 Felly, y pryd ei wneud eich cwrdd, ochu'r cwrdd, yn fwy o gwybod i'r ddatblygu i'r paradwyr yng Nghymru i Gweithrithiaid, i木 i Gweithrithiaid, gan fwy o Gweithrithiaid. Felly, mae gennym yn fwy o'r dweud dechrau i glynfa i gweithrithiaid ddod, heb i gweithrithiaid i gweithrithiaid i'r paradwyr arweinydd ar gael. A fi ei cyfnod i gweithrithiaid i'r ddiogel a chwybod i'i gweithrithiaid i gwaith i gwybod i'r ddevelop confront. Brindun Llywodraeth, mi roeddaeth che restrach � Hon Black. Yr oedd y Llywodraeth â'r umorh dudiau o dddangos 2. Llywodraethี trech med Rydym yn thiefctasio graному ag y maen nhw'n byw yn yryd o'r of my portfolio. Traffling across Scotland, seeing some of the most stunning parts of our scenery, some of the most beautiful places to live on this naturally beautiful country, is something that does fill other with envy, but it is also, I should say, a great honour and a great privilege for me too. Our islands are wonderful places to live, wonderful places to work, wonderful places to study and wonderful places to visit. They contribute so much to Scotland, and it is vital that, as a Parliament, we acknowledge the very unique role that they play in our identity, in our economy and indeed in our society. Since becoming minister for islands, I have had the pleasure to visit over 30 islands in their communities so far. I have been struck by their differences in terms of, of course, the geography, but also the very, very strong similarities that they share as well. Their resilience, vibrancy a warmth, thanks to everyone who lives on our islands, they are very welcoming and very opening indeed. Yet there are challenges, almost every island that I travel to. There is a common thread of issues, and I think that anybody who has travelled to our islands, anybody who lives on our islands, indeed anybody who represents our islands, will recognise some of those common challenges—remoteness, declining populations, transport, digital connectivity, housing, health and many other issues as well. Often all of those are playing and contributing to the declining population issue that I just mentioned. This Government has been working in partnership with others to address many of those challenges through a whole range and a whole host of policies, initiatives and investments, such as, for example, over £1 billion in our ferry services, including the budget proposal that was recently agreed of £10.5 million for Auckland and Shetland for internal ferry services, £25 million in a rural housing fund, and £5 million in an islands housing fund to deliver affordable homes. A huge issue that I know, for example, Liam McArthur in particular, has mentioned on his island community in Orkney, and a few poverty and efficiency programmes with more than £16 million invested in island council areas. Over £270 million invested in airport facilities across the highlands and islands, with more than £60 million in the air discount scheme, and £6 million recently announced in the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund, and so on and so forth, and I can speak more to some of those, perhaps in my closing as well. Liam McArthur is very grateful to the minister for taking an intervention and for his reference to fuel poverty, which, as he will appreciate, is highest in the Orkney community that I represent. However, it is also an example of where island proofing in terms of policy now would be beneficial. He will be aware of the issues that I have raised with himself and his ministerial colleagues. Do you not think again that the recommendation from the committee to retrospectively apply island proofing to some of the most egregious examples of where policy and legislation are not working for islands is a sensible move? I will address that point. I thought that it might welcome up our address later on in my contribution. It is fair to say that the committee's recommendation was not for a blanket retrospective look at legislation. As Liam McArthur says, it was to look at specific examples, and I think that perhaps there is a way that we can closely work to identify what those examples are and see where we can come to a common solution. However, I will perhaps come to that in a little bit more detail in my contribution if the member will allow. I essentially want to improve outcomes by creating the right conditions for investment empowerment and increasing sustainable economic growth. The islands bill certainly is a part of that, but let's be under no illusion. There is no magic solution. There is no silver bullet. There is no single policy that will make this happen. However, the measures in the bill alongside the actions taken by local authorities, public bodies and communities themselves will undoubtedly contribute to creating the right conditions for growth. I welcome the rural economy and connectivity committee's report, which recommends that the Parliament support the general principles of the bill. I want to thank members of the right committee and other parliamentary committees for the very thorough scrutiny of the bill. The committee was no doubt helped in their efforts to take evidence from a wide range of organisations that they consulted with. Meetings took place, I know, on Mull, Orkney and the Western Isles, and good use of video conferencing to speak to people in the University of Highlands and Islands and the people of Arran. It is heartening to see colleagues making it easier for people to participate in the development of a bill through the use of technology. Thanks are due to everyone who took the time to give their and offer their views and experiences to the committee or, indeed, to us in government. Time and time again, I have been encouraged to hear organisations and individuals express confidence that the bill will make a real difference in helping public bodies to look at islands in a different way. In particular, I would like to thank the local authority leaders and chief executives who have been feeding in their comments and aspirations through the island strategic group. It was a willingness, in fact, to collaborate and co-operate that brought the bill forward. Credit must go to that fantastic campaign, Our Islands, Our Future, and I want to continue that collaboration and that good work and that engagement with the local authorities and the council leaders. I have a good relationship with the three holy island council leaders, but also with the other three leaders of the councils that have islands as part of the local authorities. It would be a very important credit to the predecessors and the previous leaders of both Orkney, Shetland and, indeed, the Westmills, but, of course, I give them the pre-empted… Sorry, but I think that it is something else to ask. The island minister will be well aware of the arrangements to do with inter-island ferries and the arrangements now in relation to looking forward and resolving the issues about capital expenditure and, indeed, revenue expenditure. He plans, with his colleague the finance minister, to have a working group on that. Can I ask that the person he plans to chair that gives it the impetus that is clearly needed, both from the Government's point of view and, indeed, for those who need to use the service on a day-to-day basis? Minister, I think that Tavish Scott makes a very, very good point here of my apologies. Anyway, I will move on. Thank you for that intervention. What I would say to Tavish is that I am completely understanding of the fact that the agreement that was secured in the budget was very much in tandem with this working group looking at longer-term arrangements. We must absolutely take that forward. I will take his remarks on board. The conversation with the local authorities, as I have to say, has been incredibly constructive. As it has been with the Liberal Democrat MSPs as well as members across the chamber, so he is absolutely right to raise that point and put it, of course, on the record. Going back to the bill, I must welcome that this first stage of the bill, we have already established a broad range of consensus in the bill's provisions, although that sometimes makes me feel slightly more nervous for the stages to come. However, I will always be happy to discuss issues where we have differences in an attempt to come to a common solution, where that solution can be found. Part 2 of the bill very much places a duty in Scottish ministers to prepare, lay before the Parliament and publish a national islands plan. That plan will set out the main objectives and strategies in relation to improving outcomes for our island communities. That is a clear statement of purpose, while also allowing for Government of the day to the flexibility to say what it will do to achieve that purpose. The plan will, of course, work alongside existing plans and frameworks that will provide a strategic direction, focus resources and, where necessary, targets for key areas of activity. As a key component of the bill, the national islands plan has attracted a good deal of comment, and the committee has put forward a number of recommendations. I want to address some of them today, if I can. The committee recommends that the bill should have high-level objectives placed on the face of the bill. I do appreciate the intent behind that, but we need to be mindful of the purpose of legislation. We make law to give legal effect to things that we want to achieve or, indeed, things that we want to prevent. Bills are not necessarily the place to make policy statements, and overall statement of purpose would need to be legally meaningful to a court, and I am not convinced that that recommendation would necessarily achieve that. However, I want to look at what alternatives are available. We can look to see if something can be done, for example, within the national islands plan. We can consider bringing forward amendments that would set out those high-level objectives in the current frame of improving outcomes for island communities. That would seem to have the potential to meet the overall purpose of the committee's proposal, and, of course, I would be happy to discuss that further with members. In the Government's response to stage 1 report, I have already said that I will accept the committee's recommendations to make local authorities a statutory consultee and consider other changes, including, for example, a time limit for the submission of the annual progress report and strengthening the language regarding consultation with communities. Part 3 of the bill on island proofing has been broadly welcomed and has attracted a lot of discussion and comment during the committee's procedures. The idea is that, straight forward, we want to ensure that an awareness of the needs and circumstances of our island communities is embedded in the decision-making processes of public bodies. The bill places a duty on public bodies to do that, and we will ensure that the interests of island communities are placed firmly and squally at the centre of legislative policy and service considerations. That is something that many members across the chamber, and just most recently, Lee McArthur in his intervention, said that the Government should already be doing. I would like to give members the absolute assurance that that is already happening. A good example of that would be the social security legislation that has been taken forward, as my colleague Jeane Freeman has already, without the bill being passed, already looking to island proof where she can. To help with that, we have included an island communities impact assessment process, where new or revised legislation policies that are indeed services have a significantly different effect on islands, our island communities than other communities. An impact assessment must be undertaken. As with other impact assessments, the details of the process will be set out in statutory guidance. Island proofing has the potential to change the practice, the culture and the values of our public bodies. We all agree—I think that every single one of us, and this was mentioned time and time again in the committee's procedures—that we all do not want to see a simple tick box exercise, and it must be, in the words of the committee, agile and fit for purpose. The committee has made a number of recommendations on island proofing, and we welcome and agree with many of them—not all, but many of them and most of them—and they are set out in our response. John Mason mentioned island proofing. Would he accept that there is a slight difference between island proofing and island impact assessment, and island proofing might suggest going further than the bill intends? Island impact assessments are the process that you would have to go through, but island proofing is absolutely right. It is not just about the impact assessment itself, but it is changing the entire culture of how we think about doing legislation, but, importantly, it is not just about the Government, but about the 60-plus listed public authorities as well. The member absolutely makes a good point in that regard. On the retrospective ask that some have made—I think that Liam McArthur made it most recently in his intervention—a specific provision in the bill around retrospective island proofing is unnecessary. It could lead to unrealistic demands across a range of policies and legislation, which would be difficult to manage and be overly bureaucratic. That is not legislation, which is, in the committee's words, agile and fit for purpose. The committee has asked that the Government consider putting in place an appeals mechanism on the face of the bill as well. I am concerned that this approach risks creating the tick box exercise and culture that I am so keen to avoid. Other impact assessments that are set out in legislation such as equality impact assessments do not have an appeals process, but they have also been incredibly successful. They have worked as they have been clear, flexible and responsive. I am seeking to achieve the same for island community impact assessments. I will ensure that the issues explored throughout consultation on the statutory guidance and that a dispute resolution process is developed. We all want the bill to have its intended impact, and that is to focus on its aims of improving outcomes to achieve some of that. Part 4 of the bill has two elements to it—the securing of special status for the Western Isles, the Scottish parliamentary constituency, which has been universally welcomed. That proposal will allow the local government boundary commission for Scotland the flexibility to recommend the creation of one or two member wards consisting of inhabited islands. That has attracted much more comment. The comments have been in the large, very positive. I believe that we have the right approach in the bill that will allow for greater flexibility. However, I do accept the argument presented by the boundary commission and the committee that a small change to the language in the bill may well increase flexibility further, so I have indicated that in line with the committee's recommendation that I will amend section 14 of the bill to change the wording from holy or mainly to holy or partly. Part 5 of the bill relates to the new Scotland island area marine development licenses. I want all of our island local authorities to have the opportunity to build on the experiences of Shetland and Orkney and to have more control and development of the seas around their islands. We have taken a purposefully cautious approach to the bill in this area to ensure that it properly reflects the needs and circumstances of our islands. The bill allows for local authorities, with an inhabited island in its area, to be designated as a marine development licensing authority. After consultation, regulations will be laid setting out the details of the scheme. The minister can indicate whether there has been consideration of the impact of making that requirement for an inhabited island, given, for example, that the Zetlam County Council Actors currently stands does not have such a requirement in order for Shetland Islands Council to regulate in that area? Yes, it has been, and I will come to my closing speech to that very point, and I will try to reflect a little bit more on that. However, it was raised most certainly during the committee proceedings to me directly. I would say that where the Zetland and Orkney County Council Acts have worked well, we look to replicate that, but where there are clearly areas that we can diverge from it where I think are sensible to do so, I will. The issue of uninhabited islands and the effects on uninhabited islands has also been considered, I should say, with a particular reference to St Kilda that people have mentioned, and we are not unaware of some of those. On marine licensing and the development of marine licences and the impacts that they may well have on uninhabited islands, let me sum up in that in my closing remarks, if I may. I know that I have to conclude shortly. I am very proud to be the minister who is introducing the first-ever legislation solely for islands in this Parliament. Of course, I will be prouder when, hopefully, we manage to pass this bill into law in a few months' time. I welcome the rural economy and connectivity committee's deliberation today. I thought that their thoughtful approach has been very helpful indeed. I am looking forward to working with members across the chamber as we get to stage 2 and then stage 3 of the bill. The Government will keep an open mind, because ultimately we want the same as anybody else in the chamber—the best outcomes possible for our island communities for the future. Thank you very much, and I call on Edward Mountain to open it for the Rural Affairs Committee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I would like to say that we are delighted to present our report on the island Scotland bill. Sadly, as time is limited, I will not be able to cover all the points within it. I will try to pick out the most salient ones. The committee does note the minister's detailed response, which we received last Friday. As the minister said, as part of our evidence-gathering sessions, the committee undertook visits to Orkney, Mull and the Western Isles. We took evidence for our video conference with the islanders on Arran, as well as students from multiple locations, including the University of the Highlands and Islands. We want to thank those islands, who met with the committee, sometimes on very windy and blustery nights, to share their views. I also would like to take time to thank the committee members for their diligence in tackling this task, and also the clerks for their hard work in preparing the report. The committee was very aware of the hopes that the islanders have invested in the bill, which was embodied in their campaign Our Islands Are Future. We are, however, concerned that there will be a gap between what islanders expect and what islanders will get from the bill. We urge the Scottish Government to manage those expectations very carefully. To turn to our key findings, the committee called on the Scottish Government to review the definition of the terms islands, inhabited island, island community and high and low tide marks, after the Scottish Law Society felt that those terms required further clarification. The committee notes that the Scottish Government has reviewed the definitions, but it has not committed to any undertakings in its response, and we look forward to a resolution from the Government on that during stage 2 of the island's bill. On the national island's plan, the committee recommended that the island communities and other stakeholders should be comprehensively consulted so that the plan reflects the actual priorities of islanders. We note again that the minister in his responses agrees. The committee also felt that a national island's plan, which has an overarching strategy and takes that into account, the individual nature of each island is a prerequisite. We believe that this is best achieved through local decision making structures, and, therefore, we recommend that the Scottish Government amend the bill to make the creation of local authority-level island plans a statutory requirement. We welcome the Scottish Government's agreement to consult the six local authorities involved and to seek their views on the consultation. The committee acknowledged the importance that uninhabited islands can have in terms of cultural, economic and environmental significance, and we recommend that uninhabited islands should not be left out of the national island's plan. We welcome the Scottish Government's reassurance that there is nothing to prevent uninhabited islands featuring the plan and that that aspect will feature in future consultation. The purpose of the island's bill is to improve the outcomes of island's communities, and we feel that it is important that performance can be tracked. Therefore, the committee recommends that the national island's plan is developed with clear outcomes, targets and measurable indicators. We also suggested that a time limit for the annual report is included within the bill. We are therefore pleased that the Government has acknowledged the need for monitoring and the assessment of progress. Turning to impact assessments, the committee called on the Government to provide clear and consistent terminology. We felt that the use of the terms island impact assessment and island proofing were used interchangeably in the bill's supporting documents. We believe that both duties have significantly different meaning, and it confused many of those who we consulted. The committee notes the Scottish Government's view that the terms were not used interchangeably, but we welcome its recognition that clarity and consistency of terminology is important, and that we will ensure that the consultation and guidance around the duty are clear. The committee and islanders are adamant that the island impact assessments should not be a tick box exercise, and I welcome that comment from the minister today. They must be real and meaningful assessments. The committee agreed that for islanders to have confidence in impact assessments, they must have a mechanism by which they can appeal or object to assessments. Although the Government acknowledged our recommendation, I know that it is unprepared to include an appeal mechanism within the bill at this stage. With regard to retrospective island impact assessments, the committee recognised that it is unrealistic to assess all current legislation. However, we do believe that retrospective action is appropriate if it can be demonstrated that specific legislation has a negative impact on the islands. We note that the Scottish Government is in agreement, and we welcome that. We also know that the Government does not believe that it is necessary to specifically seek views on this part of its consultation on the guidance for legislation or policy that could be problematic to the islands. The committee will have to consider this issue further at stage 2. I turn to marine licensing powers. The committee acknowledged that local authorities support the principle of greater marine licensing powers, and we look forward to seeing further details from the Scottish Government on this matter. The committee also recognised that the interaction between marine licensing powers in the islands bill and existing legislation caused confusion for some stakeholders. Although the committee felt that the provision for marine licensing powers should be included in the bill, we are concerned about how that will work in practice. It may add an extra layer of bureaucracy that may overcomplicate the marine licensing scheme, and there could be a potential for duplication. We call upon the Government to provide further details on the relationship and interaction between the islands bill and the Marine Scotland Act 2010. On constituency boundaries, the committee, and indeed everyone that we spoke to, welcomes the Scottish Government and has included a provision in the bill that will protect the western isles as a Scottish parliamentary constituency. The committee welcomes that the Scottish Government will act on the suggestion of the boundary commission to provide greater flexibility to better balance council wards that consist of inhabited islands. We look forward to the Government's amendment at stage 2. Our report raises many issues, and the committee looks forward to seeking positive actions on all our recommendations. Subject to the points being raised in our report, the committee recommends that the Parliament agrees the general principle of the bill. Peter Chapman will now open for the Conservative Party. I am pleased to open for the Conservative group today. I thank my fellow REC committee members, the clerks and especially all the people who gave evidence to get the bill to this stage. It must be remembered that the bill has its origins in the initiative Our Islands at our future. A piece of work was started in 2013 by the councils of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to look at constitutional reform to give the islands more autonomy and more powers over the seabed and renewable resources. This is an enabling bill and provides for future action by the Scottish Government. It is therefore important to manage expectations of islanders who may be expecting more immediate and tangible outcomes. The Conservative group supports the bill at this stage. There has been an extensive consultation process to get the bill to this point. As our convener has just said, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee held video conferences with the Aran Islands Council, the University of the Highlands and Islands as well as Heriot-Watt University. We also visited the islands of Mall, the Western Isles and Orkney to speak to island councils and the islanders themselves. It was fantastic to get a feeling of the enthusiasm and the expectation that island folk have for this bill. It was a personal pleasure to get to see close up some of the beautiful parts of Scotland and the strength of the sense of community that they possess. There are 93 inhabited islands in Scotland with a population of just over 103,000. 2 per cent of the population. Only five of those islands are connected to mainland Scotland by Bridger Causeway, so they are obviously dependent on ferries or planes to reach the mainland. It is clear that constituents of those islands can face considerable obstacles when it comes to accessing higher education and, in some cases, even secondary education. Access to healthcare in hospitals can be difficult and those requiring long-term and on-going care often have to be away from their families for long periods of time. On some islands, there are no care homes for the elderly, creating severe problems for families. Access to these facilities are taken for granted on the mainland, but it is clear that if this bill is to mean anything, it must start to redress some of these missing services, provide real assurance to the islanders and improve outcomes for them. The bill needs to include one or two high-level objectives, we believe, to give greater purpose and focus. What we want to avoid is confusion over what the bill is in place to achieve. Its purpose should be included and outlined from the beginning. This bill will be judged on the practical difference that it can make on the ground for the islanders. Targets and indicators would enable the public to see the progress at every review and, therefore, welcome the Government's response, accepting that this should be included in the bill. The committee recommends that the six island authorities be made statutory consultees during the national islands plan development. Government does not want to include a prescriptive list in the bill, and I understand that, but the island authorities must be included. The national islands plan should be an overarching and strategic framework in which each individual island community can take full advantage of the opportunities that the bill offers. I welcome this bill and its concept of island impact assessment. This mandates the Government and its agencies to take into account the impacts of any new services or policies that they would have on the islands and address them appropriately. The term island proofing, which has been used interchangeably with island impact assessment, is a term that the Government needs to use with caution, because the enthusiasm shown by islanders during consultations must not turn to disappointment. Expectations need to be managed. The use of the term island proofing provides much greater expectation than island impact assessment does, and it may raise expectations that cannot be delivered. It is quite clear that retrospective island impact assessments may be unrealistic, but I agree that there should be an opportunity for any current legislation that severely impacts island communities should be retrospectively reviewed. Although that would lead to more questions for the Government, it would help to strengthen what the bill sets out to do. There was a lot of support from local authorities for the idea of increased powers for marine licensing, and that would potentially be a big boost for those coastal communities. However, there was some confusion regarding marine licensing that needs to be reviewed by the minister. For instance, the applications to very work licences that were granted under Zetland legislation would be exempt if they were made after the area had been designated. There is also confusion around the responsibilities and boundaries in relation to the 12 nautical mile limit, because, in some cases, islands would share some of the area, and that needs to be clarified as well. However, the biggest concern that I want to raise in today's debate is finance, or, in the case of this bill, the lack of it. The costs outlined in the financial memorandum are only related to the delivery of the duties in the bill. There is no budget to implement new services on the islands. There is no budget to implement the national islands plan. There is no budget to mitigate any areas for improvement indicated by island impact assessment. I thank the member very much for giving way. Would he also accept that, although some things would cost money, we certainly had evidence from Orkney that, if they were given more powers, they could use the existing money to produce a better result? I do accept that, but I also reiterate that there is a need for extra funds to address the many issues that we know are there. If the bill hopes to help improve island life, it must contain a budget to add new services, new facilities and new opportunities. There are expectations for significant improvements in those areas, but with no budget, they cannot be met. It is clear that the bill needs further work and that we can expect changes in improvements at stage 2. I look forward to seeing them implemented because we all want the bill to be a success for the people of the islands. I now call on Colin Smyth to open for the Labour Party. Labour supports that the principles and the spirit of the islands bill, that the contribution that our islands make to Scotland's cultural and economic wellbeing, is enormous. However, as our islands are future made clear, there is a real need to better support and empower our islands. It is to the credit of those who established that campaign that today Parliament is debating the bill before us. It is a campaign that I hope has fired at the first shots in beginning to address the decade of centralisation of power that we have seen in Scotland. It is an opportunity to empower our island communities and put local experiences and expertise at the heart of decision making. It would be however fair to say that the islands bill is more evolution than revolution. Even if I amending, I suspect that it will not be as ambitious as the island communities themselves that it seeks to deliver for and managing expectations will be challenging. It is important but modest provisions, although welcome, will not give our islands the power to fully transform their communities in the way that they want. However, there are amendments that can be made to strengthen the bill and I look forward to working with parties across the chamber as the bill makes its way through the parliamentary process. For example, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee rightly argued for the bill to be amended to include a purpose clause setting out clear, overarching objectives. Of course, that should not be overly prescriptive or limiting and I recognise the minister's concerns that it must have a clear legal purpose. However, an explicit indication of the bill's aspirations and how it will help to deliver equity and sustainability for our islands would help to ensure that the reality of the bill better matches its ambition and, for example, ensure provisions such as the proposed national islands plan do not fall short in practice. Paving the way for the development of that national islands plan is, of course, a key element of the bill outlined in part 2. That plan must settle not only in a clear direction but practical measures to be delivered. Local communities and stakeholders must meet the heart of the development of that plan and I am pleased that the Government has agreed to the call from the REC committee to make local authorities statutory consultees in the development of the plan and guidance. A one-size-fits-all approach of course would not work for such a plan. It must be about enabling local communities. As the Federation of Small Business argued in their evidence to the REC committee, we need local solutions to meet local needs and local aspirations. Just looking at the bill in itself with regard to what it is saying about how we can empower local communities in decentralised decision making, in which section of the bill does it actually do that? Other than the creation of marine licensing powers, I see very little by way of wording that actually gives legislative power or statutory powers to local communities. I think that that is really a question for the minister, but I do think that there are elements and I am certainly not going to defend the scope of the bill because I do think that it does not go as far as it could do when it comes to empowering local communities. For example, the call to make local authority level island plans a statutory requirement would help in that regard, and I welcome the Government's decision to seek the views of local authorities when it comes to this particular matter. It is important that the bill under what we do recognises the differences between the islands covered by the bill and works towards ensuring that the unique needs of each island and island grouping are fully recognised. As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I am pleased that it will be undertaking regular scrutiny of the national plan and its annual reports. In particular, I welcome the commitment made in the committee's report to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to present their views. Likewise, I welcome the Government's indication that the plan will include clear outcomes, targets and miserable indicators by which to assess performance. Given Parliament a chance to monitor and scrutinise the plan's impact is vital, I would like to echo the committee's call for a set time limit on the submission of the plan's annual report to be included in the bill. Part 3 of the bill covers duties in relation to island communities, including the introduction of islands impact assessments. The Government's guidance on that will be key to ensuring that the assessments function as they should, and I am glad that the commitment has been made to bringing forward an amendment to making the affected local authorities statutory consultees in the development of that guidance. In order for the impact assessments to be reliable, they must also be based on a strong evidence base. The Government has given it a welcome commitment to review the data available on island communities as part of the implementation of the bill and to work to address any gaps that arise. That data will provide a crucial foundation for accurate and dependable assessments. I am, however, disappointed that, in the response to the red committee, the Government has failed to take on board the committee's recommendation to introduce an appeal or objection mechanism for impact assessments. I appreciate that there are concerns about the bureaucracy that this may entail, but it would provide accountability and ensure that islanders have confidence in the process. There is a balance to be struck, but I do not believe that that is an unreasonable ask. There is also a need to be cautious about the language that you used, a point stressed by the red committee and raised by a number of members already today. The phrase island proofing and impact assess appear to become interchangeable, but it is clear that they have different meanings. Impact assessing something does not immediately guarantee that action has been taken to resolve any issues that this assessment raises, and by describing the process as island proofing, there is a real danger that expectations are raised beyond what the bill will deliver. There is, as Liam McArthur raised earlier, also a case that we made for retrospective impact assessments for carefully selected acts. Part 4 of the bill includes the welcome protection of the Western Elg Scottish Parliament constituency boundary to deliver parity with Orkney and Shetland, and that is very much welcome. As is the provision of flexibility for the local government boundary commission for Scotland to recommend smaller wards, where that will lead to island communities being better represented. The need for such provisions, however, highlight the current wholly inadequate rules both in legislation and, on occasion, simply made up by the parliamentary local government boundary commissions when it comes to recognising local ties, particularly in rural areas. The requirement for commissions to have regard to local ties is often meaningless, with parity completely outweighing arguments about the bonds of local communities. The wider issue of addressing the complete carve-up of communities by boundary commissions may be a debate for another day, but it is certainly one that we should have. My colleagues will touch on other areas in the bill, such as the inclusion of uninhabited islands. The last part that I wish to highlight is the proposals in part 5 to establish new marine licensing powers. Those are welcome, but they must be developed and implemented carefully and in line with existing legislation, and there remains a need for clarity on how exactly those powers would operate. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, Labour welcomes the general principles of the islands bill, but there does remain work to be done. Not only will there be a need to amend existing provisions in the bill as it stands, the bill currently fails to explicitly reference natural heritage. Scotland's natural heritage is of huge cultural, environmental and economic value, particularly on our islands. That should be reflected in the bill, with a clear commitment to safeguarding natural heritage on our islands. We also need to address the understandable concerns of local authorities about the financial burdens associated with the bill. With council budgets already stretched beyond breaking point, the Scottish Government must ensure that the implementation of the bill does not put our island authorities at a financial disadvantage. Finally, the red committee highlighted, and I quote, many of the issues that affect islands could also impact on remote and rural mainland areas. What is appreciated is beyond the scope of the bill. There is an opportunity to reflect on the approach that is taking with this legislation in the future, and ensure that we better support and seek to empower all our rural and remote communities. We move into the open part of the debate. I call on Kenny Gibson to be filled by John Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Since long before the launch of our islands, our future campaign, island communities have demonstrated time and again that they are more than capable of setting their own agenda for development and presenting their own ideas about how to deliver the best possible future for their own islands. In my constituency of Culliam North and the communities of Arran, Cumbury and Holy Isle, I witnessed first-hand how passionate islanders are about protecting and promoting their islands. From ferry committees to economic groups, from coastal protection task forces to community councils and from early forums to rescue teams, communities are independent, resilient and, in many ways, self-sufficient. I believe that the island's bill will not only help to mitigate some of the challenges that are faced by island communities, but also empower them to make the most of their own natural, economic and cultural resources. Some challenges that are thrown up by island living are highly visible and relatable to those of us who live in rural areas. Transport, physical remoteness and infrastructure can all present significant differences from mainland services. However, other more hidden challenges can make modern life more difficult, including population decline and the lack of high-quality digital connectivity. From the 192 responses received to the consultation that was published in 2016, more than 85 per cent supported the Scottish Government's aim of introducing a national island's plan. Respondents appreciated that this plan, to be laid before Parliament within 12 months from the date on which the act comes into force, would tackle pressing issues, maintaining focus instead of offering quick fixes and addressing needs as it changes and develops with time. The island's plan will also increase accountability. By identifying objectives, setting measures and defining responsibilities, we can ensure that the bill delivers the real and lasting change that our island communities are calling for. Some respondents called for tighter definitions and better mechanisms for reporting and review, and I believe that that should be considered as the bill progresses. A phrase that we will hear increasingly often through this process—we have also heard a number of occasions already today—is island proofing, the duty placed on ministers and public bodies to consider the unique nature of life on our islands in exercising their functions. That brings awareness of our islands to the forefront of political decision making and ensures that proper assessment of new or revised policy, strategy or service, is carried out to enable it to impact directly or indirectly on Scotland's inhabited islands. That was supported by 91 per cent of consultation respondents who appreciated the need for a tailored approach to legislation rather than shoehorning our islands into one-size-fits-all policies. For all our islands, they are, of course, different. The Clyde islands are hugely different in size, population, governmental structure and character from the three island authority areas and the Narebrydys, and their communities also want this bill to work for them. From working alongside my island constituents, I know how proud they are of the coastal beauty and marine life that makes our landscape so unique. Islanders already take pride in the South Arn marine protected area and Larmash Bay's no-take zone, and, confidently, they will welcome the opportunity to have more control in the development of the seas around our islands via the implementation of a marine licensing scheme. The adoption of a holistic approach to the process of marine planning has been commended by the Law Society of Scotland. It is of vital importance that any new licensing regime fits into the national framework and placed into 2010. The Marine Act created a more open and transparent licensing process, and changes resulting from the bill should help, not hinder that coherent approach to managing Scottish waters. Private businesses form an important part of island life, and the national islands plan should bolster support for sustainable island businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses reported that 86 per cent of business owners on Arn and Cymru felt that our island was a good place to do business. However, 28 per cent of respondents admitted that they had considered relocating to the mainland. Creating a positive business environment on our island requires a multi-faceted approach with issues of transport and digital connectivity of particular importance. Of course, SNP Government is investing £600 million to reach 100 per cent of homes of businesses with superfast broadband by 2021, and we are not for Scottish Government investment to date. Only 65 per cent of premises in North Ayrshire would be connected to fibre broadband. Today, I am pleased that 94 per cent of North Ayrshire residents have access to superfast broadband. With a new fibre cabinet currently being installed in Dornan, even more Arn residents will achieve superfast speeds in 2018, with 100 per cent of even the most remote island residents across Scotland having access by 2021. In addition to connecting homes and businesses, more must be done to attract young, skilled workers to our islands to guarantee their future and ensure their dynamic and attractive places in which to live and work. The challenge of Scotland's ageing population is felt even more acutely on our islands, and the national plan must address this. Of course, the Scottish Government has already been working for our islands. In my constituency, there have been a number of tremendous improvements in the last decade. Housing developments have been listed in Arran, St Beir's and Cumbry. Ferries have seen road-equivalent tariff, which has more than halved the cost of cars going to Arran. For example, £61.1 million has been invested in two new ferries for Arran. £12 million is a ferry for Cumbry, and a new £31 million harbour for Brodic, one for Ardrossan, which will be built over the next year or so. We have also seen a £5 million development to Larg's Pier, which serves Cumbry. We can also look at the fact that when the university of marine biological station in Cumbry was threatened with closing the loss of 28 jobs, the Government stepped in to help to save it. The island's bill should not be seen in isolation, but rather as part of the larger framework of legislative and policy activity under way to protect our island communities. Work in the Crown Estate and the Community Empowerment Act is also making significant strides towards returning more responsibility to the island communities. The historic bill demonstrates just how much our island is mean to the fabric of Scottish culture and society, and it is a bold step forward in meeting the unique needs of Scotland's islands now and for years to come. Thank you very much, Mr Gibson. I call John Scott, who is followed by Gail Ross. Mr Scott, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I am delighted to speak today in the stage 1 debate on the island's bill, a bill that will see real devolution to island communities at a time when it increasingly sees greater centralisation to the central belt. Although not an island's MSP myself, I admire and acknowledge the strength and the tenacity of island communities. The difficulties and challenges that arise due to weather and inaccessibility require the residents of all islands to be resilient and determined to make things work. Naturally, we all want to see more power in the hands of our islands, and they are eager for positive change so that they can set the agenda themselves, to better themselves and their communities. Back in 2014, when our islands, our future vision, was set out, we saw that islands really grasped the bull by the horns and put themselves out there with a plan that, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, saw more powers devolved to the islands. Although it was the Scottish Government that brought the bill to Parliament, it is the island communities that must be commended for their initiative to get the ball rolling, and we must not forget that. However, we must not forget that those who live in remote and rural men and communities might be slightly worried about the bill. Many communities in those areas can be several hours from the nearest largest town. That was highlighted in the stage 1 committee report, and, right from the committee, welcomes the Scottish Government's willingness to reflect on whether a similar approach to island proofing may be considered for remote, rural areas. Places such as Arna Mocchan and the Mull of Kintyre are classic examples of peninsula and mainland areas that are far from larger towns and, therefore, lack of choice of public services and amenities. Take the example of the Mull of Kintyre. It is as the crow flies 37 miles from my constituency of air, but the driving of a car would take nearly six hours through Glasgow traffic to reach Campbelltown. Those peninsula areas, while connected to the mainland, often face accessibility issues when a vital transport link is obstructed and getting to the Mull of Kintyre if the pass at the rest and be thankful is blocked, requires a lengthy detour via Damali and Crianlarach. As we know, time is money, and this remoteness can have a significant knock-on effect on small businesses and delivery times. In short, that produces the same effect as if a ferry were delayed to an island. What we do not want to see is the elevation of islands and status at the expense of those remote rural areas, and we welcome the acknowledgement of that in the stage 1 report. Turning now to constituency boundaries, I welcome the intention that the Nahilim and Yard constituency will be given the same protection as the Orkney and Shipman constituencies. It is important that the Outer Hebrides archipelago is recognised as being the separate entity and community of interest that it is. In future, we will know that having those boundaries protected for geographical, historical and practical reasons will mean that when constituents send their MSP to this place, they can be sure that they are fully accountable to their islands and not to a part of the mainland as well. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way on his points about rural Scotland. Would he agree that maybe we need to review the three constituencies that cover the whole west coast of the mainland of Scotland? John Scott. I can only imagine that that would flow from what I have just said, that there would be a need to do that, self-evidently. Turning now to the national island's plan and some of my conservative colleagues have already voiced their concerns about that, but I must stress that it is imperative that, with the national island's plan, we see proper action and progress, not merely warm words and weak promises. I am glad that the committee recognises that and has called for clarity. We must ensure that there are achievable targets and objectives in order that the islands experience the positive change that they seek and that that is fully funded by government. As the committee notes, it is important that local knowledge is harnessed and there are local decision-making structures in place. I am therefore pleased that the committee recommends that the Scottish Government amend the bill to make the creation of local authority-level island plans a statutory requirement. I know from speaking to my conservative colleagues that there has been a real sense of enthusiasm and passion from the islands to make a successor of this and we must not let them down. Turning now to definitions, I want to reiterate the point made by the Scottish Law Society that there needs to be further consideration given to ensure that the bill provides the clarity and certainty that it requires to ensure that the legislation can be properly implemented. Both the committee and stakeholders acknowledge that definitions need to be properly defined, particularly in the island community. In conclusion, we want to see the enthusiasm for positive change in the island communities to translate into actions by the Scottish Government. For too long, the agenda of the devolved Scottish Government has been and still is one of centralisation, but finally this bill goes some way in part to devolving power from Edinburgh into the hands of those who make the best decision for the islands that are theirs themselves. My conservative colleagues and I will support the bill at stage 1 and we will seek to amend it at stage 2 to ensure that it is robust and effective. I call Gail Ross to be followed by David Stewart. As deputy convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I would also like to begin by thanking everyone who gave evidence, both in person and in writing, all the people that we visited on the islands, all the councils involved and the people who have taken the time to provide us briefings for this debate. Your input has been extremely valuable. I would also like to thank the clerks and spies for all their hard work and my fellow committee members for a unanimously agreed stage 1 report. It is a comprehensive, in-depth piece of work and I do not think that any of our committee imagined that we would put forward a report with nearly 300 points when we started our scrutiny all those months ago. This bill has come about largely due to the work put into our islands, our future campaign, run by Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles and the subsequent report empowering Scotland's islands communities in 2014. We also now include not just island local authorities but also local authorities with islands, namely Highland or Gail and Bute in North Ayrshire. When our committee was tasked with bringing forward the stage 1 report on the bill, the obvious place to start was with islanders themselves. Many people were unsure how much scope the bill would have, what its objectives were to be and how that was going to be turned into something with tangible benefits. We were and we still have to be very careful to try and manage expectations around what this bill is trying to achieve. It focuses on provisions designed to protect and strengthen Scotland's island communities. It aims to meet the unique needs of Scotland's islands by making sure that impact assessments are carried out on policy and decisions by public bodies to ensure that they do not have a detrimental or negative effect on our island communities. It puts in place a provision for the development of an island's plan. We expect this to set out both a clear strategic approach and the practical approaches to delivery. We want to be assured that the priority areas featured in the plan reflect the actual priorities of islanders. We recommend that the consultation on the plan be undertaken as widely as possible and that it contains a list of who actually was consulted. There should be a method that allows a body or a group that feels like it should have been consulted but was not to address any concerns to the Scottish Government. We would like to see young people being the focus of the plan in order to try and keep them on the islands and we want islanders themselves to have the opportunity to present their views when Parliament presents its annual report and the five-year refresh. Even though this is an island's bill, many of the issues that arose as being challenges on the islands can also be applied to remote and rural communities. As a representative of a large rural constituency, it is only right that I address those. When Highland Council's director of development and infrastructure, Stuart Black, came in to give evidence, he told the committee. Many communities, particularly remote and rural ones, are facing challenges that cannot necessarily be addressed through a piece of legislation. However, if the spirit of the bill involves examining remote areas and considering that they need additional protection, then that is positive for the wider Highland area. When the Minister for Transport and the Islands, Humza Yousaf, came to give evidence to the committee, I asked him about remote and rural areas and he replied, rural communities should consider island proofing as a great opportunity. If the island Scotland bill is passed and island proofing is successful in its implementation, there is no reason why the Government should not look at that success and consider whether we want to explore that approach for rural Scotland as well. However, our islands do face different challenges. We never disputed that, and hearing Islanders' first-hand testimony has made us acutely aware that that bill is necessary. Being completely surrounded by water is one of those challenges, and although the submission by the Law Society of Scotland has thrown up some questions around the definition, it asks that we look at that in closer detail. In light of that, we have called on the Scottish Government to look at the terms island, inhabited island and island community, as well as high and low tide. That is in relation to pieces of land that may be accessible at low tide by a natural causeway, but surrounded by water at high tide. Not islands accessible by bridges, which are indeed islands, as my colleague Kate Forbes will attest to. The RSPB has supported our call to recognise the cultural, environmental and economic significance of uninhabited islands and asks us to go further and include them specifically in the bill. We have sought reassurance that they will be included in the national plan, but I am interested in the minister's response to including them in the bill. As a member of another committee in Parliament, the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I am pleased to say that we have included recommendations that relate to both of those in the report. We fully expect equalities in human rights to be considered as part of the implementation of the bill, and we ask the Scottish Government whether the Scottish Human Rights Commission was considered as a consultee for the national island's plan. Presiding Officer, there is much more contained within the report that I cannot cover here today, and I urge everyone with an interest to read it. I once again thank everyone that has contributed. One of the most important things that we heard is that islands are not looking for special treatment, they are merely seeking equity. They are looking for the decisions that are made by public bodies not to disadvantage them, and a lot of islanders stressed to us their hope that the bill will also have knock-on effects for the mainland. As you can imagine, Presiding Officer, I hope so as well. I commend the report to the chamber. Thank you very much. I call David Stewart to follow my John Finnie. Mr Stewart, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is an important and historic debate for islands and, indeed, all of Scotland. As an island's regional member, I am delighted to contribute. I put on record my recognition for the work of Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles Council for their first-class policy analysis on campaigning work on the issue, work that was rightly recognised with the national joint campaign award. The minister has been a doubty and persistent campaigner for an island's bill, and I hope that praise from me does not ruin his political career. Why a bill just for the islands? Surely mainland rule areas have the same problems. What about deprivation, unemployment and poverty in our inner cities? Of course, Presiding Officer, this is not a zero-sum game. As the iconic sector of state for Scotland, Rolly Ross, said in the second reading of the Highland Development Scotland Bill, I quote, I have never been more important than today that all the country's resources should be fully exploited and the island's islands have much to contribute. It is not a case of giving to the island's islands, it is a case of giving the islands and the islands a chance to play their full part in the future of Britain. Of course, Presiding Officer, much has changed in our island community since Rolly Ross' stirring speech echoed across Westminster. The discovery of oil and gas, the development of the University of the Highlands and Islands with five of its 13 academic partners, is wholly based on the islands, the common culture policy, the minimum wage, the air discount scheme, the introduction of route development funding, the road equivalent tariff, the rural fuel rebate and European structural and investment funds. However, whether the policy in question originated in Brussels, London or Edinburgh, the end result was a win-win for island communities. To echo the EU's global Europe 2050 vision, policies should not be territorially blind. However, some things have not changed. A conference that was organised by Shetland Islands Council and the Committee of the Regions, the 2011 Euro-island study, which analysed island communities across the EU, was debated and discussed what were the common characteristics below average connectivity, GDP below the average of the European average, economic convergence slower, numbers and job increase opportunities low and services of variable quality and high cost. However, as a counterweight, the 2012 due spec survey concluded islands of close-knit communities, high value natural capital and the potential for renewable energy. Perhaps the minister could share my view that the UK should have joined the other 14 EU countries in the Clean Energy for EU Islands programme initiative signed by Malt in Malta in 2017. However, the 2012 study also said that islands experience higher vulnerability to climate change through heightening sea levels and cohesive likelihood of storms. However, I believe that the time is right for a new islands act that builds on the best practice from Scotland, as exemplified by islands are future, which has been mentioned often today and looks to Europe and beyond. Perhaps the best example that I could find, and the minister is aware of this, for future legislation, is the Japanese Remote Islands Development Act of 1953, which all members will be intimately familiar with. It was one of the first acts of legislation in the world to recognise the distinct nature of island communities. As a result of the act, the Japanese island of Okinawa, which is close ties with UHI, became a prefecture. The first level of jurisdiction and administrative division in Japan. Perhaps in winding up, the minister could comment further in best practice, and I hope that he swatted up on the 1953 act that I last warned him about this particular section. In addition, does the minister support the plea to have a single public service authority in the islands that would combine health, local authority and elements of Highlands and Islands Enterprise? Nearer to home, it is worth stressing that there is nothing new in the argument for strengthening our island communities. The Montgomery Committee, which reported in April 1984, recommended consolidating, developing and extending the powers of island councils. One of the key elements of the treaty on European Union was the principle of subsidiarity, taking decisions in a localised, decentralized way. Of course, the European Union has always had strong and consistent policies that could have special attention to the specific characteristics of charities with serious and permanent handicaps, including islands. Those handicaps are well known to islanders, limited in costly modes of transport, restricted in declining economic activities and the fragility of markets and loss of young people. What would an island's bill look like? Of course, as we have said, the template is our island's future. However, new powers need new financial muscle. Real devolution means resource-based transfer and control of the seabed from the Crown of State to island authorities and onwards to the community land and harbour trusts. New powers need strategic decision making in planning, designing and commissioning of mainland island ferry services and the recognition of the island status in the Scottish constitutional setup. As well as gaining new powers, we must keep what works well, as the old cliche says, if it ain't broke, why fix it. That's why many of my colleagues across the chamber are so keen to see Hyde's headquarters remain in Highlands and Islands with a single high board and chief exec, and to continue decentralisation of our staff to our island authorities. The bigger picture is that we need active Scottish Government and Westminster Government commitment to the relocation of public sector jobs to island communities, for example, CalMac jobs to the western isles and Marine Scotland jobs to Shetland, Crown of State, the HQ to Orkney as a starter for 10. It's clear that there is support for the principle of island proofing to fight isolation, remoteness and peripherality. I will finish my speech as I started by quoting Billy Ross in the 1965 debate about hands and islands. He said, No part of Scotland has been given a shabbier deal by history from the 45 onwards. Too often, there's been only one way out of troubles for the person born in the Highlands and Islands, emigration. Those who are trusted with carrying out the duties in the new islands bill might find themselves involved in the date with history, being part of the history of Scotland, but all that we need in the words of Sir Walter Scott is the world to do and the soul to dare. Thank you. I call John Finnie to be followed by John Mason, Mr Finnie, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to thank the various participants who have contributed to this and the briefings in Indeed Our Staff. I'm very grateful to David Stewart, my colleague there. Life's an education and I didn't think I would ever be making a note of the Japanese Remote Islands Act 1953, which will be my bedtime reading tonight. A lot of reference has been made to our islands, our future, and it's entirely what politics should be about, in my view. It's about local communities coming together, shared interests, people working to shape policies, and all the individuals serving in the past who were involved in that are to be commended. It ties in with paragraph 4 of the Government's own policy memorandum, an extract of which says that some of the most resilient and supportive communities in Scotland are within islands. Certainly, many of us knew that already and, if we had any doubt, that became apparent during many of our visits out. It also goes on to say that, however, island communities face challenges around geographic remoteness, declining population, transport and digital connection, and other issues. It's also fair to say that some of those are not unique to islands, and people have talked about the challenges in remote areas in Highland and in Argyllun buton. The reference has been made to the other island, the local authority, which has island responsibilities in North Ayrshire. Yes, there have been things that have been a most welcome step, RET being one of them, and I was delighted to be part of something that the Parliament was in agreement with, indeed, and that was the resolution of the issue of the internal ferries funding for the northern isles. That's another very positive step for the islands. There have been the question of expectations that have been given rise to buy this, and the ministers are fully aware. Indeed, others have referred to some of those expectations relating to remote communities. Noidart and Scorrig in my own part of the world are both only accessible by ferry, albeit their mainland. The policy memorandum talks about the matters that were consulted upon in the very first one on the list is island proofing. In my word, we had a lot of discussion about that, what that meant and the expectations that that gave rise to. I think that there's an opportunity for an element of retrospection, and I don't think that it means that we go back and revisit everything, but it should be self-evident if there's a non-going arrangement, and we talk, for instance, that Macaulay Glea MacArthur mentioned fuel poverty. If a system isn't working, then part of that revisiting it should include island proofing, so I don't think that we never say never. As regards some of the parliamentary and indeed local government implications of the bill, I think that we have to be alert to some of the unintended consequences. There was a lot of discussions about what the implications could be for ward size and membership and make-up, and that was particularly the case where wards straddled both island and mainland communities. As ever, nothing's ever straightforward. I think that it was a colleague Peter Chapman who talked about care homes. I think that there's opportunities, but they have to be realistic. Every island is not going to have a secondary school, every island is not going to have a hospital, but collaborative working—again, I think that it was David Stewart who talked about asking the minister's position on a single-purpose authority—more collaborative working, as commended by the Christy commission that we all talk about, and there's still a long way to go on it, can deliver some of those things. Of course, they have to be viable, and with hospitals, that can mean the ability to recruit staff and the ability to retain staff, and for those staff to have the necessary flow of business through the hospital to maintain their continual professional development. However, there are opportunities associated with that, too, because we talked in the process of acquiring evidence for our report on the use of information technology. That's very much the norm in many parts of the Highlands and Islands, and it's to be commended. What we have to do is to grow our population, and that's not just in the islands. There was discussion from Community Land Scotland about repopulating the areas that were cleared—absolutely. The glens used to be full of people, and I would like to see them full of people again. Turning briefly to our report, the local empowerment and devolution of powers by the Scottish Government, the committee supports the empowerment of island communities and devolution of appropriate powers. I would hope that that's the position, the unreserved position, of everyone in here. It's what things are about, and I think that there's debate still to be had about areas that are covered and what the implications of some of this lesion might be going forward. In relation to the national islands plan, again, there's a question of expectations there. I'm pleased that there will be an on-going involvement—such involvement—for the local authorities. There's lots of things in the islands that they've always been creative about doing. What they shouldn't have to do is offset some of the implications of decisions that are taken here and, indeed, elsewhere. Assessments have been talked about, and what we need for assessment is evidence. Many of the flawed decisions that are taken at UK level or Scottish level or local authority level are because of an inadequate assessment of what the implications are. In the very short time that I've left, I want to talk about one thing that would be very helpful to not only island communities but rural communities all over the place. That is, if we resolve the issue of procurement. We heard on the islands that the challenge is there of bidding for contracts, yet they are finding that the contracts are awarded to one of the very large national organisations and subsequently subcontracted, obviously, as some of the money is removed for local communities. We need to get the procurement right. Overall, there's a lot of positive, more work to be done, and thank you. I am delighted to speak on the subject today. I'm not really sure if we are meant to enjoy our work in this place and, especially, I'm not sure if we're meant to enjoy working on a bill, but I have to say that I have not enjoyed previously any other legislation as much as I have working on this particular bill. Scotland's islands are fantastic, not just for their inhabitants. I believe that they are a central part of all our culture and heritage. The committee, as you've heard, has had a formal meeting in Orkney and a full visit to Mull. Some of us went to Harrison Lewis and along the way I also managed to get to Skye and Ulva, so I'm particularly delighted that the latter is now moving towards a community buy-out. The reality is that there was a huge amount of agreement on the committee, and I think among islanders and their representatives whom we met as well, that we want to make things better for islands and their communities, and we want this Parliament and other organisations to have them more at the front of our minds rather than at the back. We have probably all agreed on some 90 per cent of this bill, however, inevitably, we focus today on the 10 per cent where we have questions or reservations. So, firstly, a purpose clause for the bill. I do think that there is an argument for all or most bills having a purpose clause. When this Parliament was re-established, it stated in the act that there shall be a Scottish Parliament. Donald Dure liked that and I liked that, and I wonder whether it should be more the norm in legislation that we put an emphasis on the principles behind the bill or the act and move away from a traditionally very legalistic approach where the focus is on the actual individual words and the danger is that we in the courts sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture. I do accept that there are challenges to including a purpose clause, and I have read the Government's comments on that. We would have to decide what it should actually be, however, something along the lines of our intention is that Scotland should have thriving islands would be the kind of thing that I would like. Secondly, island proofing or island impact assessment. In some of our meetings, those phrases were used interchangeably and that has been mentioned already this afternoon. We spent a bit of time on the committee discussing those two terms and whether they meant the same thing and what message they sent out. To me, island proofing suggests an idea like water proofing whereby you are just as dry standing out in the rain because of the waterproof clothing that you are wearing. However, that cannot be the case. Living on an island has many benefits as well as many challenges and it can never be exactly the same as living in a city or even remote mainland. Thirdly, island impact assessments are the decision not to fully mitigate. That was something that I felt was important to clarify. We discussed many scenarios around island impact assessments and what would happen when they were carried out. Clearly, what will not happen in every case is that the very same services available in the mainland will be available as well on the islands. John Finlay made that point. One example that we had was at No Care Home in Mull. Could it be justified or not? We asked that if a difference is not to be fully mitigated—for example, not to provide a care home in Mull—a cost benefit analysis and or an explanation should be given. I am glad to see that the Government is agreeing to that point. Fourthly, uninhabited islands. The focus of the bill is on island communities and rightly so. However, we have islands that used to be inhabited and are not. St Kilda is probably the most dramatic example. The RSPB has argued for the importance of wildlife on such islands. To me, St Kilda is much more than a place for birds to feed and to nest. I always wanted to visit St Kilda after reading its story of the struggles that people had before the evacuation in 1930. It is part of our heritage, it is part of our story as a nation. Visiting was one of the most special experiences of my life. I note the Government's response that uninhabited islands will be covered in the plan, but I confess to being a little bit disappointed. I think that uninhabited islands deserve some mention in the bill itself. That is also a valid point. Yes, absolutely. Finally, having made some comments on this at committee, I should also make some comments here about it this afternoon, and I can see Kate Forbes looking at me sharply. As members will have seen, we did hear the argument that remote parts of the mainland, like Ardena Myrchan and Kate Wrath, have very similar challenges to islands. However, we were reminded on Mull that if you are seriously ill at night, the only options are a lifeboat or a helicopter. In that respect, islands are different. At least on Skye or Ardena Myrchan, it is possible to drive or get an ambulance, albeit that distances and travel times are very great. I personally agree with the definition of Hamish Haswell Smith, who has written this excellent book on all of Scottish islands, which is that it has to be entirely surrounded by seawater at lowest tide, and there is no permanent means of dry access. I accept that that is only one definition, and the definition in the bill is a different and wider one. I am sure that the Government will be glad to hear that I will not be moving an amendment on that point. However, I agree with the wider argument that a very remote part of the mainland, especially light-noyd art, which is on the mainland but needs a ferry, probably needs some similar consideration. I have really enjoyed working in this bill. I think that I have visited 38 of Scotland's islands by my definition, and I very much want to see a bright future for the key parts of our nation's identity. I think that there is room for amendments, but I look forward to the bill passing at stage 1 tonight. The Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that we have before us an island's bill and are supportive of it. That should come as no surprise, of course, since we said in our manifesto in the 2016 election that we would not, I quote, introduce an island's act to island-proof all legislation to give Scottish ministers the right to issue guidance to public authorities as to the way they can vary national services to make them more suitable for islands subject to local authority consent. The Liberal Democrats would therefore have been somewhat more robust in an island's bill that we would have laid before the Parliament, but, of course, we welcome what is before us today from the Scottish Government. Members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee took a great deal of evidence, as we have heard, when we examined the bill. By the way, I think that it is a testament to the constructive approach of all 11 members of the committee that we are able to agree a unanimous report. I hope that the minister takes this on board at stage 2 when he brings forward amendments to the bill, because I think that it is always, always more effective if the minister brings forward the amendments, which you can then all support. We heard from islanders themselves and indeed other stakeholders that they would have liked the bill to contain objectives. We have heard that already, identified in the bill, which would have given the legislation greater purpose and focus. However, we have also heard that the Government declined to do this instead of wanting to put those issues in the national island's plan, which will be published sometime after we have finished examining the bill. As MSPs whose job it is to interrogate the legislation, we must do it without the sight of the Government's plan. In our view, that is not a good start. One of our main concerns in this bill is on the issue of island proofing. Our worry, and others have mentioned this too, is that the Government may be raising expectations among islanders that every service change from the 66 public bodies mentioned in the bill will mean that those bodies must adapt their plans to meet the needs of islanders. There is no, as we have heard, extra public money being made available, and we are not requesting that it is, but that is a fact. There is no extra public money being made available to islanders as a result of the bill. However, that means that all 66 public bodies that affect the lives of our islanders must show how they have taken account of the special circumstances of the islands when they make policy decisions. One of the most important concerns when I have discussed this bill with islanders themselves is that they say that this process of island proofing and, indeed, the impact assessments must not under any circumstance turn into a simple tick box exercise. That came over time and time and time again. I foresee this as a major issue, which should have been addressed in the legislation. We should have a clear process, and we would have liked to have done this as the Liberal Democrats have outlined in our manifesto, a clear process by which those 66 bodies should conduct those impact assessments. What we cannot have, for instance, is a board member sitting in an office in the central belt filling in a form to say that he or she has considered the impact of such and such a policy on the islands and is proceeding with it anyway. What we need is a clear direction from the Government as to exactly how those public bodies should approach the impact assessments when island proofing their policies. Indeed, in the committee's recommendations, it says that the guidance produced by the Scottish Government must require those conducting an impact assessment to make it clear the ways in which the views of local people will be incorporated into the decision-making process. That does not necessarily mean that those public bodies must do what is said, but they must make it clear why they are doing having a particular policy or why they cannot do something. While the Scottish Government, in its response to the committee's report, does say that it welcomes us a recommendation, it goes on to say that it does not wish to be prescriptive about this. That is the point. I think that we are missing an opportunity here. There are some other missed opportunities in the bill, one of which is a lack of a specific section in the bill dealing with the retrospective island proofing of legislation. As colleagues have said, we do not necessarily have to throw open the doors to every aspect of legislation, but there should be a process in the bill where aspects of previous legislation can be looked at. I thank Mike Rumbles for giving way. I will address this in my closing in more detail, but does he have a piece of legislation that he wishes us to retrospectively look at that perhaps we can engage in and have a conversation in it around? Mike Rumbles? I welcome that very constructive suggestion. My two colleagues, Liam McArthur and Tavish Scott, certainly do, and we will be coming to see him as a result of that kind invitation. I know that James Stockton, leader of the Orkney Islands Council, believes that a section on retrospective island proofing among other things would make a profound difference to their island communities and would enhance the historic piece of legislation. We all want to see this historic piece of legislation transforming communities. We want to make it transformational and we do not want to miss this opportunity. The Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the bill and will support it. However, we believe that it can be improved and will aim, hopefully, with the minister to do just that at stages 2 and 3 of the legislative process. I thank you. I call Angus MacDonald to be followed by Donald Cameron. I should refer members to my register of interests. I own a non-domestic property in the Cornu Nielandshire local authority area. I am pleased to be contributing to the debate on the island Scotland bill, given that I was born and bred on the island loose, where my family has farmed over 400 acres just outside that great metropolis of Stornoway for nearly 100 years, and where I have seen at first hand the challenges faced by business, especially our own family firms, which involved wholesale and retail butchering and livestock auctioneering. It has always been a challenge to farm on the outer hebrides that has been faced with the double whammy of Atlantic gales and transport costs, and running successful businesses there is no mean feat, either. However, there have been welcome measures taken by successive Governments over the years to make life for island businesses easier. For example, our cattle lorries could travel one way on the ferry free as long as they were empty, which helped to reduce the added burden that we had to face of transporting livestock to and from the island. The same applied to any lorries that we had coming over from mainland with livestock feed or hay and straw. Those measures were all very welcome, but not enough to stop us throwing in the towel in the mid-2000s when we closed down our auction mart. However, we did not leave the crofters high and dry. We provided a purposely set up crofters co-operative with the land to build a new auction mart, which it secured HIE funding for. We also closed down our wholesale and retail butchering businesses around the same time, faced with transport costs, supermarket competition in Stornoway and more and more excessive red tape. The scunner factor had well and truly set in. Given the reported challenges Brexit will bring to sheep farming in the highlands and islands, the days of the family farms in Stornoway may well be numbered 2. It is fair to say that the island's bill is coming along just at the right time and coupled with the Communities Empowerment Act, the Land Reform Act and a hopefully forthcoming crofting bill that was expected during this session of Parliament, the Crowny State Scotland bill just tabled a couple of weeks ago and along with accelerated provision of high-speed broadband, there is hope that decline in the inner and outer hebrides can be reversed. However, that said, I agree with the convener of the Wreck Committee, Edward Mountain's view that this is not a panacea which will solve all our island's challenges. I have to say that it will not exempt the islands from a lot of the pain that will all feel post Brexit. The Wreck Committee is correct when it states in the stage 1 report that the Scottish Government will need to manage the expectations of islanders who may expect more immediate tangible outcomes to be delivered from the act. However, that is why the planned island proofing element of the bill is so important. It is vitally important that it is not a token provision and I think that it is doubly important that the Scottish Minister should have the power to issue statutory guidance to other relevant public bodies, which those bodies would have to adhere to in exercising their functions and duties. As Corlyn Yllan Siar has suggested, the statutory guidance should be entrenched in the process for decisions in a similar manner to that that is to fulfil the public sector equality duty, which I believe would be an appropriate way to proceed. Corlyn Yllian Siar makes specific the suggestion that the duty should apply to all public bodies unless a particular public body can satisfy Scottish ministers that the duty is not relevant to its functions. Island proofing should apply to the development of any policy or law within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and, of course, it should be hoped and expected that the UK Government adopts similar guidance for consideration of policies reserved to Westminster and the agencies that have a remit in Scotland. A current and salient example of that is the proposal by the UK Government to ban live animal exports. Such a ban would have a devastating effect on livestock producers in the western isles, as well as, I am sure, the northern isles. By necessity, livestock travelling from the outer hebrides to the mainland due to ferry timings and storm delays can often be on trucks longer than livestock crossing the English Channel. While that situation is far from ideal, it is the only way for island producers to get their stock to markets or send to better pasture for finishing. I was delighted to see the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, strong stance on the issue a couple of days ago when he said that this was one UK-wide framework that the Scottish Government would not be participating in. However, that is a prime example of how, without island proofing, the economy of the islands and the livelihoods of crofters and farmers could be severely disadvantaged. I note, Presiding Officer, that you yourself are attempting to bring a member's debate on this issue to the chamber, and I look forward to that taking place if your motion secures cross-party support. I needless to say that I have not signed it. I am in the chair, so I am silenced, but inside I am not silenced. That is noted, Presiding Officer. In evidence to the committee, there was also what I thought a pertinent argument put forward by Community Land Scotland, which calls for a key question to be asked when new policy and law is being considered as to whether the devolution of more power to the island's council as well as councils with islands would be potentially advantageous to the governance and sustainability of those areas. I think that there is merit in that argument, and I hope that it will be considered during the development of the national islands plan, which I understand will be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the act coming into force. Presiding Officer, there are so many aspects to this bill that it is impossible to cover them all in the time available. I hope that I have given a sense of where I am coming from on it. However, I suffice to say that I wish the REC committee well for stage 2 and look forward to the bill returning to the chamber for stage 3. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate at stage 1 of the island's bill. I note that it marks a significant step towards real island devolution. One of the great aspects of being a Highlands and Islands MSP is the ability to represent islands in Parliament having been to Islay and Lewis within the last month with another visit to Lewis tomorrow. I am acutely aware of what this bill could do for those communities. I have to commend the REC committee on their visits across the islands. They have certainly succeeded in getting people talking, at least the people that I have met in the last month or so. From the outset, I would like to join others in thanking the island councils and the communities in those islands for all their work in helping to bring the bill to fruition. It was their persistence, principally through our island's future campaign that others have mentioned, that drove the Government to deliver on this. It is because of their efforts that we are having this debate and why it is so important that they are still involved in the process as we go forward. I have argued in the chamber before against the centralising agenda of the SNP Government. It is refreshing to see for once this Government looking to devolve power away from the centre and deliver real support for our island communities. As others have said, it is crucial that we make sure that this is not simply a box ticking exercise. The phrase tick box exercise has been used by many people in a way that it has been overused, but it does say something very important. This legislation must be meaningful. It must strengthen and support those in our most remote areas. It is important that we lay the groundwork for a national island plan that can build on this bill and deliver real and tangible change. Mike Rumbles gave a very vivid image of someone in the central belt filling in a form. We cannot allow that to happen. It has to be meaningful. The rec committee has made a recommendation to the Government that the six local authorities with island interests should be made statutory consultees in the development of the national island plan. I can support that in so far as it is essential to guarantee that, at the centre of the process, are the island communities who have inspired the action and whom the bill and plan seek to benefit. That recommendation also recognises another point that others have made again, which is that, while much of the debate is rightly centred on the three island authorities who have driven the process, we need to be aware that they are not the only local authorities in Scotland who have islands and who face complex needs. In the Highlands and Islands region, which I represent, our garland butte has some 23 inhabited islands, the largest of any local authority in Scotland, and Highland Council contains 15 inhabited islands according to the last census. Indeed, as John Finnie mentioned, there are many mainland areas that are, in some ways, like islands. They have peninsulas or parts of the country that are very far away. That is a point that I am glad to see the rec committee made. I think that it was a final recommendation in their report. Although all of the councils that have islands are administered from the mainland and the bulk of their populations may be in mainland settlements, we must not forget that they face very similar issues to the three island authorities. As council colleagues who represent island communities across the political spectrum regularly tell me, they often struggle to implement many of the changes directed by government. Unlike the island three island authorities, they find it difficult to do things such as funding care for the elderly, providing additional support needs to the most vulnerable and assist children as they transition from primary to secondary education. It is also important to note the diversity of all those councils that cover both large urban populations and remote island communities. When we talk about island proofing, we must be able to fit that to the unique complexities of all the authorities that have islands within them. As the rec report states, the success of this bill will be determined by the practical difference that it makes to individual communities. That is the central point. That is how it will be judged. Islanders that I know are independent, minded and robust in their views. They will be frank and honest if it makes no practical difference. Island proofing is clearly a step in the right direction. Others have spoken about making a strong case for retrospective impact assessments, and I hope that the Government takes heed of those calls. After all, how can we implement substantial change to our island communities if we only island proof new legislation? I believe that the Government needs to look at relevant past legislation and determine whether it is fit for the islands. That is no mean feat, but if we want to get this right, we must attempt it. Beyond the intricacies of the bill, many members have mentioned the difficulties that islanders face today—an ageing population, high delivery charges, high building costs and high fuel costs, and far too many premises are still to be connected to broadband. One of the issues that island communities mention to me is the risk of depopulation. Our Garland Bute has a particular problem here, and reversing that trend must be at the heart of this legislation. On the planet, it is incumbent upon all of us to heed the call of— The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Welfare. Yes, indeed. The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Welfare I am very grateful for Mr Cameron giving way. As far as broadband is concerned, he knows that we have a £600 million scheme R100, almost all of which is funded by the Scottish Government and the UK proposing to contribute 3 per cent. Will he join with us in calling on the UK Government to increase that from the measly, pathetic 3 per cent of the total? Donald Cameron I am not going to rise to the debate, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have spoken to a business that moved to the Western Isles and wanted to set up its business there. It could do it anywhere, and it had to, after a couple of years, move away because it did not have enough of a good signal and quality broadband. That is the reality, Minister. To close with, I welcome the intention of the bill, and I sincerely thank the efforts of local authorities in driving it forward. It is essential that those legislative provisions do not become empty words and the Scottish Government needs to clarify the overarching aim of the plan and to incorporate local councils that have already worked so hard in developing it and ensure that it is a meaningful bill for all our island communities. Thank you. I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a non-declaration of interest, I can say that there are no islands in my constituency, but I am a member of the REC committee. I would like to thank, as others have done, the clerks and all who gave evidence during the stage 1 evidence gathering. I particularly enjoyed being given the opportunity to visit Mal and hear first-hand how the bill may positively impact on communities there, and that was the only island that I managed to go on. We have had much ground-breaking legislation in this Parliament recently, and the bill is certainly in that category. It aims to offer greater powers to the island local authorities and meet the specific challenges of their communities. There are a whole host of issues facing our island communities, including depopulation, housing, transport and jobs. We must accept that the challenges in addressing those are different from facing similar issues on the mainland, and that is why we need that bill. The bill includes giving island councils powers over activities on and around their coastlines, and the hope is that communities therein can benefit from greater empowerment. I welcome the positive contribution from the island authorities, many who have fought for a long time for more powers. Some of the main principles of the bill include the creation of the national islands plan that has been discussed, which sets out the main objectives and strategy of the Scottish Government, greater flexibility around council representation within island communities, and I believe that my colleague Richard Lyle is going to talk a bit more about that, and extending powers to island councils in relation to marine licensing. I want to concentrate on a couple of areas of tourism, which is probably most relevant to me. I recall my first trip to the sky many years ago, and I say that the sky is an island, and it is a clear weekend. Beautiful scenery, eagles flying in the sky above, and a Sunday finding it very difficult to find any shops open or even get fuel in the castle, all new experiences then. As a member of the committee, what do I hope that it will be the benefit of the bill on tourism? Better transport accessibility should increase tourism. People can fall in love with these places such as sky and want to stay there, helping with depopulation issues. The £6 million rural tourism infrastructure fund that was announced by the First Minister in October to support sustainable growth in rural tourism across Scotland. The latest figures indicate notable increases in visitor numbers to rural tourism sites. I am pleased with that. I know that the sky is one of those, and there was a lot of bad pressure about that, which I have to confess. I did not totally understand the reasons for that. I thought that that would have been a good thing, but that is not the case. I stand corrected. Of course, we have the Outlander effect, as it is called, going on at the moment where people are visiting historic environment Scotland sites. We have also touched a wee bit on the broadband issue, and it has talked about it a lot here and at the REC committee. I think that by achieving better connectivity, by delivering broadband and making it faster, where it already exists, we can have, if that is allowed, more scope for people to run sustainable businesses, and business brings people, and that is all good for island communities. The SNP will now build on earlier successes through the R100 programme, and a £600 million commitment will help to deliver a future-proofed national fibre network that will make rural Scotland one of the best-connected places anywhere in Europe and underpin future economic growth. By the end of 2021, Scotland will be the only part of the UK where every single home and business can access to the fast broadband and a commitment to all our communities. It is worth mentioning equalities in the committee report that welcomes the potential of the bill to improve equalities. Through our evidence sessions, we heard about issues of occupational segregation between men and women on islands and issues of equality for the LGBT communities. On Brexit, we did not take a lot of evidence, but again, there are question marks hanging over the states of EU citizens who work on their tourism in other sectors. In human rights, there is a discussion about lack of nursing homes, foster placements. What do people do when they need those services? Often they need to leave the islands with their home. It is also worth mentioning how we viewed the whole scrutiny of the bill. My colleague Jenny Gilruth is on record in the chamber mentioning that the committee is mainly male, apart from the deputy convener, Gail Ross. It is worth recognising that we scrutinised the bill through that context. It is worth acknowledging and reflecting on that. You will know that, in every debate, I always take some time to talk about my own constituency. It may seem from the outside that there is no link between the bill and co-bridge in Creson, but that, in my opinion, is untrue. One of the themes that came out was how many of the issues were also faced in rural mainland, and Gail Ross and others have talked about that. Although the challenges, as I have said, are different, the bill can, perhaps, lead the way and teach us about how we proof all our communities. As someone born and raised in the largest and urban part of my constituency, co-bridge, I have made it my business since election to get to understand the village communities that make up the Creson part of the constituency name. There are some striking similarities to what we heard in the islands. All the small village steppes—Creson, Moody'sburn, Gartcosh, Gwynboyg—and Murhead, with fairly small populations have very unique identities in passionate communities, and they also have very unique issues. From shocking poverty and health stats on working-class Moody'sburn home to the Okingeek Miners Memorial Site, to ironically having very little on the way of health and leisure facilities, and I feel like they have been left out in the transfer of the health boards to more affluent steps when many older people live are being stripped of the last bank in town by RBS. To close your family care home covering the whole village area, and perhaps in these towns though there is an issue of expansion rather than depopulation, such as in Gartcosh, and we maybe need to think about how village identities can be maintained and people's voices heard. The list could go on, Presiding Officer, but my overall point is— No, it can't, because you're at your six minutes, Mr Moody'sburn. I was just going to finish by saying that Ireland's bill can be a leader in this for all communities. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Lewis MacDonald, to be followed by Kate Forbes. Action to support Scotland's islands is a good thing, but we need to be clear about what kind of action and which islands. That is why part 1 of this bill is important. Definitions do matter. No amount of detailed provision will achieve the desired effect if the definitions fail to make clear where the law will apply or if it applies too narrowly. I might mention the High Heads Act as a recent example of such a failure, but that is for another day. This bill's definition of an island, as we have heard, is now uncontroversial, and that's good. The problem is that the bill makes a distinction in law between inhabited and uninhabited islands, which in the context of the history and culture of Scotland's islands is both unnecessary and undesirable. New legal categories of inhabited island permanently inhabited islands and island communities are not required to deliver the policy purposes of the bill, and island communities are not defined by counting heads. Take the Isle of Harris, for example, which I know well. It is a permanently inhabited island with a very strong sense of identity and community, but the community of Harris does not stop at its beaches, fabulous though so many of them are. The inhabited islands of Scalpi and Burnrye-Harris are strong communities in their own right. They more than meet the criteria in the bill, but they are also part of the community of herachs, of Harris people, and they are seen as such, both by the people who live there and by the people who live in Harris itself. That wider community does not stop there. Tarransai, Skarp and Ense and Sincilda all cease to be permanently inhabited in the 20th century. Papai was cleared for sheep in the 19th century. That does not mean that they have ceased to be islands with a history and culture of their own, nor does it mean that they have ceased to be part of the wider community of Harris. Sincilda is well known. It is a world heritage site belonging to the National Trust for Scotland, which works to conserve and protect the natural environment and the cultural heritage of the Sincilda islands in partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Ministry of Defence. Tarransai hit the nation's television screens with the series Castaway, one of the first and certainly one of the best reality TV series of this century. Skarp was famous for the experiment in Rocket Post in the 1930s, when people still lived there all year round. Papai and Ense are less well known, but they are still included in the common grazings of crofters in Harris. A definition of islands communities, which excludes any or all of those islands, would not reflect the community of Harris as understood by Herachs. An islands plan, which covered Burner Eye but not Ense, would fail to address the challenges our islands face in a holistic and joined-up way. It is misguided too to create a legal category of permanently inhabited island. The Law Society objects that there is no such concept in Scots law and proposes ordinary residents instead, but, in fact, neither of those constraints on the application of the bill is either necessary or useful. As far as local council wards are concerned, people included in the register of electors would count, so there is no need for further definition there. However, if there are permanently inhabited islands, then by implication there are permanently uninhabited islands too, and that is a notion that most islanders would strongly reject. If Harris's crofters can land their sheep in Ense, then that island is within the scope of human habitation, even if there is no one living there at this moment in time. When I went out to the Shant Islands on a fast rib last summer, there were clothes drying on a line next to a house on what this bill will by default define as an uninhabited island. What is true for Harris and its satellite islands is surely true for all the island groups from Shetland to the Firth of Clyde. Island plans, which could include only permanently inhabited islands and exclude their neighbours, would not properly deal with whole island groups or with island communities. For example, as I mentioned to the minister in his opening remarks, the policy intention of this bill is said to be to extend the provisions of the Shetland County Council Act to other island local authorities, but in fact it limits island licensing areas to areas including uninhabited islands. I can find no such limitation in the terms of the Shetland County Council Act, which means that this bill potentially reduces the scope of that act within the Shetland Islands, never mind extending it to other island areas. Neither human habitation nor the lack of it defines an island nor should depopulation ever be defined by this Parliament as permanent. Islands that have been emptied of people can be inhabited again, as Battersea has been, where that has not been achieved. It is often still the aspiration of those who once lived there or of their descendants. To maximise the future potential for living communities in our islands, we should plan for each and all of our island groups as whole groups, not only for the currently inhabited parts. If we take that approach, we can also envisage them in a holistic way from the point of view of nature conservation, protecting nature from invasive species and maximising the tourism and economic potential of all our islands that are inhabited or otherwise. A national islands plan must cover all our islands, those that are inhabited only in the summer, as well as those that are inhabited all year round and those that are currently uninhabited too. That way, we can really deliver the step change in support for our island communities that they need and deserve. Our islands are not mini museums or visitor centres or somebody's play park. They are homes for the most part. It has never been so important to promote islanders' voices, to harness island resources and to enhance the wellbeing of island communities. We talk about remoteness, but islands are not so much remote from Edinburgh, as Edinburgh and London are remote from the islands. That is why the term island proofing that is being used frequently in this debate is so important, as islanders face changes in healthcare, education and public services, as they develop the huge renewable energy potential of their natural resources and as they use community empowerment legislation and the £10 million of community land fund to turn their ideas into reality. All that has one aim, as I see it, and that is to reverse the trend of depopulation from the islands. One of the greatest challenges, for example, remains recruiting and retaining staff in public services and enabling private businesses to grow by giving them access to talent pools. Just yesterday, the UK Government blocked a Canadian Gaelic teacher from coming to Scotland and starting her new job as a primary school teacher on the Isle of Mull after the role was vacant for six months. There are serious questions about recruitment and retention, about skills and talent pools and the last thing that we should be doing is clamping down on immigration. One size does not fit all. Highland Council does what it can in an area the size of Belgium, and with a coastline that, including Ireland, is more than 20 per cent of Scotland's total coastline. However, changes that are rubber-stamped in Inverness, in Edinburgh and in London have got to recognise the geography of our island communities, where ferry timetables and stormy weather and long distances have got to be factored in. That bill is needed because decision making is not always sufficiently island-proofed currently, and I would like to give two negative examples, followed by two positive examples, of where it works. If we take healthcare for example, I have been fighting for overnight out-of-hours cover on the Isle of Razi for almost two years since I was elected, but any just highland has still not recruited somebody to cover those out-of-hours overnight period on an island whose link to the mainland ceases to exist at 6 pm every night when the ferry stops running and it does not recommend until the next morning. It is not possible to hop in the car and get help. It is not always possible for emergency services to dock or to land in stormy weather, so why is there still no out-of-hours overnight cover on the Isle of Razi? Over the water to sky, where island residents in the far north depend on an out-of-hours urgent care on per tree, but despite the hard work and dedication of doctors and nurses there, the two frequent suspension of out-of-hours cover in per tree is not acceptable because it is not sustainable. Before I move on to the two positive examples, I will take an intervention from Edward Mountain. I would like to thank the member for giving way. I would also like to make it absolutely clear that I speak as an individual not as I did earlier in the debate as convener of the direct committee. One of the things about islands and moving to islands and living on islands and having contracts on islands for people to live there is the very fact that it requires a huge commitment from families. Therefore, to do that and to achieve that, surely part of the island proofing process must be to make sure that contracts are sufficiently long-term to attract people. That is one of the messages that I believe that we should be kidding across. Kate Forbes, I agree with that. I think that contracts have got to be long-term. There has got to be decent salaries, but also concern needs to be given to alternative jobs in an island community. I think that it goes back to clamping down on immigration because a lot of those who are working in our health service have come from beyond the UK, and we should be actively recruiting people with the necessary skills in education and in healthcare to come and move to our islands, as we saw with a very effective recruitment campaign for the Isle of Muck. This Government has a good track record in adapting policy to islands and to rural communities, such as the £5 million island housing fund, which is complementing the £25 million rural housing fund. That is so vitally important because the gap between average incomes and average house prices is too wide on our remote communities. That is not helped by the high number of holiday homes in particular. Our island residents know the meaning of the word resilience. The people of Muck, Rhum, Canna, Egg, Razzie and Skye, to name just a few, have known it for centuries. I am sympathetic to John Scott's point about including remote and rural parts of the mainland 2 with my family coming from Applecross. I want to close with a brief story that could just as easily be applied to islands about how Governments can make or break communities by investing in or ignoring them. In August 1883, in a village near Applecross, my great-great-grandfather appeared before the Napier commission to plead for a road. He told the commissioners about 400 people living in the 12 villages of the north coast of the peninsula with three primary schools, but there was no road. They promised to build it themselves and raise their rents, but the Government would not build them a road. In the next 100 years, people left and the schools closed. Finally, in the 1970s, a bulldozer appeared to blast through the rock as Government funds were finally found to build a road because the Ministry of Defence needed the inner sound for a torpedo range. That is history, but that is the context to this bill. That is why I believe that the bill is making history. As an MSP, representing the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and as an Arcadia myself, I welcome the introduction of the island's bill and the commencement of its legislative process. I would also like to extend my thanks to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for their stage 1 report and the scrutiny work that they have undertaken. Scotland's island communities are distinct societies with distinct identities within Scotland and the wider United Kingdom. Those communities have long histories, intertwined with but often separate from Scotland as a whole. I was only four years old when my family moved home to Orkney in 1979. Even since then, there is no question that the islands have changed. We have welcomed many newcomers to our shores over the centuries, and they have made a huge and positive contribution to island life, but our rich and distinct island heritage has not been lost, and, importantly, it needs to be recognised, cherished and protected. In one way, the bill is unusual. It is not brought at the behest of a political party but results from the campaigning of the island's representatives themselves. I welcome that work, led by the island authorities, particularly through our islands' future campaign, in raising the particular needs of those communities up the political agenda at both Scottish and UK levels. It is fundamental to any attempt to build and expand local democracy that communities are involved from the outset and that their views and our views are taken into account throughout the process. A key part of the island's agenda will be the agreement of a coherent and robust national islands plan by the Scottish Government. The bill enables that, but does not develop it. The island's agenda will be an ongoing one, and it must receive the attention and resources that it merits in the coming months and years. As mentioned by my colleague Edward Mountain speaking on behalf of the committee, the islands each have their own individual identities. I support the broad objective of the committee in ensuring that local authorities also have island-level planning. We often speak of the islands facing challenges in the delivery of public services, the availability of local employment, local infrastructure and in ensuring the sustainability of those communities for generations ahead. In that, as my colleague John Scott and Gail Ross have mentioned, they share many of the issues that are faced by remote and rural communities in mainland Scotland too, where public services may be distant and connectivity may be poor. In that way, the island serves a helpful reminder that policy decisions made in Edinburgh must work not just for the populated central belt or the lowlands but for Scotland in its entirety. The bill's commitment to island impact assessments is welcome, and expectations are high that the Scottish Government and the 66 public bodies referenced in the bill will take full notice of the outcome of those assessments and address the need to mitigate policy choices that may have a negative effect on island communities. In its response to the committee, the Scottish Government also outlined that it is accepted in principle that assessment of policies on a retrospective basis could take place where specific issues are highlighted. Additional clarity on how such mechanism could be triggered would be welcomed from ministers. Because it is clear that there are policy decisions where the islands have been held back, we know from recent figures that the islands lack seriously behind mainland Scotland and the rest of the UK in access to broadband, as well as 4G connectivity. Those are communities where, in many cases, the benefits of those types of connectivity could be greater than mainland communities. The wider point is that the impact must not simply be interpreted as examining where islands are disadvantaged by change but also where they are left behind when changes are being implemented on mainland communities. Within the island authorities, there are often additional issues faced by the smaller islands, particularly in Auckland and Shetland. I am concerned that insufficient attention has been paid in those cases, where public surfers can often be at their most distant. Sometimes the wrong sort of investment can be a problem. During a trip to Westry in 2016, which was one of Orkney's islands, some residents told me that the broadband roll-out has left them with a less reliable and slower service than the satellite connections that they had been encouraged to move away from before. Island-level planning, as I mentioned previously, is one solution, but equally islands must need to be considered as part of a wider planning from the Scottish Government. As Kate Forbes mentioned on health, I spoke at the end of last year with the Cabinet Secretary for Health on the challenge of facing Stronge's GP practice, where NHS Orkney suspended the resident medical team and reduced the service pending review. Those sorts of services are vital and their importance should be understood across all tiers of government. The private sector is, of course, a key provider of services to islands. While Orkney and Shetland have not been affected by the current round of RBS closures, we often see businesses and residents struggling when key services move away. The committee certainly recognised that the Scottish Government cannot place requirements on the private sector, although the Government's response contains some welcome points on procurement. However, I would suggest that ministers could, in some cases, assess the access to such services as part of the wider view of island communities and their sustainability. That can affect both how public services ought to be delivered as well as highlight opportunities where the Scottish Government may be able to exert influence to positive effect. There is hope on the islands that the bill can serve as a first step in giving greater recognition to the priorities of island communities at the heart of government. While I have joined with colleagues and the committee in noting a number of concerns and areas where further detail would be helpful, the bill remains a positive starting point for those discussions. I am delighted to contribute to stage 1 debates on the islands bill, particularly as a member of the Rural Affairs and Connectivity Committee, which takes a keen interest in the areas in which the bill should be addressed. I pay tribute to all who gave evidence, the clerks, the committee convener, the committee members and, of course, the minister Hums out Yusif. I would like to begin this afternoon by reflecting on frankly how historic this bill shall be and can be in addressing the unique needs of Scotland's islands now and indeed in the future, which I hope shall create the right environment for sustainable growth and, importantly, empower communities. Development of this bill has had many milestones and I believe that it is only right to acknowledge the work of the Government in getting us to where we are now, particularly the work done by the island area ministerial working group, which responded to our islands, our future campaign in 2013 from Orkney and Shetland island councils in western islands council. In 2014, it published the empowering Scotland's island communities prospectus, which confirmed the commitment to principles of subsidiarity and local governance. Prospectus was the series of measures unanimously endorsed by the members of the island areas ministerial working group, which reflected those principles and ensured that those decisions best determined by island communities were made by those who know them best that island communities themselves. Those measures were developed based on three fundamental objectives—promoting the voices of the islanders, harnessing island resources and enhancing the wellbeing of our island communities. In November of that same year, the Government fulfilled the commitment that made in empowering Scotland's island communities prospectus. I believe that the Government continues to provide a focus on those issues, which is most important to all of Scotland's island communities and a voice for them at the centre of Scotland's government. Moreover, it was a key commitment in the SNP manifesto in 2016 that we would consult on and bring forward an islands bill to reflect the unique needs of those communities and implement our 10-point manifesto for our islands. In addition, the Government announced in our programme for government of that year to help the islands bill to more prosperous and fairer future for their communities. We would introduce an islands bill and a new island strategic group would meet for the first time in autumn to begin its work on the creation of a national islands plan. The effort is indeed in an historic moment today, as the bill can be thought of as a key point of culmination in many efforts over the years by the SNP Government to deliver our island communities. We will always continue to do more and deliver the best outcomes for all Scotland's communities. That is why the SNP has already invested £6 million in the rural tourist fund, which was announced by the First Minister in October, to support sustainable growth in rural tourism throughout Scotland, including especially our island communities. I will fferd from the cabinet secretary in the budget for the commitment to help to deliver for our island communities in the funding that has been assigned. Of course, as a member of the Rural Affairs Committee, I was delighted that the committee recommended to Parliament the agreement of the general principles of the bill, and the consideration of the bill meant the opportunity for members to visit areas. I took part in visits to Mall and Orkney, as well as engaging digitally with islanders on Arran and the University of Highlands and Islands. All of that engagement by the committee helped better understanding the context of the legislation before Parliament sits in. I am particularly pleased that there is a proposal to look at and prove council representation for islands. I am sure that that will be looked at closely as the bill progresses, and I hope that the Boundary Commission will work closely with local authorities that have islands to ensure that those islands have the number of councillors that they deserve. Having previously been a councillor for 36 years, I am reminded that I was a councillor one year before Mr Halcro Johnston was born. I know that the needs of constituents require attention daily. Islands must have the representation that they deserve in order to represent their needs in the local authority. There is a suggestion that island councillors might have a closer working arrangement with the council administration, which many would welcome, and I do hope that that will be the case. I am particularly pleased that the record support for Scotland's island is overseen by the SNP Government, as we work to tackle the many changes and challenges that are faced by island communities. Of course, that work can only be done as it has been when we work in partnership not only with island communities but with local authorities and organisations to support the delivery of policy and change. Local authority partners in the Scottish Government working together have shown that we can work together and deliver positive outcomes in all our communities. I want to conclude by considering how the ambitions of the bill shall be delivered. The bill requires the Government's island-proof future legislation and policies. That means that by law, island communities will not be forgotten again and will always be a voice. Scottish ministers and other relevant public bodies will be required to take into account the interests of island communities, and I believe that we will do that. I hope and wish the bill well. Thank you very much, Mr Lyle. I call Rhoda Grant to close for Labour. I see that you have got my co-miss grant, but it is not mine. It is going round. Six minutes are there abouts. I sincerely wish that she had kept it to herself. We are happy to support the island's bill. It has the potential to make a step change into the way that islands are governed and empowering them to make decisions and that affect their own future. However, the bill, as it stands, is far too timid and could achieve absolutely nothing unless it is strengthened. As David Stewart said, the bill is a tribute to the work of the Three Islands Council with their vision for our islands, our future. I hope that we can strengthen this bill to realise their dream. We need high-level objectives in the bill, and I was disappointed that the minister appeared not to be keen on that. At the moment, the bill is just warm words, simply. It needs to be clear on why we are legislating on this subject. Colin Smyth said that the bill needs to have an ambition in order to meet it. High expectations about what the bill can and will do and they are not there in its current form, so I really believe that we need to have those high-level expectations on the face of the bill. Things like, for example, depopulation, and David Cameron spoke about that as well. Last week, Community Land Scotland had put a submission in with regard to the planning bill to address repopulation. Lewis MacDonald, in his speech, illustrated this in much more detail than I can here, talking about tarnces in Kilda and Scarp, really giving life to the policy of repopulation and filling places that were depopulated before. I think that Angus MacDonald illustrated this really well from a personal point of view, talking about the scunner factor when he illustrated why people leave. They have had enough, they have fought against the elements for so long and then eventually they cannot fight anymore and they leave. That was recognised by the EU and I think that that is why so many of us have concerns about Brexit because the EU recognised subsidiarity and David Stewart talked about that in some detail as well, but recognised the need for local decision making and recognised that areas had permanent handicaps and that is true for our island communities. The bill looks at island impact assessments. The desertification that you describe as taking place in the islands, would you also acknowledge that it is a feature regrettably of our remote and rural communities as well and that that is a much wider problem that needs to be addressed? Claudia Grant Indeed, I do. I come from an area where that has happened and I recognise that that is in remote rural areas but it is worse in islands because you have sea to cross to get to services. What we can do in this bill is find answers to some of those questions that then can be rolled out throughout rural areas and be used as good practice and that will be to everyone's benefit. That is not them against them. It is about trying to find better ways to support communities and repopulate areas, which I think is incredibly important. The island impact assessments or island proofing needs some work done to it because one, I do not think that all the organisations that affect islands and their wellbeing are covered so I think that we need to look at that list of people that need to island proof their policies. I believe that the Government must issue clear guidelines on how authorities carry out those impact assessments and Mike Rumbles made that point in his speech. There has to be a mechanism, a right of appeal because otherwise it will just become a tick box exercise and that does not help anyone. We also need retrospective assessments and I think that there has to be a mechanism in the bill for doing that. John Finnie said, not for everything, of course not for everything, but we all know of pieces of legislation that are now having serious impacts on island communities and I think that we need to go back and where there is a united expectation that those are going to be dealt with and enough people asking for it, there has to be a mechanism to allow that to happen. The islands plans as well, Presiding Officer, so much of the bill hangs on the national islands plan. Very little detail appears in the bill and we promise that all this detail will be contained in the islands plan. The bill should state the overarching principles but the islands plan says how that is going to be carried out. I think that it is important that there is an islands plan but we also recognise that all islands are different and that the plan must look at those differences as well as what binds them together. One example of how you island proof and indeed how islands plans need to work is recognising how those islands differ. Ross Finnie talked about local contractors. When we were in Orkney we noticed that the local hospital had to put into place a wood-burning stove. They have no wood in Orkney but they have loads of cheap electricity and that seemed absolutely crazy and a really bad policy. John Mason talked about how the committee had gone out and about to a lot of the islands and my colleague here Colin Smith said to me that I had all the fun of the committee and now he's got the heavy lifting to take place but I see those islands all the time. It's a real privilege to represent all but two of Scotland's inhabited islands. I have a distinct knowledge of what they need to make a real difference and it is ambition. They have the ambition of the three islands councils to come forward with our islands, our future, which has taken the legislation to this stage and we need to meet that ambition and that expectations and strengthen the bill in stage 2. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. No man is an island, entire of itself. Of course the famous words not of John Mason but of John Donnes and his famous 17th century poem but the reality is that islands are entire of themselves in many ways. They face a unique set of challenges which mainlanders do not always face or even always understand. A weekend in Millport or a week in August on the Isle of Arran might give you a flavour of the beauty of or in the warm reception that you receive on our islands but it probably doesn't give you an insight perspective of the difficulties that locals face. Now our island constituents come to us as MSPs rightfully pointing out discrepancies in accessing public services, be it travelling to the mainland to see a hospital consultant and be given an appointment which is before the arrival of the first ferry or the cost of importing goods when trying to build a home of your own on an island. They all share common difficulties, the cost of petrol on islands, the lack of mains gas, groceries at inflated prices and often the poor state of many of their roads. Scotland's 93 islands make up 2 per cent of our population but many will balloon in size during busy peak seasons. They are at the very heart of what makes Scotland unique on the international stage, tourists flock to their distilleries to climb their mountains and to sail their coasts but they are also home to people with thriving communities which face harsh weather conditions making connectivity tricky. They are economies which have changed and evolved but many are still struggling and they have public services which are struggling to retain and recruit doctors, teachers and carers. Kate Forbes eloquently outlines some very practical examples of the illogical provision of public services. Although many policies aim to improve island life such as RET are very welcome, we also took evidence from islanders as to some of the negative effects that these inflated visitor numbers have had on the infrastructure of islands. Those islands which have not seen an exodus of their enthusiastic young generation are growing but they are growing with an ageing population as many flock to retire on islands and enjoy the next chapter of their lives with the stunning views and friendly communities that islands offer but all of this comes at a price and we have a responsibility to address those challenges. My colleague John Scott reminds us that this bill was not born out of top-down government or out of party political motivations but it has grown from a grassroots need to look at how public bodies address inequalities on islands and for that reason I too commend the work of our islands, our future. Being a member of the RAC committee, I have been very privileged to get a glimpse into island life through our visits and evidence sessions and whilst we sit in the woodlined committee rooms here of Hollywood, it is very easy to forget that the work that we do here affects those on the other side of a Logan air flight. Island themselves are as diverse and different as is rural Scotland to urban Scotland. Indeed, island groups themselves often struggle with the remoteness of some of their own island communities who feel like their island mainland is just as disconnected from them as the mainland mainland. We took a trip to Mull in Orkney and we spoke to people with that very view. It is neither a criticism or a disappointment of the bill but by its very nature it is a one-size-fits-all bill because it has to meet its objection as an enabling bill but we should remember that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work for our communities when it comes to the national islands plan. Edward Mountain and Colin Smith also mentioned that each island has their own individual identity and that must be taken into account in the production of the plan. I would also like to touch briefly on some of the other issues raised today. In evidence sessions to the committee, the Highland and Islands Enterprise gave some important comments made by members in this debate as well, that the issues faced by islands are the same as those faced by other remote rural communities and that the consequences of this bill, whilst it is focused on islands, should not negatively affect or impact other rural communities. If anything, it could be an opportunity to be a positive influence on them. Much has been said around the request from the committee in its report that the Government considers a high-level objective or aim to this bill and I should add that this did not come from MSPs, this came from members of the community themselves. I recall sitting around the table with a group on our visit to Mall and there was unanimous agreement that what was lacking from the bill was a high-level objective and it would be difficult to see what the overarching outcome of the bill was and that rather than just have due regard to islands, there should be measurable objectives so that we can look back as a Parliament and decide if the bill achieved what it was meant to. Now, notwithstanding the legal implications around the sort of language that might be used to achieve that, I would ask the minister not to rule this out given the quite broad support for it. Another important issue was raised around the retrospective scope of this bill. I agree that it would be unreasonable to propose a blanket retrospective assessment of all current policies or, indeed, any service changes made by every public body since devolution, but there may very well be existing policies that could and should be looked at if they are currently deemed to be negatively affecting islands and what is the mechanism to do that. On a similar vein, the committee made a very clear recommendation that islanders should have a clear mechanism that provides the ability to appeal or object to an island impact assessment decision. Perhaps the issue that bore the most contention around this bill was around that of expectations. The concept of so-called island proofing has been discussed at great length, both in committee and in this chamber. The term has been interchangeably used with the island impact assessments. However, the two are not the same. Much can be said over whether we really can properly island proof all decisions made by all public bodies and all Government departments. If we were truly to island proof, the cost would be unparalleled and, indeed, probably unthinkable. The biggest risk facing us as we present in this bill to Parliament and the communities that it seeks to serve is that of raising false hope and false expectations. Many members spoke with concern over the financing of this bill and the need for clarity over the effect that it has on funding decisions. At present, the only costs in the financial memorandum relate to those around the delivery of the duties of the bill. However, I want to put this into context. This is not about opposition parties asking for more money, but this is an honest realisation amongst all of us here today that true island proofing undoubtedly comes at a cost. Presiding Officer, I am very pleased to support this bill as a welcome step forward in how Government and its public agencies address our island communities. We need to ensure that the outcome of this bill is a robust national islands plan that reflects the priorities of islanders. It is a plan that has clear outcomes, targets and measurable indicators, and that we see honesty and transparency from Government so that, when they make decisions that could negatively impact islanders, they are honest about those and accept that there may not be resource or funds available to mitigate the consequences of every action that Government takes. The end product of this bill should be a tangible and a noticeable shift in the mindset of how decisions that are made in the lofty offices of Government in Glasgow or Edinburgh affect people on islands. It cannot be worn words with no action or weight. I ask the minister to consider the recommendations of the stage 1 report in his response. We welcome this bill, but policy decisions today should already be mainstreamed and ingrained in their culture. We do not need a bill to consider islands. That can be done already today. Expectations are high among islanders, so we cannot let them down. Thank you very much, and I call on Minister Humza Yousaf to wind up the debate. Can I say that this debate has been an excellent one? I thought that the contributions from across the chamber have certainly given me a lot to reflect on and my officials, of course, to reflect on. I will try to address some of the key themes, but it has been a largely consensual debate, even getting praise from some members of the opposition. Can I say to David Stewart that, if there was one member of the opposition that I would want praise from, I am sure that it will not be a kiss of death, it would be David Stewart. Because without him, I would not have known about the Japanese Remote Islands Development Act. I have to say that, after hearing about it at the committee, I did go to research it and look it up. Most of the information was in Japanese, but, nonetheless, I now know that there are 421 inhabited islands in Japan out of 7,000 every day in education with David Stewart in the committee. I want to address some of the key themes that I thought were mentioned across the chamber. I will get right into it, Presiding Officer. Expectation management is one of the key themes that have been raised almost by every single contribution. Whenever I have travelled to the islands, I have tried to ensure that expectations are absolutely there for the islands bill. However, to say that we are doing more than just the islands bill, there are a whole suite of measures for the islands that we are taking forward. For example, the Crown Estate bill, of course, and the community empowerment legislation and, indeed, the national islands plan itself. I want to ensure that the bill is not seen in isolation, but rather, as I say, it is a suite of measures. Many members have mentioned around the idea of putting in a high-level objective in the bill. I am listening to what the reasoning and the rationale behind that is, although I am not convinced that many members across the chamber are, I promise to give it further reflection. For me, for legislation, the reason why my high-level objective would not be in the bill is because it does not really give meaningful legal effect. Legislation should be there for meaningful legal effect. What it could be in is, for example, a national islands plan and guidance and so on and so forth. However, I hear what the chamber is saying. Yes, of course I would. In day Scotland Act 1998, Donald Dewar, of course, famously said, there shall be a Scottish Parliament. That was the high level that we were sort of talking about. If it is good enough for the Scotland Act 1998, it should be good enough for this bill, too. Somebody else made that point, too, when it came to the Scotland Act 1998. As I said, I am not closing off and not being closed minded. I will listen. I suspect that members are probably at stage 2 to bring in some sort of amendment possibly to that effect. So let's not be closed minded to it. In terms of a few other really important issues that were raised, key themes that were raised during the debate, I just want to make the point when it comes to the suite of measures that we are taking forward. Some people mentioned the financial memorandum and the fact that perhaps the national islands plan is not accounted for in terms of finances. I just want to say, obviously, that I do not have a crystal ball. The national islands plan is not just my plan, it is our plan. Every single one of us will be involved in the development of it. Therefore, when it comes to the financial resource behind it, clearly that will be a discussion that I will have with the cabinet secretary to my left once that national islands plan is very much developed. In terms of the national islands plan, many members mentioned about statutory local island plans. I will, as my response to the committee said, have that conversation with local authorities. I would want to have it with them, as opposed to imposing it on them, but I am very aware of what members have said on that. I suspect that it will come about organically anyway. Continuing on with national islands plans, the other key themes mentioned were about having national targets, having measures in place that could be monitored and evaluated. Therefore, I would agree that a national islands plan has to be meaningful and perhaps measures targets and so on and so forth will be part of that. As I said, the national islands plan will be a consultative effort, and therefore I will not be closed minded to that. Gail Ross and Colin Smyth both mentioned national heritage and giving consideration to having national heritage in the bill. Again, that might be something that will be for the national islands plan to consider. Once again, continuing the theme that I have from the beginning of the bill, I will not be closed minded to that. Alongside the heritage, does the minister agree that the massive renewable energy potential of the Scottish island still has to be realised as well? Yes, without a doubt. For many places that I have travelled, it is not just about the real impact and benefits that renewable energy can bring, but the fact that, for example, in Orkney and other places, innovative technology has been tested very much on our islands. We welcome the UK Government's U-turn on some of that through pressure from my colleagues Paul Wheelhouse, Fregus Shewing and many others. Talking about island proofing and, of course, related to that is impact assessments, the chamber has clearly said that there needs to be some clarity in terms of the definitions. Again, we will absolutely reflect on that. It should say that island proofing is the concept. Impact assessments are very much the process. Similar to equality impact assessments, we have a very robust process from screening, evidence gathering, assessing, decision making, signing off and publication. A very robust process is there in place, but clearly all of us are in agreement that we just don't want to have a tick box exercise. Therefore, when the statutory guidance comes forward, we will make sure that we reflect on that. I thank the minister for stating an invention. On that very point, what would happen in the event that an island impact assessment produces an outcome that states that there will be a negative impact of a Government policy decision on island communities? At that stage, is it likely that that decision would be reconsidered or that additional funds might be put there to mitigate the consequence of that? In practical terms, that is real island proofing in reality. I am very conscious of time, so what I will do is send Jamie Greene the example that I have just given of the equality impact assessment. Because of the five stages in the equality impact assessment, that sort of scenario that he paints should be generally avoided. That is one example, and I will send him that example. I do not want to try to make some progress, because I am very limited with time. When it comes to island proofing, I refer back to the point that I thought was made very well by Kate Forbes about immigration. One of the biggest challenges that our islands face undoubtedly is that of depopulation. It would be useful if the UK Government could look at what we are going to do in island proofing here, because while we have many of the levers on our hands, many others of the levers to help to reverse the trajectory of depopulation are in the hands of the UK Government. I thought that Gail Ross, John Scott made good points and others around rural proofing, as well as island proofing. Of course, having travelled across much of Scotland, I know that the challenges that are faced by rural communities may well be just as challenging, just as difficult as many of our island communities. I have a minute, but since it is my favourite member of the opposition, I am very grateful for that intervention. Will the Zetland and Orkney county council act of 1974 be repealed or replaced? We have no intention of needing to do that. I will come to the points that were made by his colleague Lewis MacDonald with the time that I have left. They were largely the points that were raised in the loss of society submission, which I thought was very helpful and very useful. As defined in the bill, island communities go beyond just geography. Section 2B of the bill, if the member has a chance to have a look, sets out that it is based on more than just geography. It is around common interest, identity or geography. The definitions in the bill work for the purposes that are required. Uninhabited islands can absolutely be covered by the national islands plan. We have said that already, but having said that, he made many, many points that I cannot go into in the last minute that I have around the impacts of unintended consequences. We will reflect on the loss of society submission on what Lewis MacDonald has said. I am aware that I am acutely almost out of time. I will say that this island's bill is absolutely historic. I am pleased that, across the chamber, members have recognised the historic nature of that. Although I am the minister very proud to introduce the bill, thanks must go to the local authorities. My predecessors, the first of our minister for islands, Derek Mackay, the local authorities, the island strategic group and the committee who gave careful consideration to the bill. I thank them very much for that. I have no doubt that, if we get this right and we intend to do so, we will reverse the depopulation of our islands along with the other measures that we are taking. We know that our islands are 2 per cent of the population of Scotland, but their value to Scotland is absolutely immeasurable. Therefore, as a boy who was born and bred and raised in Glasgow, it has been a great pleasure and a great honour of mine to have travelled to 30-plus islands across Scotland. I intend to do justice to the bill, and I thank members across the chamber for their careful consideration for their suggestions and contributions. I look forward to passing this historic piece of legislation. Thank you very much, and that concludes the stage 1 debate on the island's Scotland bill. The next item, point of order, Patrick Harvie. Ten years without doing that in twice in one week. I would like to raise a point of order under rule 3.1d of our standing orders, which states that your role as Presiding Officer includes the responsibility to represent the Parliament in discussions and exchanges with any parliamentary, governmental, administrative or other body, whether within or outwith the United Kingdom. In relation to the general principles of section 15 of our standing orders on openness and accessibility, the purpose of which is to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny takes place in a spirit of openness and accessibility. Yesterday, the UK Government wrote to you regarding material that they wished to make available on an extraordinarily limited basis to MSPs to look at in a condition of secrecy. That letter was sent to business managers and committee conveners at 1 o'clock, which was the end of the first session of this limited availability, the rest of which is either during times when Parliament itself is sitting in the chamber or at a time when MSPs are in their constituencies and regions. I have since been told that of the small number of people who did manage to make it to this limited session this afternoon, many were only given the opportunity to look at even numbered pages turning what is an insult into a farce. Can I ask what your response was on behalf of Parliament to the UK Government for the absurd, limited amount of scrutiny that has been made available? Mr Walker, the UK minister, describes this as facilitating parliamentary scrutiny. Parliamentary scrutiny must be transparent and open under the spirit of section 15 of our standing orders. I hope that you, on our behalf, will communicate to the UK Government our rejection of the sign of complete contempt. I thank Mr Harby for the advance notice of his point of order, and I would also add that I am not surprised to hear you express your dismay in such a manner. For your information and that of other members, I should first of all note that my office circulated this letter to business managers and conveners of the relevant committees as soon as I was aware of it, which was this afternoon at lunchtime following First Minister's questions. I fully understand the concerns that you raise, and I agree that the arrangements that are put in place for MSPs to view the documents offer limited opportunity for scrutiny and, further, it is unhelpful to receive such late notice of those proposals. I trust that the UK Government will reflect on the arrangements that they have put in place, and if the member wishes to raise those objections further, I would advise him to do so directly with the UK Government. The next item of business is consideration of motion 9803, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the islands Scotland bill. Can I call on Derek Mackay to move the motion to speak to you or just move the motion? Formally moved, Presiding Officer. And we come now to decision time, and there are two questions to be put as the result of today's business. The first question is that motion 10358, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on the islands Scotland bill at stage 1, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And the second question and final question is that motion 9803, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the islands Scotland bill be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And that concludes decision time. I close this meeting.