that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee's agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee must immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when I call it, they should say not moved. Please remember that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no member moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members or their official substitutes are allowed to vote at stage 2. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question in each section at that appropriate point. If I can call amendment 1091, in the name of Tavish Scott, grouped with the other amendments that are shown on the groupings paper, Mr Scott. Thank you very much, convener, and I am always very envious of conveners to have to read out that great list of instructions that we all must follow having done this a number of times through the course of parliamentary sessions. The reason for these amendments, convener, is to introduce a power of general competence for local authorities, putting beyond doubt that they may do anything that is not expressly prohibited by law. Some of us who have been in this place for some time would reflect on the introduction in previous legislation of a power of wellbeing. I would be the first to recollect the parliamentary processes of that particular clause, but also the thinking behind it. While it has undoubtedly been of some assistance to local government across Scotland, I am sure that colleagues will be aware of examples of where it has been used, there is no question that it has some downsides. I would have to admit, convener, that some of those downsides were pointed out by the official opposition when I was part of administration to introduce that at the time. I would want to reflect that and accept that some of those arguments made at that time by colleagues on the SNP benches were entirely fair and entirely reasonable. One of the arguments that they made is that wellbeing is currently stated in legislation is ambiguous and, in practical terms, its restrictions or understandable concerns about its restrictions means that local authorities may not be doing all that they might wish to in serving people and communities to their best of their ability. Before the introduction of a power of general competence in England and Wales, for example, 10 London councils were legally blocked from forming a mutual insurance firm service. I am sure that most colleagues would consider it to be beneficial to people in that particular part of the country. That was to my mind a setback that deterred others from an innovative use of the power of wellbeing. What I am seeking to do today is to introduce that power into what I think is a good bill and what I think the minister should take credit for is a lot of progressive and sensible ideas, but I think that we can strengthen this particular aspect of it in terms of local government. What I have sought to do in framing this amendment is to make sure that it gives councils the capacity to do anything that an individual can do. Thus it would not enable a local authority to introduce a new tax, which I am sure would be of some relief to the finance secretary and to the spending departments of government, as individuals are not able to do that either. Nor would those amendments, as the UK Department of Communities and Local Government put it, in their impact assessment of similar proposals south of the border, enable local councillors to wage theonuclear war due to existing legislation. I was a bit taken aback by that, but apparently that was what they unbelievably argued. Now I never would have a sensible minister like Mr Bajor use such extraordinary measures to knock down an amendment, but there we have it in another place. That is what happened. In the last few months, convener, we have seen some very significant advances towards more powers from this Parliament. Indeed, another committee that I sit on is dealing with that tomorrow. Devolution, I would argue, should not just stop in this building, but rather we should make sure that local government and those who serve communities representing all political parties and none have the ability to use the power of general competence in the most sensible and constructive way for the people that they serve. In that spirit, I wish to move 1091 and all the other amendments in this group. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? No. In which case, minister, please. Thank you, convener. Those amendments, as has been said, seek to import into Scotland the English Localism Act 2011, essentially provisions that are pretty much a copy of those provisions that were introduced by the current UK Government into the United Kingdom Parliament and were debated there, scrutinised there, and used that to replace part of the local government in Scotland Act 2003, which has been through, as was alluded to, an extensive process of consultation and deliberation and scrutiny in this place. The concern that we have is that the power to advance wellbeing that was set out already gives Scottish councils a very, very similar wide-ranging power of last resort, enabling them to do anything that they consider is likely to promote or improve the wellbeing of their area and the people in it. That was intended to do what the power of general competence, not introduced in England until 2011, was intended to do. It was also intended to signal our trust in local accountability. At the chamber debate from October 2002, the power encapsulates the principle of subsidiarity, as it allows local government to take responsibilities that it should have and allows the Parliament to extend the devolution process beyond this chamber and ensure that that process continues down or up, depending on one's perspective, to local government. The Parliament should applaud that important principle, and it is fair to say that there were criticisms that came from the other side. We are not in a complete political change-a-rou situation, but those criticisms at the time about exemplification understanding—a lot of that has been dealt with subsequently through statutory guidance or has been certainly dealt with through dialogue—there is a purpose intent to leaving wellbeing undefined in the 2003 act so as not to constrain local government and to ensure that local government can take a broad interpretation of actions that could improve wellbeing. In that respect, it is much broader than the provisions that the English Localism Act 2011 replaced. The previous wellbeing power south of the border was restricted to economic, social and environmental wellbeing, and that might have led to some of the restrictions such as the ones that were set out in London. Our power is already far beyond the power that was in place in England. I wonder how he feels that that power of wellbeing has operated in local government. Perhaps one of the concerns is that, because it is not well defined, it is often the case that the lawyers in local government are the advice that they are giving councillors is that because there is not a clear definition, they are very tame in terms of what they want to do. Far be it from me to alienate those to my left and right, but there is always a debate to be had between elected members and officers of anybody as to how far you can stretch interpretations of statute. Certainly the provisions that are set out here are also quite—it does not exemplify what could be done but merely creates a general competence there. The issue here is not just that the English Localism Act 2011 that went through the UK Parliament was trying to come from behind, if you like, where the previous wellbeing power that had south of the border was less extensive than the Scottish one. It is also that the Westminster Parliament, in conferring any powers on local government, will automatically be able to confer a broader range of powers than this Parliament can, because we can only confer broader competence in areas that are under the Scotland Act. I am aware that one of the tensions that has recently been expressed over the power to advance wellbeing was over social security in the bedroom tax, but this Parliament can no more confer through a general power of competence a clear position on what local authorities can do to ameliorate social security issue than we could through power to advance wellbeing. We cannot give local authorities power over things that we do not have power over. The same is the truth for Westminster, but Westminster ultimately has power over pretty much everything under parliamentary sovereignty. Is there something that the Government may look at again as more powers come through via Smith or whatever we end up getting here? It would be very reasonable to look at that once we know exactly what powers we may be able to confer on local government and indeed what powers would be captured within general competence. It would be a question for the lawyers whether an act in 2003 conferring a power to advance wellbeing applied only to the powers that could be conferred then, or whether they apply to what the current powers are at any given moment. I am not sure I know that situation, so we will need to come to this after we have clarity on what powers exactly we can confer and what general competence might actually cover. The amendments also introduce some provisions that would prevent or restrict local authorities from exercising the general power. I recognise that that might be an attempt to try and prevent excesses, but those already are in place under the Scottish ministers powers under the local government Scotland act to modify enactments to remove barriers to the achievement of best value community planning or the power to advance wellbeing. If councils come to us saying that we want to do this, we are not sure if we can do this or even if they come to us saying that we do not think that we can do this, we think that we should be able to do this and we can allow them to do this with the secondary powers, that is a debate that we are very open to having. We have not seen evidence that the power to advance wellbeing is limited, we have not been given examples of things that councils are unable to do under the power and we have asked. It is not clear what additional powers this section would bring and the committee's own report. The issue is that you mentioned that you have not had any approaches regarding the powers that currently exist. Has there not been any approaches by COSLA or any local authorities? I am saying that we have not been given examples of things that they cannot do under the power. There is the example out there where there have been question marks over, for example the bedroom tax, but that is a separate issue because we could not be giving that power anyway, we do not have the ability to give local authorities power over social security. In conversations, we have tried to explore things such as city deal and so on. There are just not concrete examples of things that we could give that we have not given. If there is an understanding gap there, there are other ways to address an understanding gap. As I was just saying, the committee looked at the legislative issues to local authorities in the inquiry into flexibility and autonomy of local government and did not report that there were substantial barriers here legislatively. Finally, there has not been a consultation on those amendments. That is something that has been consulted on, scrutinised, deliberated somewhere else, another Parliament and has been basically copied for those amendments to be introduced into our legislation at stage 2 in a process on a bill that was largely about other things. We would need to hear from those who would use the powers. We would need to have formal processes. Fundamentally, it is a very dangerous precedent to set to do that kind of direct importing. There is a message from COSLA that was given about that where they did say that they thought that it was a good thing. They said to quote their first sentence that they welcomed the amendment, but then they go on for two paragraphs providing caveats and ultimately COSLA is of the view that it would be simpler and preferable to further the power of local government through the bill by using this opportunity to embed the European Charter on local self-governance in the act, an alternative route that has been discussed and debated and considered and which may well be the appropriate focus for debate and amendment in this area. Having made its points, having quite a degree of commonality about what we want local authorities to be able to do to withdraw as amendments, and I would hope that the committee would respect their own position and their own right to scrutinise extensively any changes to local government would reject this if it came to it so that we could have the full process and the full process of examination here in the Scottish Parliament rather than simply importing an act of the UK Government. Mr Scott, can I invite you to wind up and to press your withdrawal? Thank you very much, convener. I think that a lot of the minister's remarks are fair. I think that some of his observations are less so. Let me just deal with some of the points in reverse. First, on COSLA, if it is the case that the Government believes that the minister is quite right in terms of COSLA's assessment of the proposals, the Government's view is that the bill could embed the European charge on local self-governments, then it could do that. If the objection of the Government to this proposal is in principle, then I can understand that. If it is the detail of it, the principle of these things is dealt with at stage 2 and the detail can be tidied up at stage 3. His Government, indeed, I was part of, did that regularly. That is a pretty accepted part of the conventions of this place. Whether it is the right convention is neither here nor there, we do not have a revising chamber, so it is the way we have to do our business. I was not quite sure whether he was in fairness objecting to the proposition in principle or whether it is more the practicalities of it. If it was the practicalities of it, I completely accept that some of these measures may need to be tidied up and that could be done by the Government if they so wished at stage 3. He will have much more advice than I possibly could have in terms of that. For clarity, I think that that requires potentially more of a tidying up exercise. That would need a stage 1 call for evidence as a power of general competence and an appropriate replacement for power to advance wellbeing and the full process right through of the Parliament, because that could potentially end up being a major change. It might not be a major change, but we need to consult and have the full process to involve that. We simply would not have time between now and stage 3 to consult everybody that would be required in the ways that we would hope to do. Thank you, convener. That may or may not be a reasonable point, except that this Government has a bit of a track record introducing pretty far-reaching changes to legislation at very late stages in bills without consultation. Indeed, I think that the minister would have to accept that it is one of the measures that the Rural Affairs Committee is dealing with today has not had a heck of a lot of scrutiny in that context. I think that argument can, if I may say so, cut both ways. I was not terribly worried about the whole perspective of what happened south of the border. The minister is quite right in terms of finding wording that I have put in front of Parliament today in terms of how to give effect to my desire to see a power of general competence. However, if you want to play the game about what is happening south of the border, the truth is that what is being considered in some significant effect south of the border—for example, in the Greater Manchester and Metropolitan Manchester area—is a very far-reaching transfer of powers to local government, which is not happening in Scotland. I welcome that. I think that there are very exciting things happening for local government, in particular parts of England. I wish that we were as brave as that north of the border. I would like to see a lot of that happening here as well. I would countenance against running down what may be happening south of the border when there are genuinely, for those of us who very strongly believe in local government, some very positive things being now considered in different parts of England. Final couple of points are my purpose is not, convener, to say what local government should do. That is not where philosophically I come from in politics. I do not believe in top-down government. I actually do believe in the principle—and I was quite right to read out my words from some years back. I do believe in giving the space and freedom within, of course, the confines of law and the exercise of power and law for local government to look at how best to serve its people in different ways. I cannot resist. Is it not the case that in opposition politicians want to give loge power to local government, but in power, as has been demonstrated? I, Mr Rowley, make an eminently fair point. I would be the first to accept it. I do not suppose that I was the perfect—I will not even go that far. I know that I was not the perfect minister when I did some of the responsibilities that Mr Vagio now has, so I do accept that point. However, that does not alter the fundamental, which is that I am not seeking to prescribe what local government should do. I would rather allow that to develop and evolve in our 32 local authorities across Scotland. If the minister seeks arguments to local government looking for areas that they would wish to develop, I can advise them no further than to look at our islands of our future, where areas of Scotland are looking to enhance their paths. They, for example, would take a lot of what Marine Scotland currently does in a central government sense and do it, I think, far more efficiently and effectively at a local government sense. Of course. That is why we have the Ministerial Islands Areas Working Group, which met just a few weeks ago myself, Derek Mackayd, Minister for Transport and the Islands, and Fergus Ewing in that meeting, the Minister for Energy, Business and Tourism, together with the leaders of the three islands areas councils, and discussed that and agreed a programme of work to take forward. We are open to any specific approach like that, and we have certainly been involved in those city deals that are in place in Scotland as well, so I would characterise our position as being interested in and positive towards facilitating local government to take on more responsibilities. I agree with that, and I welcome that, and I think that that is very positive. I also think that it is entirely consistent with having a power of general competence, and I would like to so move. The question is that amendment 1091 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. In which case we shall go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 1091, please show. And those against amendment 1091, please show. Those in favour of the amendment 2, those against 5, the question is disagreed to. If I can now call amendment 1092, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 1091, Tavish Scott, to move or not move, please. I won't move the rest in a group, given the... I'll have to go through them one by one. I understand, Mr Scott. Are the committee agreed that that be withdrawn? 1092, thank you. I now call 1093, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated. Mr Scott, to move or not move, are the committee content with that? Thank you. I now call amendment 1094, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 1091. Mr Scott? No. Okay. Are the committee content that that's withdrawn? Thank you. I call amendment 1095, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with 1091. Mr Scott? Are the committee content with that? Thank you. I call 1096, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 1091. Not moved. Not moved, are the committee content with that? Yep, thank you. I call amendment 1097, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 1091. Mr Scott? Not moved. Not moved, are the committee content with that? Thank you. I call amendment 1098, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 1091. Not moved. Mr Scott? Not moved, are the committee content with that? Thank you very much indeed. I now move on to amendment 1099, in the name of John Walson, grouped with other amendments shown in the groupings. Can I draw members' attention to the information on preemption shown on the groupings? And can I call John Walson to move amendment 1099 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. The reason for putting forward these amendments is that, at the present moment, the bill, as presented by the Government, I feel is too restrictive in terms of participation requests. Now I understand and I fully agree that there has to be some conditions that apply and I think the Government made a brave attempt at trying to define the types of groups that could make participation requests. However, in recent times I am aware of a number of issues that have arisen where local authorities are making decisions that are putting things out to consultation. Two of the examples that spring to mind are the issues regarding an incinerator or possibly fracking taking place in an area where there may not already be an existing community body in place that cannot, under the bill that it currently stands, make a participation request because it may not be a constituted body, it may not be organised in such a way, and it may be basically very much an ad hoc participation request that comes forward. It is whether or not local authorities and those circumstances, based on the bill as presented, would treat those participation requests in the same way as they would from a community organisation that is constituted and has its membership within a community, because some of those groups that are being established, as I said, are very being established in reaction to decisions that are being made. The difficulty that I have is that, if it is constantly, or the council's position based on—this goes back to Mr Scott's earlier assessment—that no local authorities and those committees discussed it are risk averse, and if they are risk averse, they may say, right, we're just going to go as per the bill. Therefore, any new group that gets established to and makes a participation request regarding, as I said, to use the examples of incinerator or fracking would be denied the opportunity to participate because it did not exist prior to the council making the decision on the issue in hand. Therefore, it is about trying to widen it out to ensure that any community, whether they are constituted or not, have the right to make it or individual have the right to make a participation request. There are a number of amendments, consequential amendments, convener, because of those changes, but I have included that in other sections to make sure that the vexatious nature of any participation request can be dealt with by a local authority. At the present moment, I feel that we are, as a society, very fluid. The decisions that are being made can be made within a matter of months, and for a group to become constituted and recognised by a local authority or other body as being a representative body may debar them from participation requests being made to local authorities. I would move the amendments in my name and all the subsequent amendments. Thank you, Mr Wilson. Any other member who wishes to enter the debate? Thank you, John Wilson, for moving his amendments and explaining the rationale behind it and having a lot of sympathy with where he is. However, I think that, by its nature, the community empowerment aspect of that is that it should be about communities and coming together to work together. I have a concern about the frivolous and vexatious part of it and the way that it is moved at the moment. In my opinion, it gives the local authorities additional power and sole power to deem something frivolous and vexatious, which could be if an authority was a mind to block some of those developments and make it more difficult for communities to actually use the community empowerment bill. Thank you. Anyone else? Will I call for a please? Thank you, convener. Just to ask John to clarify his intention that single persons individuals could use this process and apply it to themselves as individuals, or are you mean groups of constituents? My intention is at the present moment, as it stands, to allow single individuals, because single individuals may be the backbone of any future community organisation that is established. The difficulty is how you define that at the present moment by saying that it has to be a community group. The issue is that if someone identifies an issue and wishes to make an initial request and then form a group after that, that initial request, as it currently stands, would be refused by the local authority, because they are not part of our constitutive group. Single people all over Scotland could use this process to pursue their own personal agenda. I think that that is what Ben John is saying. Alex Rowley, please. I understand completely what John is saying. I have seen those situations in communities in which groups of people may come together and want to organise because of a specific issue that is happening in their community. I suppose that, when the minister discusses this, it might be something that he could touch on as to how that can be addressed, because for local authorities to simply rule that when an interest comes together, I think that it would be wrong. I can see exactly the point that John Wilson makes, and I can see where that would happen. However, the concern that I would like to raise with Mr Wilson is that a number of organisations have suggested to me that there is a danger in that that if commercial organisations, for example, come along and set up through individuals or whatever, where they are not a constitutive group, that is a legitimate concern, whilst I am actually supportive of the principle of that. I wonder what Mr Wilson thinks about that concern. I think that if you could deal with that and hear something about that, John, that would be a good hand. Thank you. I meant to say at the start that I have been going through the amendments for today, and I have been challenged in a lot of ways, but there are suggestions and amendments that have been laid by all members that have laid amendments that I wish to support. I want to put that out there at this stage. That is one of the groups where I think that I understand a lot more your intention from what you have said. The difficulty that I have here is that, on reflection and having thought in particular about what we had discussed last week about the sewing bees and the pensioners' lunches and the ability that they would have to contribute to decision making and outcome improvement plans and so on, that set would also open it up to individuals. Now, the bill was designed to allow participation requests for groups that come together with a common interest and a common purpose, and I think that we are completely agreed on that. The issue here is the constituted nature of them. I do not think that a constitution is a massively onerous burden, but I can recognise that for a lot of groups that would have scope to participate and would be able to participate positively, it may well prove to be quite legalistic, maybe more in understanding than in reality, but that could pose a barrier to the kind of community participation that we would want to see. On that side of what is proposed, I would be very willing to come back at stage 3 with amendments that would be focused on groups that are not formally constituted to create some kind of test that would have to be applied so that, even if they were not formally constituted, they were much the same as what the constitution would require under the current section, so being open to everybody in that community, you know when you see it and I will give it to the lawyers to define it, but it is certainly something that could be recognised as that kind of informal, unconstituted group, but it is still a group that has come together with a common interest and a common purpose that has something to contribute. I have, however, serious issues with those amendments as they are at the moment because they would open up to individuals. I think that we know from our constituency experiences that you would have a lot of individuals on the test that you were saying that who would say, well, I am about to organise a group. I do not yet have it, can I have a seat at the table and then they might, if they got the seat at the table, then take a little while about forming the group. There is also that commercial point that was raised and, ultimately, that is a community empowerment bill. That is about giving particular input routes to decision making for open, broad community action groups that are open, inclusive, representative and controlled by the community that they want to represent. I think that there would be a risk to the reputation of participation requests if they were open to individuals to further their own agendas. I know that the Scottish Community Development Centre and Community Development Alliance Scotland have expressed serious reservations about changes in an email that has gone around the committee. The structure of part 3, which would mean an outcome improvement process, would also be quite disproportionate for individuals. If you were to open up participation requests to individuals, there could be quite serious resource implications because of the volume that that would have. There are issues with the frivolous or vexatious power, as it has been stated at the moment, because it leaves a fair bit of discretion to a public service authority who may wish to not want to impugn the willingness of any public service authority to use it for an easy life. We should always, when drafting legislation, think of what happens if somebody wants to go in the opposite way. The aim of the bill is to empower communities. The point that has been raised about informally organised communities and where they are still recognisably communities is that I am happy to take away and introduce amendments at stage 3 that will capture those while leaving out the individuals that I think would fundamentally change the nature of participation requests and would be an unhelpful contribution. However, I thank John Wilson for those amendments. I would hope that, given that undertaking, he may be content to withdraw them. To cover some of the points that have been made, I think that Alex Rowley's point about commercial interests is always a danger in local communities. Commercial interests can intervene in a number of ways to try and influence community organisations. I have seen it myself where commercial organisations have done exactly that. There is always that danger. We all have to recognise that commercial interests have a number of ways that can influence existing organisations. Never mind influence the setup of new organisations. In terms of the constitution, the constituted argument is important. I understand SEDC's argument in relation to protecting constituted groups, which is right, because they also assist groups to become constituted. However, my fear at the present moment is that until a group becomes constituted, that can take time, depending on how the local authority deals with it, because it cannot take anything up to 28 days to hold a public meeting to have an annual general meeting to elect office bearers and get your committee established. In that timeframe, the shift can be made. Safeguards in terms of the individual request saying that they want to represent the community and they will work towards setting up a community organisation. Safeguards can be built in by local authorities to say that they can get a seat round the table at the present moment. However, you have x number of days to prove to us, a month to prove to us that you are genuinely committed to establishing a community organisation to represent the issues that you are taking forward. In relation to the frivolous and vexatious issues, I can fully understand and the difficulty is how we measure that and how local authorities take that forward. I would like to hope that the bill, when it becomes legislation, would give local authorities an assurance that the Scottish Government and others are keen to see the widest possible consultation and engagement with communities throughout. I have not been able to give details of this in the past because we were still finalising it, but we are introducing today a new part that will add on to the end of the bill that will be wide powers to promote, encourage and require participation. That might well be the best route for individuals to be able to participate in decision making processes, and that will be very broad, applying widely across public service authorities. That might deal with the issues of individuals wishing to make requests, which I think are still the key danger here with those amendments. I thank the minister for his intervention. Convener, based on the comments by the minister and assurances that we have received as a committee today, I would not wish to press at the present moment but reserve the right to bring back at stage three any amendments if I feel the amendments being submitted by the Government do not satisfy the intention of my amendments today. Are the committee content that that bill was drawn? I put the question on section 14 of the bill. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 1100, in the name of John Lawson, already debated with amendment 1099. Mr Lawson, to move or not move. Are the committee content? I now ask the committee if they agree section 15 of the bill. I now call amendment 1101, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with amendment 1141. Mr Buchanan, can I ask you to move amendment 1101 and speak to both amendments in the group? This is a really probing amendment to find out not about the desirability of these aims but about the definitions of the bill. All I really want to do is should this bill be about empowering communities to set their own priorities and their own aims. It is really a probing amendment. I am a little bit confused. Amendment 11114 would remove the ability of the Scottish Ministers to remove or amend any entry in the schedule that lists public service authorities for participation requests and relevant authorities for asset transfer requests, assuming that we are on the correct amendment. We simply have to retain the flexibility for ministers to be able to remove and amend entries in the lists of authorities that will be covered as well as to add to them. The committee will be aware that I have lodged amendments to ensure that any changes of that nature are made by affirmative procedure in line with the recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. There will be parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the schedules and the organisations listed therein, but it may well be that a public body is abolished or has its names or functions changed. We need the ability to be able to accommodate that change of nature in the public sector landscape, and that seems to me what the amendments would pose a challenge to it. Thank you very much indeed. I think that that is a very satisfactory explanation, so I will withdraw. Cameron has agreed to withdraw 11.01. Are the committee content with that? Thank you very much. The question is that section 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that schedule 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I wonder if I could crave your indulgence and if I could call amendments 1102 to 1109 in the name of John Wilson on block. Are the committee content for that to happen? In which case, I ask John Wilson on amendments 1102 to 1109. Do you want to press or withdraw? Withdraw. Withdraw. Content? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1110 in the name of Tavish Scott, grouped with amendment 1111? Tavish Scott, can you move amendment 1110 and speak to both amendments in the group, please? Thank you very much, convener. I am very tempted to do the Cameron Buchanan approach, which is to say that this is a probing amendment and to leave it to the minister to do all the speaking, which is a commendable approach. I must remember that for future bills. Let me try to help the minister by explaining what I think I'm trying to achieve here, and then he might be able to help me as to whether I've got this right or not. Government's bill contains the provision that a community participation body, or, indeed, two or more bodies jointly may make a participation request to a public service authority. I hope that I've got that right. This has been suggested to a slightly strange position that two community groups can request to participate in a process to improve a service in relation to only one public authority. There will obviously be examples where there would be more than one public authority. I'm sure that the minister, indeed, colleagues across the committee would think of such examples. What the amendment therefore seeks to do is to give effect to the ability of such a community group or groups to engage with more than one public authority where that is self-evidently necessary in a particular set of circumstances that they would come across. I hope that, in that sense, it's a measure that would be constructive in terms of making it easier to achieve what I'm sure the minister, indeed, will try to deliver through the context of the bill overall. I thank the member for his amendments. I think that he makes a very reasonable case. It's a policy aim that I'm happy to support and to accept those amendments. We will probably look at the drafting in advance of stage 3 to make sure that they are adding the flexibility that we want and that they are covered and that they all fit with the rest of the bill. However, on that basis, I'm very happy to ask members to support those amendments. Mr Scott, can I ask you to wind up and press her with a drop, please? I'm grateful to the minister for that. I'm sure that they technically could be—indeed, I've been told by the clerks that they could technically be better, so I might leave that to the minister and his paths of persuasion to get that right, but I'm happy to see these move forward. The question is that amendment 1110 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1111 in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 1110? Tavish Scott, to move or not move please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1111 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Can I call amendment 1112 in the name of Alec Riley, grouped with the other amendments that are shown in the groupings. Alec Riley, can I ask you to move amendment 1112 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I'm happy to move amendment 1112 and doing so. Can I say that the amendments that I have brought forward in part 3 are designed to strengthen the provision in the bill around the rights of communities and other bodies when making a participation request. Whilst I very much welcome the current provision, there is I believe some gaps which, if not addressed, will leave community bodies and others with a significant disadvantage. The likelihood is that it will be communities who are vulnerable and already disadvantaged due to social economic factors and other circumstances that will be affected. Amendment 1112, in my name, is designed to avoid disheartening and to make sure that all of those communities who wish to make a request to participate can do so. Amendment 1112 would allow the regulations by Scottish ministers to include provisions that require public service authorities to publish the fact that communities can make participation requests, to set out what support public service authorities must make available to communities to make and complete a request and to set out the type of communities that may require additional support. I strongly believe that those amendments would redress the current imbalance in the bill where it would be those communities with the resources and capacity who are most likely to make the most of the opportunity to put the participation requests off are. A significant gap in the bill as it stands is that once a request has been made, it will be up to the public service authority whether it is accepted. I believe that amendment 1112, and others that I will talk to later on, would improve the bill, and I hope that the minister and the committee will support the amendments that I have brought forward. Minister, can I ask you to speak to amendment 1073 in the other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I am happy to support Alex Rowley's amendment 1112, and, as with all regulations in the bill, those regulations will be developed in partnership so that community bodies and public authorities can help to shape the detail to determine what is appropriate to be in legislation and what should be in guidance. However, as examples of what should be included in the regulations, promotion of participation requests and support for communities seems important enough to be on the face of the bill. Amendments 1073 and 1081 in my name respond to the recommendations that were made in the committee's stage 1 report to provide for monitoring of the use of the bill's provisions. They would require each public service authority and each relevant authority to produce an annual report, setting out how many requests they have received, how many have been agreed or rejected, and how many have resulted in actual change or transfer of an asset. That is, of course, in addition to the report that must be produced on the outcome of each individual participation request. For asset transfer requests, the report must also include the number of requests where a review or appeal has been requested and the outcome of that. That will make it clear whether authorities are making the right decisions first time. As with Alex Rowley's amendment, we recognise the importance of authorities making communities aware of the potential for making requests and helping them to do so. The report must therefore include information on the action taken by the authority to promote the use of participation in asset transfer requests and to directly support communities to make requests. I hope that the committee will support Alex Rowley's amendments and my amendments. John Wilson's amendments in this group require the report to be published no later than the last working day of May, with the definition of what a working day means. That may throw up practical issues, but I am very happy to come back with a firm deadline as to when a report would be put through. If the member wishes to put them in at stage 2 and amend following consultation thereafter with everybody to see what would be practical, what would be expected and what would be reasonable, I encourage him to do so. Or he may wish to withdraw them and we will come back or offer him the information as to what would come out from consultation as appropriate. He may wish to lodge them in stage 3 as I am neutral in that regard, but I am happy to say that I am content to accept the point of having that timescale in there. Finally, amendments 1074 and 1082 fill a gap by requiring public service authorities and relevant authorities to have regard to guidance issued by Scottish ministers in relation to participation requests and asset transfer requests. The bill provides a framework for those requests and there are powers for ministers to make regulations in a number of areas to provide procedures, deadlines and so on, but regulations can only get to a certain level of detail. They can easily provide examples of best practice or a range of options to be used as appropriate. We have every intention of issuing detailed guidance on those provisions and it will include, as the committee has talked about in stage 1 debate, has emphasised the national standards for community engagement and for asset transfer. It will cover issues relating to valuation and disposal at less-than-market values. Those amendments will make sure that authorities cannot ignore that guidance. The amendments also require the Scottish ministers to consult before issuing guidance and we expect to develop the procedures and guidance relating to the bill through an inclusive process. That is, after all, a community empowerment bill with the participation of community organisations as well as the authorities to which the guidance is directed. I would also ask the committee to support amendments 1074 and 1082 in my name. Thank you very much indeed, convener. The reason for the amendment in my name is to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny of those requests. While we are keen and we have made that quite clear in terms of the committee's scrutiny of the community empowerment bill and the engagement that we have had with communities throughout Scotland, we feel that it is only but right that the parliamentary committee has the opportunity to scrutinise what is happening out there in terms of participation requests. One of the reasons for putting in a very specific timetable was to allow us the opportunity to deal with those issues. Prior to the summer recess, I would allow the committee to deal with it and timetable in for June of each year. That would give us an understanding of what is happening out there and bring forward any recommendations for change or amendment and advise government of those issues when they are identified. I am keen to ensure that what the intention of the bill is set out to do is delivered. If we are saying that there should be an increased opportunity for participation requests, we have to scrutinise that in the only way that we can scrutinise that, apart from the Government carrying out its due diligence, is to allow a committee of this Parliament to scrutinise that process as well. That is a move in my name. Thank you. Any other member who wishes to enter the debate? In which case can I call Alec Rowley to wind up and to press her with draw, please? I would simply press, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 1113, in the name of John Wilson, already debated with amendment 1099. Mr Wilson, can I ask you to move or not move, please? Not move. Not move. Do the committee content that that is withdrawn? Thank you. I call amendment 1114, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with the other amendments shown on the groupings. Mr Buchanan, can I ask you to move amendment 11114 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. This is not about the desirability of the aims, but it's about the purpose and limitations of the bill, what we're going to do. I don't think it should be—it's not going to set out what the local aims should be. It should be about empowering the communities to set their own priorities and their own aims. That's why I had this put in this amendment. It's to remove specific criteria for agreeing or refusing participation requests. Can I call the minister to speak to amendment 1072 and other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. This group of amendments relates to the sections that set out the issues that public service authorities and relevant authorities must take into consideration when reaching their decisions on participation requests and asset transfer requests. As the bill currently stands, the authority must consider whether agreeing to the request would be likely to promote or improve economic development, regeneration, public health, social wellbeing or environmental wellbeing, as well as any other benefits that might arise. Indeed, to quote the bill directly, any other matter, whether or not included in or arising out of the request, that the authority considers relevant. That is not a prescriptive list of benefits, it is an illustrative list, and it does not require every request to hit all of those targets, but it indicates the kind of benefits that we might expect to arise from community proposals. A simple requirement to consider any benefits can be argued for, but it is helpful to have a list that both community bodies and authorities can refer to, albeit one that is not prescriptive. Indeed, rather than removing the list of issues to be considered, I want to add to them, because it is a priority of this Government to reduce inequalities and to create a fairer Scotland. That bill is part of that process, as we believe that empowering communities to take control of the decisions that affect them will help to reduce inequality and ensure a more participative economy as well as society. I realise that many people have raised concerns, including in the stage 1 debate in particular, that the bill could empower communities that are already empowered while others continue to leave behind. We intend to empower all communities. The provisions in the bill are there for everyone to use, and I recognise that communities will need varying degrees of support to be able to take advantage of that. We are investing £19.4 million in the Empowering Communities Fund, in addition to the extensive support that we expect the third sector to give. We also expect all public bodies and local authorities to engage communities in the design and delivery of services and to support them to participate in those processes. As I have already said, the national standards for community engagement are going to feature very heavily in guidance instituted by the bill, and there is a further part that will be promoting, should the committee consent to it, greater participative democracy. Amendments 1072 and 1076 will, however, further ensure that the bill works to reduce inequalities. They add reducing socioeconomic inequalities to the matters to be considered when a decision is made on a participation request or an asset transfer request. They make explicit that reducing inequalities is something to be supported, and if there are competing requests, the degree to which they reduce inequalities could be therefore the deciding factor. It is also essential that people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage are involved in shaping the services that they use. They know best what will work to tackle inequality. The amendment in relation to participation requests also requires authorities to consider whether the request will increase the participation of disadvantaged people, not just outcomes for disadvantaged people, both in the request itself and as a result of the request more widely in the design and delivery of the service. Cameron Buchanan's amendments would not allow us to place that additional focus on inequalities, and they would also remove the requirement for authorities to reach their decisions in a manner that encourages equal opportunities. I appreciate that all authorities will be subject to the equal opportunity requirement under other statutes, but again it is important to be explicit. I think that we all here want the bill to have a real impact on addressing socioeconomic inequalities and equal opportunities, and we should state clearly that proposals that help that should be supported. I would ask Cameron Buchanan to withdraw amendment 1114, not to move the other amendments in his group, and I would hope that the committee would support 1072 and 1076 in my name. Thank you. Is there any other member who wishes to enter the debate? It's really just to say that—I appreciate that the minister has opened out this area and the area of equal opportunities, but just to say that my concern for Cameron's amendment is that it could possibly narrow the criteria in which, in the overall areas of wellbeing and the other community requirements, it could be given to the secretary of police to narrow the criteria if we defined it in that way. Thank you. Anyone else? No. In which case, Cameron Buchanan, can I ask you to wind up and to press in or withdraw, please? Thank you very much, convener. I don't think that it would narrow it down at all. I think that it was becoming too prescriptive, which is why I wanted an explanation of it. The whole thing was too prescriptive, but it wouldn't narrow it down. I want to make it as wide as possible. Therefore, it should be empowering communities to set their own example and their own priorities. That's why we didn't really think that this was a worthwhile section. I would like to press my amendment, please. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. I ask to show those in favour of amendment 114, please, now, and those against the amendment, please, show. Thank you. Those for the amendment 1, those against the amendment 6. The question is disagreed to. Amendment 1072, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 114, minister. Could you move formally, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 1072 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 115, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, is already debated with amendment 114. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please. And view of what we've just heard, not moved. Are the committee content that that's withdrawn? Thank you. Can I call amendment 116, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 114? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content that that's withdrawn? Thank you very much. With your indulgence, I'd like to call amendments 117 to 1126, in the name of John Walsham, and ask him to press or withdraw on block, or move or not move on block, should I say? Are the committee content that I do that? Mr Walsham, can I ask you whether you intend to move or not move amendments 117 to 1126, please? Not moved. Thank you. Are the committee content with that? The question is that section 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? In which case, can I now call amendment 1127, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with the other amendments shown in the groupings? Can I draw members' attention to the information and preemption shown in the groupings? Cameron Buchanan, can I ask you to move amendment 1127 and speak to all amendments in the groupings, please? Thank you, convener. This removes the power to decline similar petition requests from a different body. I think that the body should not be prevented from participating solely because another body wanted to participate. I felt that this was too prescriptive, so it was not really going to enhance the bill in any way whatsoever. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to enter into this one? No, minister. Thank you, convener. Sections 22 and 61 deal with circumstances in which a public service authority or relevant authority may decline to consider a participation request or asset transfer request. The circumstances are that the request relates to the same or substantially the same matter as a previous request that was made in the previous two years. The bill currently provides that repeat requests may be declined whether or not they are made by the same body or a different body from that which made the previous request. Cameron Buchanan's amendments would not permit a request to be declined if it was made by a different body from the previous request. The first thing to say about those sections is that they give discretion to decline to consider repeat requests, which are made about the substantially the same matters. The authority is not required to decline the request if it considers that it has merit. The community body may have gone away and come back with a significantly improved proposal, and that type of repeat request should be considered. However, there needs to be some defence against repeated requests that are just the same, hoping for a different answer. The amendments would also remove the ability of authorities to decline repeat requests where they are made by a different body. That is quite a significant change, because people may belong to more than one group, and those who wish to bring the same request again might well move between groups or reconstitute their group under a different name to get round the provision. As I said before, the authority is not required to decline repeat requests. The provisions just give them discretion to do so, and I think that we should allow them the discretion to judge whether a group is truly different or not. The extensive reporting requirements that have now been placed on participation requests will help to ensure that there is transparency about this, that there is adequate scope for scrutiny, and I am sure that an organised group that is declined using this inappropriately would be able to find extensive evidence showing that and to be able to illustrate it quite heavily in the local community discourse through the normal channels. Amendments 1129 and 1159 seek to make it clear that a new request is to be treated as being the same or substantially the same as a previous request where there are no significant differences between the two requests. I do not consider it necessary to add those words, as that is the ordinary meaning of the words already included in sections 22 and 61. I would ask Cameron Buchanan to withdraw amendment 1127 and not to move the other amendments in this group. Cameron Buchanan, can I ask you to wind up and press her with draw, please? Thank you very much indeed. I do not think that body should be prevented from participating solely because another body wanted to participate as well, which was the whole point of my amendments here. It removes the statement that is irrelevant whether the body is making a new request or a different body from what is making the previous request, which is why I would like to press my amendment. Thank you very much. Before I call that vote, we managed to skip section 19. I am scared that I get a visit from the lawyers. The question is that section 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much and apologies for that. The question is that amendment 1127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In which case we go to the vote. Those in favour of the amendment, please show. And those against the amendment, please show. Those in favour of the amendment 1, those against 6, the question is disagreed to. The question, can I call amendment 1128 in the name of John Walson, already debated with amendment 1099. John Walson, to move or not move, please. Are the committee content that that is not moved? Thank you very much. Can I call amendment 1129 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1127. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1130 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1127. Can I remind members that, if amendment 1130 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 1131. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content that that is not be moved? I now call amendment 1131 in the name of John Walson, already debated with amendment 1099. Mr Walson, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content with that? The question is that section 22 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. The question is that section 23 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Can I call amendment 1132 in the name of John Walson, already debated with amendment 1099. Mr Walson, to move or not move, please. Not moved. Are the committee content with that? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1133 in the name of John Walson, already debated with amendment 1099. Mr Walson, to move or not move, please. Not moved. Thank you. Are the committee content with that? The question is that section 24 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Can I call amendment 1134 in the name of Alec Rowley and a group in its own? Mr Rowley, can I ask you to move and speak to your amendment, please? Thank you, convener. I am pleased to move amendment 1134 in my name. I believe that this amendment is important because it would allow communities to appeal to Scottish ministers the decision of a public service authority where a participation request is refused and where a request is agreed but the community body objects to certain provisions in the decision notice. Amendment 1134 would allow a community body to appeal where it has significance concerns about how an outcome improvement process has been undertaken and will work. The amendment would leave to Scottish ministers to design the appeals process and set out such things as the way in which appeals are made, how they are concluded and the timescales for making them. Amendment 1134 would give considerable comfort to communities who can often feel as though their views are listened to but for reasons that are unclear, then dismissed. I do believe that it is important that we give such assurances to communities and to simply dismiss any participation request without the right to appeal. I send the wrong message out. I think that, by agreeing this amendment, we would be strengthening the bill and I would thereby move the amendment and ask the committee and the minister to give consideration and support. Thank you. Do any other members wish to enter the debate? I thank the member for bringing this. This has been a subject of discussion and debate in the past and I know that it was brought up in front of the committee in stage 1 evidence gathering that there were calls for appeal procedures against participation requests and the committee decided not to recommend it in their stage 1 report. I am not privy to those discussions, I do not know why, but I think that there are good reasons for that approach. Participation requests are a new mechanism that are intended to support community groups to be proactive in coming forward with ideas. In doing that, in putting that in statute, public authorities get a duty to set up a process to listen to those ideas. In section 19 subsection 5, public authorities must agree to a request to participate unless there are reasonable grounds for refusing it. The definition of reasonable grounds, minister, can be used by lawyers to make lots of money. It would then be an issue if a local authority in not granting participation requests said that it has reasonable grounds for not granting that request. Who would be the arbiter in deciding whether or not the decision that was made was reasonable? In looking at amendment 19, amendment 19 is the issue that the amendment for me has thrown up most proactively and has been most useful in throwing up. That sits in the bill without broad guidance. We have now, as a result of amendments already, a guidance-making power in relation to participation requests. I would envisage doing that to exemplify what reasonable requests were. We can envisage fairly limited grounds. For example, the body-making request is not an eligible body or the request does not relate to a service provided by or on behalf of the public service authority. Guidance underpinned by statute would help to clarify that and mean that we would not go to the ultimate appeal body in the event of a law being broken in this way of judicial review, which is the current backstop. The problem that I have with any kind of appeal mechanism here, the difficulty that it poses, is that it is different to asset transfer. In that asset transfer requires the movement of something physical. It is intangible. It is about communicating. It is about dialogue. It is about getting a place at a table. Anybody as a community group who went to an appeal to get to sit down and have a discussion with a public authority would not be likely to expect that to happen in a positive way. I do not think that that would be a route to creating the kind of dialogue that we want here. Participation requests exist to make it absolutely fundamentally clear to every public service authority that they should be involving community groups. They should be evolving groups that can express and articulate an interest and ideas for how to improve local outcomes. If we can only do that at the point of a ministerial appeal, then the hope of fostering that relationship of changing that mindset of affecting culture change is gone. You can imagine the situation as two groups walk tensely into a room, do not exchange any conversation, sit down, go through the motions and leave. An appeal process would therefore, I think, cause those community groups that were slightly unhappy, perhaps to have recourse to using this, and unnecessarily sour relationships that we have to get right. We cannot legislate to make people talk to each other. This is the closest thing that we have got to an attempt to do that. There are also issues that, if we do not have a provision in local authorities for local authority review as the amendments set out, anything would go straight to ministers. That would not just annoy a local authority, it would cause wider issues for relationships and internal decision making there. Minister, we already do that in planning process, where there are appeals against planning decisions by local authorities. The applicant has the right to submit or the local authority has the right to go to the Scottish ministers. I understand what you are trying to say in terms of we need to get this right, but we need to make sure that public authorities, public bodies, fully understand the Government and its Parliament's intention is to widen participation as much as possible. You mentioned judicial review. No community group can go to judicial review unless they have the financial resources to do that. To be honest, a ministerial appeal is cheaper than taking a judicial appeal or going to the court session. If you ask many community groups the cost of actually taking planning decisions to a judicial review will tell you that it is beyond their means. We want to ensure that groups are not being financially penalised for not being able to go to an appeal. As with planning, there is a concrete physical result. A building gets built or it doesn't get built. Asset transfers, something changes hands. That is about dialogue. Dialogue that is introduced at the point of an appeal is not going to be constructive positive dialogue. That is an attempt to create a culture change as broadly as we can with the legislation that is here. A way of making sure that any community group knows and can point to a section in a bill that says that it has a right to sit down at a table with a decision-making body, put their suggestions forward and be listened to. That is a right to be listened to. An appeal process, all where it is to be introduced, would result in the possibility that such listening would be perfunctory and not in keeping with the spirit of the bill. I would love to be a way to legislate to make public service authorities change the mindset of how they engage so that all that we need to do is sign a bill into place and everybody will go into these negotiations and discussions in absolute good faith. I don't believe that that can be done legislatively, but what the legislation does do right now is make absolutely clear that right that is there without, I hope, the bad feeling, the tension, the resentment that getting there only by appeals could do. I understand that there will be community groups that are disappointed that may want to appeal. I don't see the material benefit to them of then having a discussion that has been soured, but, as I said before, there is the Government's intention to introduce a new part that would be strong on participative powers and that that would come at the end and that that would perhaps offer an avenue here to make even clearer to public service organisations, public service authorities, that they should be as positive, as wholehearted, as enthusiastic as possible about that. That is certainly an agenda that the Scottish Government is extending through our dialogue with those bodies, through the ministerial powers of the bully pulpit, with those that report to us and through powers of dialogue more positively and in partnership with local authorities who have been supportive verbally of the kinds of provisions that are in here. I would hope that appeals would not be needed, that appeals, if they were introduced, would be counterproductive, and I would ask Alex Rowley to withdraw his amendment. Mr Rowley, wind-up and pressur with me, please. Thank you, convener. I actually think that this amendment is really, really important if this bill is to have any type of teeth. This bill has come about in many senses because there is a view that there is a need for legislation to actually empower communities, and if that is the case, then to argue the argument that is being made here that it is about culture change and it is about talking. A participation request is about more than dialogue, and if local organisations, community groups, go to the trouble of working up participation requests, in many cases that will be a significant piece of work for it to be able to succeed in the get to that stage, and they are then said, well, it was great, we had the dialogue with you, but thanks, but no thanks, and that is the end of the... Would the member agree or disagree, because up to the member, that this appeared section may actually encourage local authorities to be more open to dialogue, knowing full well if they weren't open to that dialogue. There is an appeals process in place that the communities could use to actually take forward any grievances that they may have regarding the decision made by the local authority or public body. I think that Mr Wilson is absolutely correct, and I would say that all but anecdotally, but I certainly talk to people in different public organisations about this bill more generally, and talking about participation requests in particular, because I believe that this is a significant part of the bill. The general response that I have had back for people is, yes, but we do not have to agree it. If that were to become the view, and indeed they are right when they say that they do not have to agree it, then I am not sure that, without some kind of appeals process in place, that people, community organisations groups would have the confidence that what is said on the tin is what you actually get. I really believe that strongly yet. I can easily visualise that there are situations where people would say, well, we do not have to agree it. What they are agreeing to do is to permit the body to participate in an outcome improvement process. If they were forced to agree it, what would happen is that the community body would sit down with people that were completely uninterested in them being there, and that a considerable amount of time and greater ill-feeling would be wasted and greater ill-feeling would be generated. That issue that he identifies is a legitimate point and a legitimate problem to identify, but I do not believe that that is the solution to it. I would like to answer that by the point that Mr Wilson makes. If you have a local outcomes improvement process that is robust and frair from the beginning to the end, then the likelihood of major appeals coming about would be lessened by the fact that there is an appeals process that is there. That is why I have been careful to say that this amendment would leave it to the Scottish ministers to design the appeals process. I assume that they would do so in consultation with public bodies and organisations, but I certainly want to press the amendment, convener, because I think that the amendment is really, really important in terms of giving the confidence to people that we are serious about the participation request process in the first place. I am happy to work with the minister to strengthen that as we go forward to stage 3, but I think that it is crucial that we get it on the face of the bill and I would move. The question is that amendment 1134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In which case we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 1134, please show. And those against, please. Thank you. Those in favour for those against three, the question is agreed to. Can I call amendment 1135, in the name of John Walson, already debated with amendment 1099? Mr Walson, to move or not move, please. Are the committee content that that is withdrawn? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1136, in the name of John Walson, already debated with amendment 1099? Mr Walson, to move or not move, please. Are the committee content? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1137, in the name of Alec Rowley, in a group in its own? Mr Rowley, could you move and speak to your amendment, please? Yes. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 1137, I would like to move. In section 25 of the bill, it currently requires that a public service authority must publish a report summarising the outcome improvement process, describing how and to what extent the community body influenced that process, influenced the outcomes and how they must keep the community body informed about the changes in that process. Amendment 1137, in my name, would make sure that, when preparing a report on the outcome improvement process, the public service authority must seek the views of those bodies that made a participation request on how the process was conducted. And whether it has led to local improvements, more importantly. This amendment would be the final piece in making sure that the process is as open and transparent as possible and that the views of communities are reflected in the final report. This is particularly important as public service authorities need to be able to take communities with them when improving local outcomes. That is the stated view of the Government. Failure to do that would mean that progress will stall and improvements, in my view, would not be made. Again, I think that this is about improving and bringing improvements to the bill, and I hope that the committee and the minister would consider supporting this amendment. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? No, minister, please. It seems quite reasonable to me that, when preparing a report on outcome improvement process, the public service authority should seek the views of the community participation bodies that were involved in that process. I urge the committee members to support the amendment. Thank you, Mr Rowley, to wind up and press for withdrawal, please. I am grateful to the minister for that, and I would press the amendment. Thank you, Mr Rowley. The question is that amendment 1137 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 1073, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 1212. Minister, to move formally, please. Amendment 1073A, in the name of John Wilson, is already debated with amendment 1099. Mr Wilson, to move or not move, please. Amendment 1073B, in the name of John Wilson, is already debated with amendment 1012. Mr Wilson, to move or not move. Amendment 1073C, in the name of John Wilson, is already debated with amendment 1012. Mr Wilson, to move or not move. Not moved. Are the committee content? The question is that amendment 1073 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1074, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 1112. Minister, to move formally, please. Moved. The question is that amendment 1074 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1138, in the name of John Wilson, is already debated with amendment 1099. Mr Wilson, to move or not move, please. Not moved. Are the committee content that that has been withdrawn? Can I call amendment 1139, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, is already debated with amendment 1114. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please. In view of what happened, it is part of amendment 1116 to remove the words equal opportunities, which I wish to do, if I could, because I think that it is too prescriptive. To move or not move, Mr Buchanan. To move, sorry. The question is that amendment 1139 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 1139, please show. And those against, please show. Thank you. Those in favour of the amendment 1, those against 6, the question is disagreed to. Can I call amendment 1140, in the name of John Wilson, is already debated with amendment 1099. Mr Wilson, to move or not move, please. Not moved. Are the committee content? Thank you. The question is that section 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1141, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1101? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please. Well, this is actually… Move or not move, Mr Buchanan. Right. Not moved. Not moved. Are the committee content? Thank you. The question is that section 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that schedule 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1142, in the name of Tavish Scott, grouped with the other amendments shown in the groupings? Tavish Scott, could I ask you to move amendment 1142, and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you very much, convener. I just want to make a very simple case here in the sense that this amendment is based on ensuring that an asset transfer request can be made in relation to the case where a community group wants to run a local service, but where there is no land involved, which is what asset transfer requests currently have to relate to and the rest of the amendments after 1142 are, as I understand it, a consequential and give effect to that policy request. It is also important to note in moving this amendment that it simply enables an organisation to request the transfer of a specific service but not to require it. It therefore empowers local community organisations, creating the circumstances in which it was possible for them to take or would be possible, I should say, for them to take control of a service affecting their area. I want to give a very practical example. There used to be a very good laundry in the island I live on, which was predominantly used by old folk, but it was so successful, run by a great lady, the late Sheila Henderson, that working folk and lots of people ended up using it, and it was run under the auspices of the local council. At a certain point, the council decided to close it for quite understandable reasons, but had this provision been there, then I do not think there is any doubt that the local community would have said, look, this is a service that we value, it is for wider than just the original intention, so let's see if there is a way in which we can maintain it and indeed enhance it. What this amendment seeks to do, convener, is simply to create the potential for a community group in that case, it would have had to have been some grouping of folk who came together on the island to take over that service. I appreciate the minister's point about assets, because I suppose they could have taken over the washing machines, which might be another way to achieve the same effect, but it seems to me that that would be a legitimate objective, which I hope will be consistent with the measures that he is seeking to introduce to Parliament today. I would so move, convener. Thank you. Any other member? Minister, please. Well, that is a rather hauntingly familiar example, as I have a constituency case surrounding the future of a laundry at the moment where a group of my constituents wish to continue it, so it is certainly one that I can relate to. I think that in this case we are slightly in danger of confusing the asset transfer and the participation request provisions. In the case that was described there, I think that it would be open to an asset transfer of the physical facility to go over to a community group, and that would already be there in the bill unamended. But what we also have is that the participation requests mechanism would allow a community body to propose to take on the delivery of a service that is more abstract. When we initially consulted on the proposals for the bill, we looked at the English example of the right to challenge, which allows a community body to request that a service is put out to tender and a community body can bid for it. However, what we received back was—this has been backed up indeed by a recent report on the right to challenge—that the important thing that was being valued was for communities to be able to influence how services are designed. Of course, some community groups feel that they could take that on themselves, but not every community wants to do that or has the capacity to do that straight away. Participation requests will allow each community to bring forward what they want to discuss with the service provider how they feel the outcomes of the service, which in the case of the laundry would be presumably dealing with economic disadvantage and so on, providing a facility that could not be provided elsewhere and how the community can best contribute to those improvements. Minister, I understand that Mr Scott's amendment in the use of the laundry and we could actually say that it is tangible assets, the building and the machines that are in that building. However, for something like childcare, where a community makes a request to a public body that they provide childcare, what they may do is provide childcare in a community facility. The community facility may not want to transfer an asset transfer to that community facility, or it may be elderly care in their community. What would be your view on requests of that nature to deliver services to a community that does not involve tangible assets? In that situation, a participation request would be the appropriate means, because we are not talking about the transfer of an asset. We are talking about how a community group can participate in, as jargon is the gobbledygook that the committee pointed to before, the outcome improvement process. I forget the exact line in the national outcomes, but it is about the young people living fulfilling lives and having a best start. That proposal would be made under all the mechanisms that are set out for participation requests. The ability of the community to contribute to that service would be considered. There would be ample opportunity there. That is something that I would want to see happen. I think that we would share the objective that community controlled childcare bodies have a lot to give. I have met one community centre that has a community and has a childcare angle to it. I am scheduling visits to community controlled childcare organisations in the coming months, because I think that it is an exciting area where there can be a real synergy of aims, community empowerment and better childcare and everybody can win. We have not heard in the consultation any dissatisfaction with participation requests as a mechanism to do that. If there was to be dissatisfaction, if there was to be issues that were to be raised, we would of course look at it again. Let us look at the division. There are participation requests on how community groups can participate in on-going processes. There are asset transfer requests for material things, principally land. We should not confuse those two. If there was to be some kind of change to this, it might be better to put it into participation requests, but there is already ample scope there at the moment. Indeed, the last point that I would add is that there has not been any consideration of that specific proposal in consultation or with stakeholders, so we do not know the views or, indeed, the wrinkles that might be found if we were to blur the distinction between asset transfer and participation requests. I would ask the committee, I would ask Tavish Scott to withdraw the amendment, having made the point, and perhaps we could meet and explore some working examples of how participation requests could be used to achieve the aim that sets us out, and if further amendments were needed, I would be happy to bring them forward from that dialogue. I invite Tavish Scott to wind up and press her withdraw. I think that the minister makes an eminently fair point. I think that Mr Wilson's example of childcare seemed to me quite relevant. I can think, dare I say, of where my children used to go to childcare in the local public hall in, again, in Brisee. I can think of exactly the scenario that Mr Wilson painted there, but I take the minister's assurance in the way in which he expressed it, and I would take him up on that. It does also strike me in passing that Mr Riley's earlier amendment in the context of a right of appeal—I know that the minister wasn't hugely in favour of that—but it does strike me that strengthens exactly what we've just been discussing here, and that, in the context of the bill overall, may absolutely provide for the objective that I suspect we all share. On that basis, I think that I'd be very happy to withdraw the committee content with that. Can I call amendment 1143, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 1142? Mr Scott, to move or not move? I withdraw. Can I call amendment 1144, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 1142? Mr Scott, to move or not move? I'm not moved. Are the committee content with that? The question is that section 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1075, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendment 1083? Minister, could you move amendment 1075 and speak to both amendments in the group, please? Thank you. Thank you, convener. The amendments that you listed together add community benefit societies to the types of community body that can make an asset transfer request for ownership under the bill. Stakeholders have called for this addition through the lead-up to the bill, and it's always been our intention to include community benefit societies. You will notice, however, that the amendment refers to the Cooperative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, and that act was not passed in time to be an act when this bill was introduced. There was no point in referring to old legislation at that point, knowing that it would need to be amended immediately, so we are now able to add community benefit societies to the bill, with an up-to-date reference to an act that is now in force, and I hope that the committee will support that. Thank you. Any other members who wish to speak in this one? Jewish to wind up minister, waived. The question is that amendment 1075 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1145 in the name of Alec Rowley and a group in its own? Can I ask you to move and speak to your amendment, please, Mr Rowley? Thank you, convener. I would like to move amendment 1145 and then do so. I would say that this amendment is taken from the committee report recommendation that relevant authorities will be required to provide community groups with relevant information before they decide to request a transfer of an asset. Examples being given is the maintenance cost, the energy efficiency that will be provided. The committee received a number of suggestions that were considered vital to respondents to inform a community's assessment of whether to obtain an asset. The amendment seeks to ensure that the following information is provided to community groups, the value of the asset where appropriate, the rental value where appropriate, the yearly running costs, the details of impending repairs or maintenance costs and the energy efficiency of the building itself. I would hope that the principle of what I am trying to establish here could be taken on board by the minister, because I think that it is important that we have community groups. Only yesterday in my constituency I was meeting with some groups trying to encourage them to go after a building in Kelty that is going to become surplus to the requirement to the council. In Fife Council's case, they have disposed of a number of buildings to the community. It seems to me that it would be common sense and it would be difficult for communities to make those kinds of decisions without that level of information. I seek advice from the minister as best way to achieve that, but it is the principle that I am trying to achieve by bringing this amendment forward today, and I would accordingly move. I support Mr Rowley's amendment. As the chair of a local community organisation that has just taken on the lease of a community centre, we are still attempting to get information from the local authority on the state of repair of the building, only to find out that, six months after we had taken the building on, there were three major leaks in the main hall of the building, which is meant that we have had to shut down services that we deliver. It is important that, when community asset transfers are taking place, especially when it relates to land or buildings, communities are given full details of any information that is held by the local authority to ensure that they are fully versed in the facts and the issues that relate to the building or land that they may acquire. I intend to support Mr Rowley's amendment at this stage. I want to thank Alex Rowley for highlighting this, and I would like to give a cast-iron guarantee that it is our intention with the bill's power right now to make regulations to include all of those issues and more in secondary legislation under those powers. We want to do that in partnership with the organisations that are involved in asset transfers so that we can capture everything, not just the ones that are set out there. I have two issues with putting in primary legislation some of the requirements for those regulations. One is that we would have to absolutely get them right, not quite for all time, but with a very high threshold of specificity in what they are between now and the passage of this bill, because it would be very hard to change them. Looking at some of the issues that are in there at the moment, there are running costs, which could be very different if a community group took over a facility than a public service authority, for example, because they might have different access to tariffs and sale price or market value. That can be split in lots of different ways by accountants. I would not be a verse in principle to putting something in primary legislation here, but the issue is, can we, by the end of the bill stage, get to a point where whatever we put in, we are absolutely certain, will be robust and will also resist any kind of feet-dragging by organisations or creative pathways round. It would be better to have the statutory instrument that could be relatively quickly updated to account for anything like that, any kind of issues that would come forward. However, I will give the cast iron guarantee that all of those issues that he puts in there will be in the statutory instrument that we would bring forward, probably more as well, based on what stakeholders would be able to say, and we would be able to keep that updated on an on-going basis to take account of any experiences that we had along the way with its implementation. Mr Rowley, can I ask you to wind up and press her with draw, please? Thank you. I think that I'm grateful to John Moulston for the example that he gives. I think that that highlights exactly what the issues are. However, I'm also grateful to the minister that this will be something that will be looked at and that, whether it's through a statutory instrument or regulations, it will definitely be brought forward as part of the bill, and with that I'll withdraw. Thank you very much for the committee content that that be withdrawn. The question is that section 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 1146 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 114. Cameron Buchanan, to move or not move, please? I'd like to move. In which case, can I ask if amendment 1146 is agreed to? No. Please show those in favour. Sorry. Those against, please? I think that we'll have a break. Those in favour, 1. Those against, 6. The question is disagreed to. Can I call amendment 1076 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 114. The question is that amendment 1076 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 1147 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 114. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? Not moved. Are the committee content with that? Thank you. I call amendment 1148 in the name of Tavish Scott, who isn't here. So I take it that it's not going to be moved. Are the committee content that that's withdrawn? I call amendment 1149 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 114. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? Not moved. Are the committee content that that be withdrawn? The question is that section 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 1150 is in the name of Tavish Scott, which has already been debated. He's not here to move. Are you happy that that's withdrawn committee? Thank you. At which point I think I will suspend and we'll come back 1130 folks. Thank you. Can I now call amendment 1151 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with amendment 1152. Mr Buchanan, can I ask you to move amendment 1152 and speak to both amendments in the group, please? Thank you. I would like to move this amendment. It's really a wording change and remove the provision that failure to conclude negotiations does not count as a refusal for the purposes of an appeal. I.e. failure to conclude contracts can now be brought to appeal. I don't think that failure to conclude contracts should not be negating the initial agreement entirely. Pass to extend negotiation should be used. In addition to this scenario, it shouldn't be excluded from the appeals. If bodies can't agree to the deal because the terms are unacceptable, it should be able to appeal the decision and restart contractual negotiations. Okay, thank you. Any other members? Minister, please. Thank you, convener. The effect of amendments would be that a community transfer body could bring an appeal under section 58 on the basis that no contract had been concluded within the required period after an offer being made in the event of an asset transfer. We didn't originally propose an appeal in this area because negotiations for a transfer of a property can fail for a lot of reasons and there's not necessarily a fault. You could, for example, imagine a community body unable to secure funding or other changes of circumstances. There are some safeguards already for a community after an asset transfer request has been agreed. An appeal can look at the terms and conditions of the contract and, secondly, the community body can apply to Scottish ministers to extend the period of time to conclude a contract if an extension can't be agreed with the relevant authority. During that process, the asset cannot be disposed of. However, I do recognise the concerns that communities may have that relevant authorities could be imagined and envisaged under that procedure and use the negotiation process as a way of backing out of a transfer that has been agreed to or could deliberately—I always have to be careful when I say that this isn't an accusation, this is simply setting out and seeing a possibility in law that an organisation could delay matters until the community had exhausted or funding had lapsed. While I wouldn't imagine an appeal on those grounds would be used often, there is a space here that it would be productive to fill and a useful backstop to create. We'll need to look at the detail and we may want to bring forward some tweaks at stage 3, but the principle of ensuring that the failure to conclude a contract could be subject to appeal is one that I'm happy to endorse. I would urge the committee to accept the amendments. Thank you, Mr Buchanan. Press or withdraw, please. In which case, the question is that amendment 1151 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I now call amendment 1152 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1151? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please. Not moved. Sorry, I should move it. Sorry. Moved. Moved. Okay. The question is that amendment 1152 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Tavish Scott is no longer here. Amendment 1153, does anyone want to move it? No, in which case the committee is content that that's withdrawn. The question is that section 56 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. And the question is that section 57 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1077 in the name of the minister, grouped with the other amendments shown in the groupings. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 1077 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. This is a substantial group, so I'll start with the amendments in my name. Amendment 1077 is to enable ministers to specify whether asset transfer decisions made by a particular relevant authority should be subject to appeal to ministers or to review by a local authority. The default position in the bill is that a community transfer body can appeal to the Scottish ministers over an asset transfer decision unless the request was made to a local authority, in which case they can request a review by the local authority. There are other amendments that would adjust that and will come to them. Section 513 allows ministers to designate additional bodies as relevant authorities. One class of bodies that we are considering adding to this is allios, where those are wholly owned by one or more relevant authorities, in particular local authorities. It seems appropriate that their decision should come under the umbrella of the local authority appeals process rather than the ministerial appeals process set out for public services, as stands in the bill. The amendment to section 58 gives ministers a power to specify relevant authorities whose decisions are not subject to ministerial appeal. Amendment 1079 adds a new section after section 59 and applies the local authority review provisions of section 59 to any relevant authority specified under amendment 1077. As I said before, the local authority review provisions themselves may change as a result of other amendments. It also enables ministers to make provision for them to apply with modifications as necessary. Finally, ministers may specify which local authority an application for review should be made to either individually or by setting out factors determining how that should be decided. For example, it might be determined by the location of the land to which the request relates. The other amendment in my name in the group is 1078, which introduces a mechanism for review of decisions on asset transfer requests that are made to the Scottish ministers. The bill already includes provision for review or appeal of decisions where requests are made to local authorities or other public bodies, and that mechanism fills in the last part of that jigsaw. The procedure set out is similar to those for other organisations. A community transfer body can request a review if their request is refused, if the decision specifies terms and conditions for the transfer, which are significantly different from those of the community body proposed, or if no decision is made within the required period. The review can result in the decision being confirmed, overturned or amended, including amendments to the terms and conditions. The Scottish ministers can make regulations about the procedure to be followed and so on. The key difference in review of ministerial decisions is that ministers will be able to appoint persons in connection with the review and must have regard to any report that they make in deciding the outcome of the review. That will allow us to establish a panel of independent advisers to consider those reviews so that it is not just a minister reviewing their own decision and that there is a degree of external scrutiny there. Does that not give too much power to the ministers? That is for reviews of the decisions that are already under the bill that are going to be taken by ministers. Where is a public service authority, for example, where there is a direct ministerial appeal existing, or where something goes to ministers, there is now an appeal, but that would also have an independent advisory body rather than the appeal against the minister's decision being asking the minister again. That creates an additional safeguard against what is already in the bill as ministerial appeal. Cameron Buchanan lodged amendment 1154. I can see that he perhaps intends to make the appeal more predictable by ensuring that only the parts of the decision to which the appeal relates can be reversed or varied, but that could have unintended consequences. It would restrict the ability of the Scottish ministers to alter other parts of the decision in consequence of their decision on the issue to which the appeal directly relates. We must be able to adapt for consequential decisions otherwise there might be restrictions on what an appeal could find. It would also limit their ability to look at the decision in the round. The current wording follows a standard approach enabling the appeal to be dealt with in a manner suitable to the approach and would allow ministers when dealing with an appeal to consider matters raised during the course of the appeal as well rather than just those at the start. I would ask the member not to move amendment 1154 when the time comes. Michael Russell lodged amendments 1088, 889 and 990. I will leave it to the member to set out what they are intended to achieve, but essentially they provide for a right of appeal to Scottish ministers in relation to local authority asset transfers. Those are an interesting set of amendments, and I have some sympathy with his aims and his experiences on that. I look forward to hearing his case put forward and the views of the other committee members. Can I call Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendment 1154 and other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I think that this is going to give too much part of the ministers. They should not really be able to assess any part of the decision, whether it is part of the appeal or not. If this is a case, they would be able to decide the whole outcome. I think that ministers should be able to review parts of the decision, only included in the appeal, and not given the wider powers. I am concerned that the powers are going to be too wide for the ministers in spite of what you were saying earlier. Thank you, Mr Buchanan. Can I call Michael Russell to speak to amendment 1088 and other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. There are two reasons for proposing these amendments. One is, particularly to my constituency—it is not the laundret experience of Tavish Scott, but a wider experience to do with Castle Towered—but the second one is the informed by the survey that the Rural Affairs Committee undertook of local authorities and their attitude to disposal of assets. If I may deal briefly with both of those. On the case of Castle Towered with own my constituency, it is fair to say that those who wished to take over that asset, who had a very clear business plan for that asset, who had a key core tenant for that asset and who would have created between 90 and 100 jobs, were frustrated over a long period of time by local authority that had no intention of selling the asset. Indeed, there would be, were the review process in place, no faith in the review process in those circumstances because a relationship of trust had broken down completely between the community and the local authority. The sense of frustration that was felt in the South Cowell area and still exists in that area and across the community about the failure to achieve the sale of Castle Towered has persuaded me that there needs to be, in exceptional circumstances, where there has been an extraordinarily difficult process and in which there is no trust left in the process of review and the local authority, some further opportunity for the community to have their case considered. That parallels to some extent the appeals process that exists in terms of rural school closures. The wider issue of the survey by the Rural Affairs Committee should, I think, give concern to the entire committee. If members have not had access to that material, then I think that it is useful that they should see it. It appears that most local authorities, whilst they express goodwill towards the asset transfer process, are still somewhat confused as to what it means. They are still influenced by a view of best consideration or best value that, of course, does not apply in all circumstances to the transfer of community assets and can be set aside. There also appears to be a very corporate view of what local authorities regard as their estate. I think that it is extremely important if we are to see a real process of asset transfer in Scotland that that corporate view of assets that belong to local authorities, as opposed to being held in trust for communities and for citizens by local authorities, is changed. That appeal process should give the opportunity. Where that exists—and it does not exist in every local authority—will give the opportunity for that to be overturned. Finally, I note that COSLA has views on these amendments and has written to me and other members giving those views and, indeed, regards one of them as offensive to local government. I would invite COSLA to speak to the leader of our Gail and Bute Council, who's actions through his local authority have been offensive to the community of South Cowell and to consider that these amendments will at least put rest to that, but will also enable real community empowerment and the transfer of assets. Do any other members wish to enter the debate? I think that Mike Russell has given a good account of why we need to consider the amendments on his name. The issue for me, and I've seen it on many occasions, where local authorities have effectively stopped the pursuance by communities to take over community assets, not necessarily by the decision not to allow the transfer to take place, but by some of the burdens that they place upon local communities in relation to cost and other factors. I think that, in relation to the community asset transfer, we need to get a message over to public bodies. A community asset transfer is not just a monetary value, but there are economic and social values that must be included in the decisions that are being made. As Mr Russell had indicated, the jobs and the plan for Castle Tower clearly showed that there would be real economic gain for the community in that area. I know some of the history of Castle Tower and some of the jobs that were lost previously during 2005-06 through the redundancies and the plans that had been made, but that applies to many communities throughout Scotland where they have a vision that they can take forward issues, a vision that they can deliver jobs, security and other services within their own communities. That has to be taken into account because the issue about best value is one that is still confusing many officials throughout Scotland and local authorities about what best value is. We have to clearly send a message out to those local authority officials and public bodies that best value should also include the long-term return that can be made within communities when they take on those resources and facilities. Best value is not about a monetary figure, it is about what can be delivered and could be delivered by communities to the benefit of their own communities. As I said, at the present moment, I am minded to support Mike Russell's amendments. I was just hoping to return to the issue that the minister introduced in relation to allios. Is it currently stands? Are allios currently out with the reach, the scope of community requests for asset transfer at the moment? I will answer that by intervention. Allios are not prescribed in the face of the bill. A power is there to allow the Scottish ministers to designate additional bodies that will come under the remit or within the scope of the bill's provisions. It would be my firm intention to ensure that allios are included. It is appropriate that where something is wholly owned reports back to a local authority it should be subject to the same strictures as the authority. It may well be already that where there is a service level agreement allios are covered because of the connection that that makes with the local authority. However, this is an area that we intend to return to in regulations to designate appropriately allios into it. It may have to be allios on a one-by-one basis or as a category or as a definition, but this is something that we are working on because we want to make it very clear that whether an asset is held directly by a public body or a local authority or whether it is held through an allio that it should be subject to the same provisions as the rest of that organisations estate. This section here will ensure that there is consideration of that for appeals so that, if it is a local authority allio, the initial qualifies for the local authority appeals route. I think that that is an important part to future profits so that once we get allios in, which I assure the member will not take a long time in parliamentary terms, then allios will be properly thought through for their processes. My intervention is over. Thanks, convener. I would have to say that I do have some sympathy for the arguments that Mike Russell makes. I do not know whether the minister can pick these points up in terms of particularly achieving best value. I also know what COSLA says, and COSLA seems a bit defensive. There are local authorities out there who recognise the wider benefits of community transfer. In the M5, for example, a few years ago, I was very supportive of the former fire station being transferred and being put into an arts centre, but without the political drive behind that, the officials would not have gone for that. I have to say that there would have to be a political drive to say that there is a wider benefit to the community. I have experienced that for a point of view having to drive it politically, so I do have some sympathy. I do not know whether the minister can pick up the points that Mike Russell makes around best value and be able to look more broadly than simply at the financial gain or otherwise at the local authority things that might lose. It has been a useful discussion here, and I do not think that it is ever easy to set up appeals mechanisms and to deal with the areas in which there are interactions between local and national government. It is certainly the case now that, against what I asked the committee to do, there is now an appeal to ministers on participation requests that was introduced by Mr Rowley. I can see a parallel here in appeals to ministers on asset transfers, but it is appropriate that the focus of any review of local authority decisions is the local authority itself. We have structures in the bill that will create the two-stage process, and Mr Russell's amendments will ensure that those are political decisions rather than delegated. However, there is no doubt that in a very few exceptional cases giving community bodies a route of appeal to Scottish ministers could be beneficial because it would strengthen the part of the bill's focus on openness, transparency and consistency, and I think that it may well be proportionate measure. I have sympathy also with Mr Russell because we have had in Edinburgh as well places where nobody really wants to transfer the assets. The local authority does not want to do it for various reasons that are rather spurious, but basically they want to hold on to them. What my concern is, or our concern, is that there are too many appeals. I mean, these appeals can just go on and on and on, so how you limit them, I am not very sure, but I do not think that there should be some sort of limit on the amount of appeals, but I think that there must be an appeal. There are a finite number of appeals set out, and I suppose that for particularly enthusiastic community groups there is always judicial review on top of that. I know of one example from my constituency where that has happened having had all appeals mechanisms expressed, and I probably cannot say anything more about it. However, there is a finite set, a finite route, and that adds one more at a national level. I think that, as I said, is a proportionate response. I put the question on amendment 1077. Are we all agreed on 1077? Thank you. I call amendment 1154, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1077. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 1154 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 1154, please show. And those against, please. Those in favour, one. Those against, six. The question is disagreed to. Amendment 1155 is in the name of Tavish Scott, who is no longer here to move or not move, is anybody else wanting to move that amendment? That falls. Amendment 156 is also in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated. Does anyone wish to move that one? No, that falls. The question is that section 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Section 53. Can I call amendment 1088, in the name of Mike Russell, already debated with amendment 1077? Mike Russell, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 1088 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1089, in the name of Mike Russell, already debated with amendment 1077? Mr Russell, to move or not move, please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1089 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1078, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1077? Can I ask you to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 1078 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Moved. Thank you. Can I call amendment 1090, in the name of Mike Russell, already debated with amendment 1077? Mr Russell, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 1090 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Russell. Can I call amendment 1079, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1077? Minister, to move formally, please. Moved. The question is that amendment 1079 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1157, in the name of Cameron Buchanan? Are we all agreed? Would you like to speak to your amendment, Mr Buchanan? This will remove the section that allows the condition of leases between multiple relevant authorities that restrict the subletting to be overridden if an asset transfer is made. I think that this could become a threat to contracts. It is not for the bill to nullify contracts. I think that it would be much fairer and more practical to remove this bar and allow contracts to take account of the bill's provisions themselves if it comes into effect. I wish to enter this debate. Minister, please. Section 60 is, I believe, a helpful provision for community bodies seeking to lease or otherwise use land or premises. It applies where both the owner and lessee of the land are relevant authorities under the act, under the bill, and it disciplines any restrictions in the lease that would prevent the lessee from subletting or sharing occupation of the land. That means that the community transfer body can negotiate directly with the authority that they see occupying the premises and do not have to worry about any constraints on that authority as a result of its lease. We do not want to prevent a community body's aspirations being thwarted simply because of a head lease that prevents subletting or sharing occupancy of land. There is protection in place for the person leasing the land to the authority in subsection 4. The authority remains liable for all matters under the lease and cannot assign it. I do not see a value for community bodies in removing the flexibility that section 60 provides to them, and I would ask Mr Buchanan to withdraw his amendment. Can I ask Mr Buchanan to wind up and press your withdrawal, please? In spite of what the minister says, I would actually like to press this amendment. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1157 would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 157, please show. And those against 1157, please show. Those in favour, one. Those against, six. The question is disagreed to. Can I call amendment 1158, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1127? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 1158 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of 1158, please show. And those against 1158, please show. Those in favour, one. Those against, six. The question is disagreed to. Can I call amendment 1159, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1127? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 1159 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of 1159, please show. And those against 1159, please show. Those in favour of 1159, one. Those against, six. The question is disagreed to. Can I call amendment 1160, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1127? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 1160 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 1160, please show. And those against amendment 1160, please show. Those in favour, one. Those against, six. The question is disagreed to. The question is that section 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1080, in the name of the minister, in a group on its own? Minister, to move and speak to your amendment, please. Thank you. I'm pleased to bring forward amendment 1080. It requires all relevant authorities to publish registers of land they own or lease, and this will help community bodies to know what property might be available for asset transfer so that they can identify those that are most suitable for their needs. We don't think that this should be an onerous task for relevant authorities. They should have property management systems that tell them what they own, and I will not refer to any current on-going issues in the city of Edinburgh at this time. Yes, of course. Thank you minister for giving way. I don't think that it's just Edinburgh that has a problem in terms of what land is currently either owned or leased by a local authority or held in trust. And there are issues about land that is currently held in trust by local authorities and what ownership rights the community may have if they apply for a transfer of the land that is held in trust. I hope that, when the minister is considering this, he will take on board the issue about all the land issues that may apply to their community asset transfer. Indeed, that is in some ways a parallel to the common good register provisions that are in here as well to provide that authoritative list. We know that there are some gaps out there. The requirement is to list what they own or lease to the best of their knowledge and belief. The Government has made a commitment that all public bodies will complete registration of their titles within five years, so that will improve the knowledge that we have. Ministers will be able to specify types of land that do not need to be included in the register. The legal definition of land is very, very wide, including rights and interests in land as well as land and buildings themselves. Property registers for local authorities might, for example, include the ground rents for traffic lights and responsibility for retaining walls—things that communities might not be at the top of their lists for asset transfer. Although I would be interested to see an asset transfer request for a community group to operate a traffic light just because it would be such a legal curiosity. The power to exclude types of land will allow us to focus on the register on the kinds of property that communities might want. We will, of course, consider all the complexities of land law because that is about providing that information for communities. Information about access rights, underground cables and the like can be provided when there is an inquiry that is perhaps more suitable there. I am getting off of the ministerial language. It has been quite a morning. Many community groups have requested this. We are very happy to amend the bill to ensure that it is in there. I move amendment 1080. I think that you have tempted fate there, minister, because I know folks who are very interested in Belisha Beacons. Does any other member wish to enter the debate? Minister, would you like to wind up? Just to say, I have had correspondence about a community takeover of a public toilet, so the sky is the limit. The question is that amendment 1080 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 1081, in the name of the minister, has already debated with amendment 1112. Amendment 1081A, in the name of John Wilson, has already debated with amendment 1112. Amendment 1081B, in the name of John Wilson, has already debated with amendment 1112. Amendment 1081A, in the name of John Wilson, has already debated with amendment 1112. The question is that amendment 1081B, in the name of the minister, has already debated with amendment 1112. Amendment 1082A, in the name of John Wilson, has already debated with amendment 1082A, in the name of the minister, has already debated with amendment 1075. The question is that amendment 1083 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 1161, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, has already debated with amendment 1114. The question is that section 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill for today. All remaining amendments should be lodged with the clerks and the legislation team by 12 noon this Friday. I thank everybody for their participation today, and I now suspend and move into private session.