 Good morning and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2018 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. A special welcome to anyone watching this meeting through Facebook. Can I ask all members and all present in the committee to make sure their mobile phones are on silent? The first agenda item that we're moving on to is transport and winter resilience. Before we do that, I would just like to ask if there are any members of the committee that would like to declare any interest relevance to this item. Stewart. I'm the honorary president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport, which is interested in trains, buses, etc. I'm the honorary vice president of Rail Future UK. The deputy convener, Cal Ross. Thank you, convener. I'm the honorary vice president of Friends of the Far North Line. John, a member of the cross-party group in rail and a member of the RMT parliamentary group. I'll also convener of the cross-party group in rail. There's a lot of interest around the table on rail. This evidence session relates to the recent transport disruptions during the period of severe winter in late February and early March. I welcome the Minister for Transport in Ireland and the Islands, Humzae Yousaf. I also welcome Martin Thompson, Networks Impact Manager. Andrew Harper, the timetable development manager for Transport Scotland. I also welcome Alex Hynes, managing director of the ScotRail Alliance. George Mayr, the confederation of passenger transport. First of all, thank you very much for coming in on an early start. It's not always that committees start this early, and I'm very grateful that you all found time, especially for you, minister, to adjust your programme at late notice to make this early start possible. I'm going to ask the minister, Alex and George to make a very brief opening statement. Minister, if you'd like to start off. Good morning, and I will keep it brief. The recent severe winter weather was unprecedented in as much as it included met-office warnings for snow across much of Scotland. As members will know, the first instance of a red warning for snow in Scotland since the met-office adopted their coloured coded warning system. Whilst we know severe weather will cause disruption, we can't prevent that extreme bad weather. However, we can prepare for the conditions and will do all that we possibly can to mitigate the effects of snow and ice. The Scottish Government is continuing to invest in the latest technology to allow us to respond to that winter weather, whether it is rain, wind, ice or indeed snow. Clear, concise and consistent travel advice was given throughout the weather warning period by Scottish ministers, by Police Scotland and indeed by Transport Scotland. The advice during the red and amber periods were to avoid travel unless absolutely necessary. During the amber and red warning period and the immediate recovery period, the multi-agency response team and the Transport Scotland resilience room operated 24 hours a day. All partners worked collaboratively, entirely to prepare and tackle the emerging problems. Extreme and challenging conditions were experienced across a number of modes. I would like to thank and put on record my thanks the efforts of the emergency services with the assistance of Mountain Rescue and other partners who worked absolutely tirelessly throughout the night and to assist those who are stranded, for example, on the MAT and ensure that all welfare issues were handled as quickly and promptly as possible. The Government has taken a wide range of steps to assess and improve our resilience to the challenge of winter to mitigate its impacts but, importantly and crucially, to also recover our transport networks and get businesses and daily life back to normal as quickly but, importantly, as safely as possible. Mutual aid was agreed and provided to local authorities through the regional resilience partnerships. Following the spell of winter weather, the bell when scheme was triggered under which ministers would consider financial assistance for local councils following recent heavy snowfall. In conclusion, we learned something new each time that Scotland experiences severe weather. I am keen that the Government, Police Scotland and other partners and stakeholders learn lessons from the situation in order to improve the resilient effort during similar conditions in the future. Alex Hynes, would you like to make a brief opening statement? Thank you. Good morning, committee, and thank you for inviting me to this session today. Overall, I am proud of how we performed during the red weather warning. Our people went above and beyond the call of duty both day and night to keep our customers moving where possible and, of course, to get the railway back up and running as quickly as possible after the very worst of the weather had passed. We kept trains running where it was safe to do so. We put stranded customers up in hotels. We got taxis for customers, we kept our major stations open into the night to make the necessary and much more besides. I think some of the videos and the images that we showed on social media brought home the conditions in which we were operating. The key factor in every decision we made was safety. Was it safe to run trains? Was it safe to have our people out there clearing the network and was it safe to keep customers moving? Making decisions and communicating them clearly to our customers as quickly as we could was also very important. The office issued its red weather warning on the Wednesday at 12 minutes past 11. Within two hours, we had made the decision for a controlled wind-down of our services and had communicated that to our customers. We worked closely with the Scottish Government and its agencies to co-ordinate that. Our infrastructure team worked more than 20,000 hours clearing 2,800 miles of track and getting Scotland's railway back open. We received 52,000 inbound messages on social media over two weeks, which was four times the normal average. We know we didn't get everything right and, as you'd expect, we've already carried out an initial review of how we performed. I think we could have been quicker at confirming timetables for the following day and we will do some work internally across the allowance to allow that to happen. We also had some problems with our website going down at one point so we are working to ensure that our IT infrastructure can cope better in the future. However, as I said at the beginning of my statement, overall I am very proud of how our 7,500 people performed during that period and the positive feedback that we received from our customers is testament to this fact. Thank you. George, would you like to make a brief opening statement? Yes, good morning, committee, and thank you, convener. The confederation of passenger transport is a trade association for busing coach operators in Scotland. As such, we are well placed to receive feedback from our members on the many challenges they face during the period of bad weather. Like ScotRail, I think that their staff did a fantastic job. Some of them, even to the extent that they were highlighted in media quite consistently. It was, I think, a difficult and challenging period, but a good lot of effort and work went into keeping the services going and getting them back up when they had stopped. For many in the industry, this was probably the first experience of a real bad winter period of weather. One has to go back to 2010 and possibly beyond that, I think, about 1998. So they are not common features in our operation these days, thankfully. But that in itself breeds some significant complacency. I think that if they were a regular feature, if we had this weather every year, I think that everybody would be in a different place. There would be different equipment, more people, some would say larger budgets, but we certainly would be dealing with it differently. So I think a lot to be said about the staff that were driving buses, local authorities that were dealing with trying to keep roads clear, and for many it's a first involvement that they've had in that terrible weather. I think that in any major situation it's wise to take time to take stock, look back, what things were done well, are there other things that we could have improved upon. I think that it's inherent in everybody in the bus industry, rail, government, local authorities, should be taking the opportunity to do that and looking back, reflecting, praising where praise should be given and looking for new and better ways to do things if it didn't work too well during this occasion. In this regard, I'm delighted for the invitation this morning. I'm happy to answer any questions that I get and look forward to participating. Thank you very much, George. The first question this morning is going to come from Rich Laugh. Good morning, gentlemen. During the beast from the east weather, do you believe the trunk road operating companies met the commitment set out in their winter service plans? Would you like to comment on their operations and commitment by the staff? Minister, do you want to start with that? I thank you for the question. From my perspective, it was quite an experience being in that control centre those three days with the staff. I should say that when we thank the staff, I also want to thank the control room staff, not just our traffic control centre as important as that is, but the control centre and the back room office functions on rail networks, no doubt in the bus industry and right across emergency services because they're the people you probably don't see that are doing their best to help us recover and to help the trunk road move or indeed trains run or buses run. I'm probably going to caveat almost every single answer that I give today with yes, there are always lessons we can learn, having said that without a shadow of a doubt in my mind that the operating companies not only performed well in terms of the contract they've been given, many of them, if not all of them, went above and beyond. When we talk about the multiagency response team, you can imagine our operating companies around a table like this one, but a table discussing where the problems are coming up in the network. We have tens and tens of cameras up in the control centre and they're able to see where the problems are surfacing and they work really well together where one operating company will say to the other, look, we need an extra two bits of kit because we're facing a problem perhaps in the MAT at Castle Cary. The work together in a co-ordinated way, in a co-ordinated fashion doesn't matter necessarily what the contract says or what are the exact stipulations of their contract, if another operating company needs some equipment, needs some plant, needs some additional resource to work really close together. I think they worked really well. I think about the operating companies as well, I think to myself. I think about the trunk road network. I'm in charge of 3,500 kilometres approximately of trunk road network. Now, during the severe winter that we're talking about here, the beast from the east, we had a number of challenges, we know on the M80, we know on the A720 and a few other bits and bobs, but for the vast majority of that 3,500 kilometres, it was incident free and importantly people weren't hurt during that time. I'm not saying it's an almighty success, there's certainly things you have to learn but generally in relation to your question the trunk road operating companies have a remarkable job. Were you satisfied, minister, that the trunk road operating companies had sufficient staffing equipment and I take on board the points that Mr Mayer has said earlier and other resources available to deal with the winter weather? As you said, if they needed equipment somewhere else, it was en route. I think that George's point was such a nuance that an acute observation and I thank him for making it because the point is any Government could make the decision to invest more money in more specialised equipment and that budget would have to come from health or education or whatever else, some other budget of course. Do we do that to an extent that countries experience this kind of weather on a regular basis? Do we do it to the same extent or do we accept that these weather events probably are not altogether common and touch wood? Of course, I am saying that. There is a fine balance and a judgment to be made. What we will do is always invest in new technology and equipment. When I did the winter launch around October and November time this year, we were showcasing some of the new equipment that we would bought, unimogs. We had equipment that were there to deal with flooding or our gritters or spreaders that were spreading the liquid to the wet and salt treatment. There is always equipment that we should invest in without a shadow of a doubt, but we also have to on the flip side of that make a careful judgment about how often that equipment will be used and so on and so forth. The final point that I will make because I know what we are pushing for time is one of the key lessons we learnt for example from 2010 and thereafter is to ensure that we have adequate salt stocks and we have record salt just to put it into context. We used this winter over two times as much as we used the entire last winter. We have plenty still in stock, I have to say, and we have a reserve that sits there just in case any stock is running low. I am satisfied that we have good equipment, but every winter we will always add to that to make our equipment even better. George, do you want to come in on the trunk rails in connection with your brief? I think that the minister did highlight the incidents on some of the main arteries. In general terms, once they were resolved, things were back in motion and gradually over the week towards the weekend things were getting back to full service. I think that it is absolutely right that you look back and look for areas that work well where you can improve, but there will always be sporodic things that will happen and until we then deal with that, get cleared and get normality back into the network is the key thing for me. Mike, yours is the next question. In my area of Aberdeenshire, the council often closes in periods of bad weather, roads like the Bangerdey-Fedicain road, the Corgawth to Tome and Tarl road and that sort of thing. In fact, in the red warnings that we just recently had, quite rightly, the railways were closed for public safety, as Alex has already mentioned. My question really is focused primarily on the minister because I think it would be his decision. Did you make any consideration to actually closing the trunk roads, for instance, the M80, the ones that are worst affected, so we would prevent as what happens in local roads, like Aberdeenshire Council and on the railways? That is an important issue. Did you consider closing so that we did not have this problem in the worst affected areas? Yes, and I will come to the reason why we did not do so. First of all, it would be a decision for Police Scotland, so they are the ones that have the operational. We work closely, of course, and we have those conversations with the police. Again, I will just remind people of the context. The days before leading up to the red warning in particular, this weather event did not catch people by surprise. I think that they have been trailed in the newspaper. The beast from the east, as it was termed, is coming. I think that on the days before, the Monday and the Tuesday, even my harshest critic will no doubt say that our messaging was pretty clear and consistent to people about avoiding travel, unless absolutely necessary. Despite those clear, consistent messaging, despite the fact that we had trailed, and it had been trailed, that this weather event was coming, and the beast from the east is not a nice fluffy name. People knew that this was going to be a tough weather event. Despite all that, tens of thousands of people still chose to travel. Some of that might have been absolutely necessary, but I can tell you now from looking at the cameras that some of that was unnecessary. When people chose to make that decision, we could have potentially, made the decision to close some of the pinch points, the more difficult parts of the trunk road network. The difficulty in doing so is that that would have pushed all of that traffic on to the local infrastructure, which could absolutely not cope. We have some of the best equipment, we have plenty of salt stocks, we know that trunk road network generally we did our best to keep it clear, but parts of the local road network and local authorities, it took them days and days to recover that. If we had pushed all that traffic on to the local infrastructure, there is simply no way it could have coped. If I think about future weather events, if we have notice of an extreme weather event coming in the future, I think that Mike Rumbles was trying to make, but I thought again, it was a very acute observation. If we know the particular pinch points that we are doing some work on here, like summit in the M77 perhaps made in Hellfenic, we know that there are some inclines there where HGVs often lose traction. Do we work alongside the police to potentially close those roads if we ever have a red warning for snow in the future? Is that the right thing to do? That is something that we are actively considering. There are other options, though. Do we keep, for example, HGVs and force them into one lane for a three-mile stretch for talking sake? Do we take other measures? Do we enact operations and stack them into lay-bys or harsh shoulders? All that thinking is on-going, but the reason why we did not close roads or the police did not close roads for my discussions with them is that the local infrastructure would not have been able to cope with that volume of traffic. The alternative is that people are stranded. It is not just the case that roads are not being able to cope with the volume of traffic. With the greatest respect, it is not the alternative in the sense that people would have been stranded on local roads and that would have been more difficult. You cannot get a gritter up and down through traffic, at least if you have two lanes of trunk road plus a hard shoulder than that is the hard shoulder that is often used by gritters through blue light escort to come and try to recover the road network. You just cannot do that in a single lane. With the greatest respect, I do not think that it is an alternative. I do agree that it would be another option. It is not something that I am discounting for the future by any stretch. I just know from my experience and I believe the police entirely when they say that local road infrastructure could not cope with that volume. No, I accept and understand that response. Is the minister saying that for future reference when we get into the red warning like this and we know the pinch points in these areas that he will be in discussion with the police to make sure that perhaps the road haulage industry keeps you in one lane and also to hear George's response to that as well. A meeting with the HGV sector tomorrow I have had conversations with them already but a meeting with them to talk again through our winter plans of course the bus industry will be part of that conversation I think that I would like to have a range of options and I would not discount any of them including potentially Police Scotland closing parts of the trunk road network but again we might well come to the same problem that if we close parts of the trunk road network can local roads cope and in some cases they might well be able to or indeed we have to put in place a mitigation plan alongside local authority to assist with that but that should be one of the options as well as I have said perhaps stacking HGVs perhaps enforcing them into lane 1 even if one breaks down they all have to stay in lane 1 can't creep into lane 2 that was all caused by HGVs it certainly wasn't there were some other vehicles of course involved in incidents too but just for clarification it is not something that I would expect the police to discount and they will close roads based on safety that will be their number 1 priority Do you want to come in briefly on that before I move on to Peter Chapman yeah briefly we have members that operate express co-chairs between the main urban areas of Scotland and they make good use of the trunk road network to achieve that I think that for their perspective they would like to see the trunk road up running and then allowed to continue operating their services because it can be an alternative if rail is not available and it has been successful in that respect in previous occasions Can I just say something very briefly if I may very briefly the point I wanted to make some folk had asked us could you have not clear the trunk road network and just kept traffic moving what I would have said particularly during the red weather event even if we had managed to make the surface black as it was and clear some of the snow that wouldn't necessarily have made it safe to travel with the snow that was following the blizzard conditions, the poor visibility so even if we were able to literally clear the surface that doesn't always mean that it's safe for people to travel and that's something we've got to always be conscious of Thank you, Peter Thanks, convener John Swinney MSP indicated in answers to topical questions in the 6 of March that after every severe weather incident the Government undertakes a review of how it has handled to identify lessons that can be learned so my question is has the review of the response to the recent severe weather produced any results to date? Yes, we're already taking having that review and done parts of that review I think we've still got to really bring all of our stakeholders as part of that engagement what I would say is and Mr Chapman of course understand this is that we're not through the winter yet so if we're going to do a full scale winter debrief that can't happen until we're through winter I mean people probably are alert to the fact that we're going to get some snow and see showers for the Easter weekend or it's likely to come according to the call I had yesterday with the Met Office in terms of lessons learned from previous winters last winter right that we threw to 10 winters ago I could rifle off a whole list of things that we've learnt for the purposes of brevity I won't bother and already I should say when you ask about this particular incident the beast from the east there's been a lot of discussion already with stakeholders particularly around the M80 because that is a pinch point that seems to happen and we seem to see time and time again at Castle Cary both north and southbound so in terms of for this weather event particular debrief has focused on that pinch point so and just if we can just home in a hell at Castle Cary that was the issue that as far as the M80 is concerned there are hundreds that travellers were stranded overnight surely you need to focus on that pinch point and make sure that that particular part of the road is kept clear and you could have a grip or just basically going up and doing that same bit of road and make sure that if that's the bit that's the problem then you make sure that bit is still clear and you've got bare road there I think that could be possible with again the greatest respect for all members to come to the control centre we had more than one gritter constantly going up and down the north and southbound we had a number of gritters doing that in the M80 I think if you just cash in mind back to that red weather event if you remember looking out your window or if you were anywhere near the M80 at that point or seeing it on your news it was utterly relentless we didn't have a couple of hours of a window in order to try to recover the situation we just had constant blizzard conditions that's why the red warning was issued of course because there's simply no let up and when I was looking at the Met Office radar map with the Met Office just saying when are we getting a window here an opportunity of one hour even and they just said look it's going to be pretty consistent for the next I can't remember now 10 hours and then ended up being 15 hours and so on so what we did do though because we know the M80 is a pinch point for example the new equipment we bought that we have we placed that in the M80 so again that new bit of plant new bit of equipment the unimog is not as big as a gritter so it was able to get through traffic a little bit easier so that unimog was placed in the M80 for that exact reason so his point is a good one and I think following on from what he was saying we're now identifying where are the six, seven, eight pinch points on the trunk road network which is usually involved inclined where are they where these incidents take place and in relation to what I was saying to Mike Rumbles what do we do during those pinch points, during extreme weather do we do the nuclear option which is police close the roads do we do operations stacked etc I think his point is absolutely right but please nobody should be under any illusion that we didn't have quite a bit of equipment on those particular pinch points in the M80 in particular can I just bring Jamie in and come back to you Peter, Jamie and then if I've got time I'll bring Richard in could you keep it as short as you can Jamie thank you convener, good morning panel I just want to pick something up on something that the minister said in a previous statement you used the phrase that during amber and red warnings the advice is not to travel unless absolutely necessary that's very sage advice but do you think therein lies a problem in that there's not an adequate understanding in the public because the phrase you used is just as confusing I think as people's perhaps perception of the difference of when they can and cannot travel or shouldn't should not travel and I just George nod a wee bit there so I might bring him in as well say if I could a short answer be a good answer brevity is my middle name I think the point is a very good one so one of the learnings we did not from the beast from the east but the previous event we had in middle of January if you remember a fair bit of snow was that people, the feedback from people was the number of warnings were far too confusing so you had travel advice from the Government you had met office warnings, you had police travel advice and all of that just seemed to confuse people what the hexa stage for an amber and so on and so forth so for the beast for the east type of event sorry we tried to just be more aligned in what we were saying but also we tried to take the lead on the messaging front I think there is a bit of learning to do around the warning system the met office, the red warning system we're having those conversations because you do get different types of amber before I took this job I wasn't alert to the fact that you have a matrix when I sat down with the met office it was because they told me on the beginning of the week, I think it was a Monday or the Tuesday potentially that the amber warning they had was right on the cusp in the matrix when the box just underneath we can imagine a matrix when the box underneath the red and that's why I took the decision on Tuesday to say look we're on the cusp of a red never seen this before, unprecedented and the advice was really really consistent for all the criticisms that people will give I think genuinely including his own party leader of course have said that the communication was very very clear and consistent and that I think for us is something to learn from and to improve from in the future and to trade slightly into the warning system which was coming up later but rather than lose the train of this I'd like to bring in Stuart and then Richard but George, would you like to comment just on that on the warning system and then I'll bring Stuart and then Richard in and then probably might I haven't been invited to this event I took the opportunity to contact members and ask for feedback on some of the issues that we've prevailed during that period and I think the one consistent message that came back was the understanding around the warnings some of the views that were expressed was that there appear to be different understandings of the various warnings across some of the different bodies involved somebody mentioned and I've probably realised now who said it that they used the phrase high armour and people will say what does high armour mean so the understanding of the metrics and the logic behind them I think is an error that probably we can't look back on and think is there a better way to communicate this some of the guys said that in countries they visit in Europe there's a numerical scale whether that's better I think that he'll issue again how often do you use it and remember it probably applies as well but I think for me there's certainly something in there that people are not getting it they don't understand the ratings and the other element that came across quite strongly was that we seem to be getting it more often now and if you're in the periphery on area you think perhaps well it's been an armour warning but we've had worse weather under a yellow warlin difficult thing to try and detail whether forecast is precisely in your location it will be X, Y or Z but there's something there I think that needs further looking at Stuart, can I bring you in? Thank you very much convener I'm going to try and structure this in a particular way and the first part I'd like to ask is do we know where people get the information that will base their decisions from we know where we put the information out but what do people have we actually linked to people use and in asking that question it's got different parts to it the first of which is for planning purposes will I bother to leave home at all is there a public transport available etc etc and then during the course of the journey what real time information about what's going on do we know about what people actually use so that we can build on the things that people really use in a way? From my point of view again it was fascinating being in the control centre because there you've got radio broadcasting from the bank you've got of course our Twitter operation and social media operation I should say on going and then of course frequently actually we have a number of broadcasters radio coming in to do interviews with myself or Steen Conley or other members of the Transport Scotland team and from our perspective we gather some of the data on the 2nd of March this year the Traffic Scotland website delivered a record breaking number of page impressions in excess of 20.2 million you know over 250,000 followers on the Traffic Scotland Twitter page the number of Twitter messages and exchanges we had I haven't gathered yet but we should absolutely do that but clear from me having been in that room that more and more people absolutely are getting their information online but we should always remember that most people I think will still go to the news look at the news at 6 o'clock the 10 o'clock the 1pm bulletins will still take that so it was really important for us and I have to commend the broadcasters and the media in particular they were not shy in coming to us they played their part making sure that this got the coverage I think it absolutely needed so we don't put all our eggs in one basket we make sure we spread that across the various mediums of communication but fair to say that certainly our online I saw our online communication method mediums were certainly well used and I saw a number of people in real time trying to get information on X, Y, Z the first part of the question if we can get that consistent advice out earlier then I think that's something for us to try to see where we can improve upon have you looked for vehicles in particular road vehicles the French system which essentially every autoroute is covered by a dedicated traffic radio signal which is simply taking computer information and turning it into voice so it's not hugely expensive and of course it's localised because the one thing that virtually every road vehicle will have is a radio and of course it's legal and proper for the driver to use the radio so I wonder if we should be pointing people before they make their journey to how they can during their journey because we don't want drivers sitting on Facebook or Twitter or whatever I'm keen there seems to be a lot of members of the committee who want to ask questions on actually the warning system so I've got three people stacked up and I want to stay on I've one short after this absolutely what I want to say to members when I bring you in on this because I know there are other aspects to this I want to stay on the warning system at this stage and come back to the other aspects afterwards sorry minister then back to Stuart and then I've got Richard Laugh I think it's a very good point and to answer the first part of the question again yes we'll look across the world and across the continent in particular see what we can do learnings my team in Martin included here is part of the world roads association so the loft and go to across the continent and of course we'll invite the association here I'm sure to learn from where we can best practice exist whether they've looked at a specific example or not I couldn't tell you without having a discussion with them but certainly the world road association provides that international intelligence there's an ITS workshop I think today in fact on that so again looking to see where we can use intelligent technology to the best effect possible a brief follow up Stuart another one to Richard this is back to the planning issue that I think I can see each of the participants in the public transport realm we're putting out good quality information from what I could see but there isn't an integrated place apart from perhaps one might imagine travel line which integrates the planning but I'm not sure it gives the kind of real time information that in these circumstances so would the government look at whether it's reasonable and cost effective to by that means or otherwise provide an integrated way so that people can decide whether to go for the train whether to go for the bus or whether to hug the sofa I'd be absolutely well and it'd be worth looking at the mobile website www.mytrafficscotland.org we've just done some latest enhancements yesterday and some of them today which will give you a whole host so it's www.mytrafficscotland.org all one word but you can get the live image of the traffic cameras on the transport network you can get all the information around congestion planned events, unplanned events but how we integrate that also with the good apps that Alex has the travelling app that I know George and many in the bus industry use that's a question there that we should take back for sure despite the signs of my constituency there are no traffic cameras in it I'm definitely leaving it there because I promised you one more and I've got other members stacked up Richard, Mike Rumbles Would you agree and snowed all vehicles lose tyre traction the point that Mr May made earlier some very expensive cars can't even get up hills because back wheels are spinning don't have four wheel drive in regards to the pressure point roads that you're talking about where they were delays we'll look at resurfacing some type of material that would aid traction Richard, because that's not on the warning system I will come back to you on that Mike, if it's on the warning system I'll take you When the minister is warning people about the red level he said consistently only travel if your journey is essential the question that I want to ask is a very simple one is travelling to your employment an essential journey I think if it compromises your safety then absolutely not but you have to look at what your employment is so for example with emergency workers would their travel be essential I think there would be many emergency workers not all but many emergency workers where their employment would be for many others I wouldn't view that as essential in the day and age where we can have a lot of flexi travel etc then I think you can close my father's example he's an accountant he's got 15 to 20 members of staff he took the decision to absolutely please keep all of my advice and I'm sure many others did which was to send a staff home give them the day off he would have lost some income because of that he wouldn't have got some accounts file that he shouldn't have got the VAT and so on and so forth that he should have done that day but that is chose to take that what might be a hit in the economy we have to accept that there would have been an economic impact on that because the safety of their staff is absolutely paramount and I have had numerous emails from people who tell me that they've either been docked wages they've been asked to take annual leave because they didn't come in during the red warning that is just unacceptable and the First Minister obviously as you probably know Mr Rumbles met with the STUC and they're developing now a fair work charter I appreciate that this was an unprecedented weather event so some employers might not have known how to handle that and let's give them the benefit of the doubt but for the future these weather warnings are not done for any other reason then it's people's safety here that's at risk you can imagine what it would have been like if people had travelled like a normal Wednesday evening peak during that red warning so you can answer to this question clearly for the vast majority of employment I wouldn't see it as necessary if you shouldn't be punished for your work but some employment of course will be absolutely necessary I understand the messages that you put out on the radar I heard them myself obviously but they're directed at the travellers and that's important of course it is but I didn't hear any message to employers from yourself to say what you've just said to us now before you answer that sorry I'm just very conscious of time there's a lot of people that want to ask questions can I ask you to answer that in conjunction with Fulton's one if your question is on warnings yeah thanks a lot and just before I come to my question on warnings because we were talking about employment there I'm actually dealing with a constituent case we're hoping to get resolved before taking any further for the ladies unfortunately being sat from our work for not travelling on the red one so I just wanted to put that out there but as I say hopefully we're going to resolve it my questions around the yellow and amber situation I think that actually when we went to red apart from some very rare circumstances like I described there the message was very clear and people got it that's what I think anyway but between yellow and amber and I know people talked about that earlier is there any thoughts to review that we come down from a red back to amber because I was actually listening to the radio at one point in the house when we went back to amber and the radio presenter actually said in an unconscious way or we're just back down to an amber now and I thought wow that's but it was done unconsciously and actually probably wasn't the only one feeling that because we had to be beast from the east and then we're back down to amber so I wonder if there's any chance of review I will answer up for both of those points the issue of employment and the movement for two mornings because they want to come back to Peter and to John say that's all the questions just those two questions as one if you would we did message we did give messaging to businesses we have a business resilience centre which contacted a number of employers but I accept Mike Rumbles' point entirely that perhaps we should emphasise that for the future and we should find a way if we can get the forecast earlier on exact science so forecasting will always look to improve of course by the Met Office so the earlier we can do that the earlier we can warn employers and I'll take that absolutely on board of Fulton's point the case that he's dealing with he'll know employment law is of course reserved to UK Government but in my view let me say for the Government's view it's utterly unacceptable that that practice is taking place I thought that his point was a really good one and similar to the one that Jamie Greene was making if you're not in the position that I'm necessarily in or you're not as part of the Met Office there's no reason why you should have an understanding of the Met Office matrix for talking and saying why would you in a normal day and everything that you're doing and therefore we had to get across for the beasts of the east whether we had to get across to people quote unquote a pedestrian amber you know this wasn't an amber similar to the amber we faced a month ago when we had the weather event in January and that's why I often went out and it wasn't the term high amber but severe amber where the warning was the one that I often used because we had to let people know that this was different to the amber warning they'd seen before because of where it sat in the matrix now for me that's not necessarily the best system the answer to the question is yes I think there's some learning to be had there but we're very very alert to the fact that when it went from red to amber people might think everything's going to be okay so then that's why our media messages over the exact opposite we're telling people this is still going to be extraordinarily challenging even going from an amber to a yellow or indeed an amber to yellow and a yellow and then there being no other warning we still face challenges so an example would be thinking about the routes that take people up to ski centres Clay and Co, the Nevis range so people will have seen it snowing for days and days and days and all en masse they decide of course when the weekend comes or the Easter weekend is coming now they all en masse decide to go to ski centres and block the trunk road network and there's some severe congestion on the trunk road network so there's always learning to be done for us we're always preparing for before the event Okay, thank you I'm going to come to Peter and then John briefly for a question and then Colin, so Peter Yeah, I mean there was some criticism of HDV drivers that supposedly were on the roads and doing non-essential deliveries unfair criticism in my opinion and the First Minister was involved in that as well so my question is how did you engage with the road haulage industry prior to during and after the severe weather with a view to maintaining essential supplies essential deliveries in a safe manner So can I just correct the member again with respect that there was never a criticism of HDV drivers there was a criticism of hauliers and I just want the member to try to understand from my perspective the sense of frustration and I'm trying to be as genuinely open-minded about this and ask him to be as open-minded as possible about this You'll be aware of what I said already that we know in advance that there's going to be some of the most unprecedented extreme weather we've had in years and years and years We know that our operating companies are working day and night, the gritters are out day and night trying to clear the surface Our messaging has gone out for days to tell people to avoid travel unless absolutely essential because we know the pinch points as he's already identified in a previous question we know the pinch points on cameras in front of me and I see an HDV that's at least branded for flat pack furniture drive past, skid and cause a tail back for three miles or I see a home furniture delivery or I see a stationery delivery at least that's the way the branding is or I see an empty car transporter of which I saw many Again, with the greatest of respect I think my reaction to that publicly was muted was restrained whereas I can promise you if you were with me in that control centre it was slightly less restrained and I think even again our harshest criticism I don't take away from what Peter Chapman is saying at all but even our harshest critics will accept that there is a difference between necessary and unnecessary so everybody here around this table would accept that food and fuel have to get through by and large but we do have questions to ask Maybe, I'm wrong Maybe the HDVs were simply branded in that way and they were carrying something else completely different perhaps, I'm not entirely sure that's the case so yes they are involved the RHA and the FTA again which Peter Chapman will know well very involved in our discussions advance it prior to a weather warning right the way through the weather warning and then post the weather warning so you know have a good relationship with and that's who I'm meeting tomorrow alongside some of the large HDV companies would be critical of those companies that would send out drivers because it is about their safety as well as anybody else would send out drivers for things that I think commonly we could accept would be unnecessary I'm going to leave that there and John, if I could ask you to briefly ask a question then Collin wants to come in Thanks so much, I think as you may know Minister, we're on Facebook this morning and I've been watching some of the comments Don Oliver says thank you, Humza for the pre-warning of the possible disasters so you've got some fans out there I mean can I also thank ScotRail for getting me back to Glasgow on the Thursday afternoon when there were no other trains running and First Bus for getting me from Glasgow city centre back home on the Thursday afternoon on their two routes which were great on the question of a logistics side of things we understand there's a multiagency response team and you've got quite a lot of organisations involved in that should the logistics side be involved in that to just try and get them on board a bit more They are involved in that already, the freight transport association the road tollage association a part of them are marked as are the confederation for passenger transport in fact that we could probably give you the detail of who's involved in that but they are already involved in that but I think there's a question of how we all align earlier so for example when the red warning was announced one of the first phone calls I got was from Alex to say look at the process what we want to do in regards to winding down this is my feeling of the plans do you have any advice or what is the intelligence you're getting in terms of weather and so on and so forth just to make sure it's all aligned we also did that previously when we had the score calls and the part of the multiagency response but perhaps there's some learning for all of us to do on this side of the table that getting once making sure that we the senior level perhaps sit down and coordinate our response even earlier I think that earlier we can do things the better it is for everybody but I would say that the RHA, the FTA, the CPT are all very much part of the multiagency response team Colin, you wanted to come in Thanks very much Kevin it was just a question on information again one of the most important information for passengers whose journeys are disrupted particularly on rail is information on compensation now the rail companies including ScotRail were recently criticised by which for I think best failing to make passengers aware that they were entitled to also make claims for consequential losses and it worse actually misleading the public through social media that they couldn't make such claims so why are the public effectively being misled on their right to claim for consequential losses and now that the national information is being amended what's being done to make passengers aware of their full rights when it comes to compensation Alex, do you want to come in on that to start with? Season ticket holders who are affected by the red whether alert have already been given to free days on renewal and those customers without season ticket are eligible for delay repay so irrespective of course if anyone's journey is delayed by more than 30 minutes they're responsible for a no quibble refund the average number of claims we get in a typical week for delay repay is 2,000 over the red weather event we were getting 5,000 applications per day so I think we've been very clear about the compensation that our customers are entitled to and they've been claiming it Minister, do you want to add in? The other thing I would add is you would just take a cursory glance at the ScotRail social media of Twitter feed for example on a daily or weekly basis and they're not shy at all to any passenger that complains directly to them that there is a delay in repay scheme I don't believe anybody is being misled now the point that Colin Smyth makes that perhaps Alex and myself and others can take away is how do we do even more to make sure that people are aware of their rights? That's a fair point Colin Smyth Minister, they are being misled because the question was specifically about consequential loss not simply repayment for tickets but the additional costs for example taxes, buses that may have to be incurred as a result of disruption they're probably being misled over that recently and the rules have or certain of the information has been tightened on that and as you mentioned per day during the adverse weather I presume that was purely for tickets how many people actually made applications for consequential losses and what did ScotRail and others do to make the public aware that they were entitled to make applications for potentially have applications for consequential losses? Our customer relations team considers requests from customers to cover consequential loss that's normal business and where we think there's a case to do so then we clearly pay out beyond our strict obligations the point you made about consequential loss my understanding is that the national rail conditions of carriage which apply across the UK have recently been reissued to address the issue that you raised which wasn't a Scotland specific issue it was a UK wide issue and my understanding is that has now been addressed but certainly I'm not aware of any criticism from ScotRail's customers that we've been in any way stingy with giving them their money back when we didn't let them travel Can we just follow up on that? Is it one solution though to actually move to a system of automatic compensation when it comes to reimbursement instead of your staff on to deal with 5000 applications a day during that adverse weather there would not be a lot simpler situation where you provide compensation on an automatic basis in the way that other real companies are starting to do at the moment That's certainly a development that we're looking at at the future and of course our compensation policies are very clearly outlining our passenger charter which is available at every single staff station I think we've taken that as far as we can maybe Jamie you come in with your next question please Staying on the subject of rail Mr Hines in your opening statement you said that the feedback from ScotRail customers was very positive over the way things have been handled but anyone who was falling social media over those few days would also have seen a great number of unhappy customers especially people who had got to work via train but then are sitting in the office reading social media posts and the network is shutting down Can you talk us through briefly how you got to that decision of when the network would be entirely shut when that decision was made and how that was communicated to the general public Sure In terms of the sentiment we track every day positive, neutral or negative sentiment across social media and during the red weather event our sentiment was more positive than normal so we can clearly demonstrate that Clearly our number one priority is safety the forecast was accurate and very good clearly the red weather event was a threat to life and safety and my worst case scenario was that we would have customers stranded on a train and even worse stranded on a train we couldn't get to them so clearly my number one priority was making sure that that wasn't the case so within two hours of the red weather warning being made available my team and I had taken a decision that we were going to wind down the service in a controlled fashion on that Wednesday our immediate advice to customers across all channels was to go home and go home now so that we were able to end the service around about tea time on the Wednesday so safety was the clear priority it was taken on the basis of the good weather forecast that we get from the Met Office and the trigger was the fact that we went to red which clearly required decisive action and good information and so I was pleased to see that we didn't have customers stranded on trains we were able to get all our customers and our staff home safely that evening and that isn't the case across the UK so I think relatively we did a good job here in Scotland thank you for that one of the things you also mentioned is how in terms of some of the key learnings that we can take away from this around the issue of giving information that is bound to happen the next day what is very likely to be the situation the next day so can I just point towards for example a ScotRail tweet from the 28th of February which is from 11am in the morning which states following on from the red alert we will not run trains in affected areas again there is perhaps an ambiguity of which the affected areas were until late morning which in itself is a vague term we will be introducing a small number of services and if it is safe to do so there are so many Fs and Butts in there that I think it's not a huge surprise that many customers really had no idea where the trains were running or not until they got to the station do you think there are any learnings that you could take from that I mean I think one of the reasons why the travel advice is not always crystal clear is because you can only communicate a plan and if you don't have a plan communicate and it is unsafe to run trains into snow drifts particularly if they've got customers on board so we root prove each line of route which we have to do during the hours of daylight and in a weather event like this we actually don't know what we're going to be able to run and so that's why customers get the travel advice they get as we get to daylight and we send our root proving trains out and we reopen the railway then we are able to reinstate services where that's the case but the very fact of the matter is that the evening before the day before we frankly don't know what we're able to run which is why we're open and honest with our customers to say actually this is the latest situation it's not that we're hiding or keeping anything back it's because we don't know what we're able to run because we don't know what's safe to run and finally then has this particular event which again we acknowledge was quite extreme and its severity identified any weaknesses in the rail system in Scotland in terms of either the tracks the rolling stock or different types of stock or indeed the equipment you have available to you to clear lines the level of resource available to you etc are there any deficiencies in your ability to handle such extreme weather that we could that will require beefing up before the next potential major event I don't believe so our winter preparation plan we prepared for winter whole year round it went to our board we were well prepared for this weather event indeed we'd had a previous snow event and where we also performed relatively well is pretty resilient to bad weather it's one of the reasons why Scotland's railway is more punctual than railways elsewhere in the UK of course if we had a weather event like the one we've just seen every single year then clearly there would be decisions we could make to make the railway network even more resilient but I'm quite satisfied with our level of preparation and resilience and I think the fact that we're able to run a good service safely the fact that the railways in Scotland are more punctual than elsewhere is testament to the fact that we're in reasonable shape clearly if the weather was different and we were facing this every single year we might make a different decision thank you Fulton followed by John Finnie I want to ask a couple of questions around local authorities and for that to lead on buses in particular but in my own local authority in North Lanarkshire on the previous snow before the red warning there was a lot of difficulties with gritting and stuff like that and we contacted the authority and we got a lot of constituent queries about it but I have to say similar to the response that you gave yourself minister I think that the local authority during the red warning was brilliant and I don't mind saying that and I've reflected that back to the council but what else do you think local authorities across the country could do to improve winter service arrangements perhaps looking more at the amber in the yellow warning times I would echo what you said local authorities by and large of course coped really well and many of them took quite decisive action so many of them decided for example the night before to let people know that the schools were going to be off the next day in fact the vast majority of them local authorities did that therefore it made planning easier for parents as opposed to having to wake up in the morning and so on and so forth so I thought many of them took sensible measures and took those measures early I think there's a question around local budgets of course I'm not getting into the politics of us at all but if you haven't had an extreme or challenging winter for seven or eight winters it's only natural that you're probably going to look through just to enter budget and look to put more money into social care or education and so on and so forth so that's why for example because of the extent and the extremity of this weather event we triggered the bellwind scheme which the member will be aware of so that would allow for additional financial grant and assistance to local authorities I would also say that our mutual aid process is really really important so our priority is Transport Scotland is a Government of course our remit, our responsibility is the trunk road network so that's three and a half thousand kilometres but where we can offer mutual aid to local authorities to send out gritters to give them additional stock in terms of salt that offer has always been open and I'm sure there was a few that would have taken up so actually I'm just being told that mutual aid was provided by the council for talking sake so where we can provide that mutual aid will absolutely look to do so but I echo his general sentiment that it was well handled by local authorities and just talking about bus service do we think it's maybe for George that there's a need for a central portal for bus service disruption to get that information out and is there anything that local authorities and other agencies can do to make sure that bus provision continues as best that can? I think that in terms of information each of the operators were particularly the larger ones with the resource to deal with these things work consistently tweeting on the impact that the weather was having on services both in terms of winding down and a bit like ScotRail winding back up because you you can get services up quite quickly and it's a bit like heating the windscreen for the heat goes first you'll get bus services running quicker bit in outlying areas for the snows deeper in some respects and more difficult to clear up it takes that wee bit time but yeah they generally were tweeting they were using social media they were using their websites most of the operators now have a feed direct to travel line Scotland and they can put bulletins in there just being reduced or being reintroduced is the weather situation changes I tried to work with Transport Scotland and some colleagues that I regularly contact with they say yeah we're here we'll help and we'll do anything we can but please direct everything and inquire these to travelling it seems sensible to do that and use a central point of contact so they they are getting feeds direct for the operators on the issue I think in terms of local authorities given the scale of the challenge here in some locations I think they did a tremendous job but like everybody else they said I think you can look back and see perhaps the worry is a weakness so for me the key thing I would advise our members and hopefully through this discussion that local authorities can pick up on it is to get round the table have a chat so that the next time there's a bad weather incident some of the things that could be better are better but I think given the overall scale of the challenge and particularly across the central belt and the periphery Dundee and Aberdeen seemed to cope reasonably well with certainly more challenging but looking back reflecting and building new ideas new strategies in the future can only be helpful it's certainly my opinion that rail passengers and bus passengers were very well served by ScotRail and the bus operators on what were very challenging circumstances of course there's another two categories of travel that you'll be familiar with pedestrians and cyclists appreciating the responsibilities for the transport minister obligations do you believe that sufficient priority is given to both of these groups because ultimately it's pedestrians have to make their way to bus stops or train stations yes and I think it's one of the learnings we've done from for example the harsh winter of 2010 so I agree with them around the importance and priority of footways and cycle paths as well so about 52 tractor plows, gritters, pickups and cleaning equipment available across Scotland's trunk road network for footway clearance and treatment so the footways footpaths, cycle facilities alongside the trunk road network they're organised largely into three categories your operating companies will carry out pre-treatments to all category A footways footpaths and cycle facilities when temperatures are forecast to fall a combination of footpaths, bedders and hand spreading are used to pre-treat these as required operating companies then clear category A and then category B footways of snow and ice by 8am or within two hours of snow ceasing to fall during the periods of 6am to 6pm operating companies also clear category C footways of snow and ice by 5pm the following weekday as well so operating companies the allocate resource obviously based on the network conditions and the reports they receive back from the winter drivers and carrying out plowing we also have winter self-help kits which continue to be made available to small communities bordring a trunk road now those kits are not intended to replace of course the normal winter maintenance but they do allow the communities to play their parts we've actually only had a small number of self-help kits that have been kind of 20 that have been issued to local communities to date the most recent in the A76 at Newcomenac so I think there's maybe a bit of work on the advertisement of these self-help kits which are available if I may thank you thank you for that minister but of course it's a small portion of footways for instance that there'll be any obligation to yourself on and is there any liaison with local authorities on this I understand and I think there's plenty of examples of communities showing great resilience and coming together but that's not without its problems and I think I would have some concerns of members of the public for instance we're clearing footways beside main trunk roads but is there a liaison with the local authorities because certainly in countries and I appreciate it's different where we have episodes of severe weather rather than have constant severe weather but there's a different approach taken in some countries where they recognise that people are very important and if you can't let have people access then they're not going to have access to the roads they're not going to have access to public services either so it's very much seen that footways are the poor relation and I appreciate the local authorities obligations but is there a discussion with the local authorities about that? Yes, I mean, local authorities are central to our pre-planning during the event and then the recovery and of course access via footways and so on are very much part of that conversation I will take it back though he's right to say that sometimes perhaps certainly in the public domain footways, footpaths don't quite get the same amount of attention or coverage as perhaps a trunk road network the rail services, bus services so can I just give an assurance to the member that it's part of our overall debrief once we get out of the winter period and we have that conversation with cosland local authorities and that will be very much part of that discussion Thank you very much indeed for that Thank you John, Jamie Thank you very much, Eric I want to touch on the issue of intervention in this event of the military armed forces, something that hasn't cropped up in conversation this morning The public perception is that it seemed to come very late and my question is, was it an offer to help or was it a request to them to help and could the minister comment on whether he thinks there's a greater role for the military to intervene for example the situation on the MAE to where people are stranded for many hours at a time in the situation and what is the relationship therefore the Scottish Government has with the military in our respect in terms of asking for assistance We have a very close dialogue with the MOD throughout again a weather event that might be planned or foreseen as this one He will appreciate that in my role the committee is of course transport and to ensure that transport networks across the country are moving if it's safe to do so during an extreme weather event The decision taken to involve the MOD was a request that would have been made by me as the minister because of course he'll know that it was for health workers and emergency workers to assist them to get them to their place of work and I think that of course that was a right decision so if the member is okay and I'll do this of course through the convener on the appropriate channels we can give him a bit more detail because it wouldn't be myself as a minister that would have made that decision or that call would have been a different minister that would have made that decision in the second part of his question again we're always considering and thinking about all the resources that are available to us including of course the assistance of the MOD just the particular situation if I take the M80 not convinced entirely that it would have made a huge difference because of the nature of the problem and the scale of the problem I don't know exact equipment from what I do know but it's not something that we should ever discount I think on where we could have absolutely done better and this is part of our learning is to ensure that people's welfare is going to go around for example again the M80 we knew as soon as we started to see some of the tailbacks there that this weather event because of the nature of the snow was not going to be cleared within an hour or two we knew this was going to be a challenging night ahead of us that perhaps we can look to get people welfare sooner and quicker and in a more co-ordinated way so that's what we're taking away Thank you minister and it's perfectly obvious as a result today that the more lessons will come out at the end of the winter when you've carried out a complete review of the circumstances and it would be useful for the committee to have feedback from you on the full details of the lessons I would like to thank you Alex and George for coming again this morning there's been a great deal of interest in the meeting this morning not only on social media but also on Facebook and I thank those that we're watching I thank the committee members for taking part and I'm going to briefly suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to change Thank you I'd like to reconvene the meeting of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and move on to agenda item 2 which is the island Scotland's bill we are undertaking today two of the committee's consideration on the island Scotland bill at stage 2 I'd like to welcome back Hamza Yousaf, the minister of transport and the islands and his officials from the Scottish Government everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced and the second marshal list of amendments that was published on Thursday and the second grouping of amendment which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated we do aim to complete stage 2 today now I would also just remind committee members please that as we go through the stage of voting please could you make sure that you clearly indicate what you are voting for by raising your hands it just makes our life easier as far as recording it goes so I'm now going to call amendment 43 in the name of Jamie Greene group with amendments 45 73, 90, 21 22 and 23 Jamie Greene to move amendment 43 and to speak to all amendments in the group thank you convener and good morning everyone so I'm rising to call amendments 43 and 45 in my name in group 6 just to give you some background to this quickly the first one, amendment 43 just simply adds the word due so due regard it seems a very minor addition three letters but it's a point that we use often in contracts to give some additional clarity I think there's been a lot of discussion around having regard to and what that actually constitutes and means and I'm quite keen to hear from the minister what he thinks having regard to actually means in the context of this bill so I've added the word due regard to strengthen it slightly provide perhaps greater emphasis on the strength of regard and the range of issues that must be regarded so that's a very minor addition 45 I've added the words insofar as it is capable and I think the reason for that is that having due regard to all policies and services and decisions that are made is very wide-ranging and in my view there may be situations where there's simply not a capability within the body or the authority to have regard to everything so the additional language of insofar as it is capable I think will allow them to use the resource that they have to make it clear that there's no expectation on these bodies or authorities to have regard to islands where it simply cannot or is unable to perhaps on my summing up I might provide an example but just for the interests of brevity I'll leave it at that and I'll begin to hear what other members maybe think about those additional languages amendment 73 which is section 9 for the purpose of this section the relevant public authority may determine what constitutes compliance I would say that perhaps this is more of a probing amendment from my point of view and I think it's it raises the question of who decides whether there has or has not been compliance in relation to the duties under the act so will compliance be a clear cut thing will be a list of metrics or actions or deeds or words that have to be used or steps that have to be taken will this be in guidance rather than legislation will so I guess that what I'm trying to probe here is that whether or not each public authority feels itself has taken adequate steps to comply with the legislation or whether it will be somehow independently monitored or the remit of that will lie with some unknown third party I think it's really unclear at the moment who constitutes what compliance is and how it manifests itself and for that reason I've included this wording so that each public authority that's listed in the schedule of the bill can be confident that they've taken the steps that they feel were necessary as a body to comply with the legislation and I think that's the purpose of this amendment whether or not it fits the purpose in the context of the bill remains to be seen but I think it's important that what we haven't addressed in these discussions are how compliance will be monitored and measured and indeed the repercussions for not doing so are a little bit unclear in my view just two minor points in group 6 amendments 21 and 23 I believe seek to achieve the same thing by additional wording each local authority listed in the schedule so I'm not sure if there are preemption preemption on these but I guess maybe the members who are speaking in this group who can clarify which of them we ought to support if they're both seeking to achieve the same thing and that's all comments I have for that group, thanks Thank you, Jamie Colin Smyth, could I ask you to speak to an amendment 90 and other amendments in the group, please Thanks very much, convener I'll be very brief amendment 90 in my name requires relevant authorities to review and revise strategies and services as they see fit in order to have regard for island communities I think that this is a sensible measure and it's in line with the rest of this part of the bill Currently, these bodies are required to have regard moving forward but there's no provision on existing strategy and policies and I think that this simply requires clarification to address any existing problems in order to comply with section 7 duties so I'm happy to move that In relation to the other amendments I do have slight concerns over amendment 45 it seems to me as a potential way out for authorities, for example would financial pressures render a relevant authority incapable so I've got slight concerns over the word of 45, likewise I'm concerned that 73 could also create a loophole as well and effectively it seems to let bodies determine their own compliance so I'm slightly concerned around that With regard to the other amendments I agree with 21 which is very much a recommendation, I think that 22 is fine, it tidies up a language Thank you Colin. Gail Ross, can you speak to amendment 21 please in the other amendments in agreement? Thank you, convener. I will speak to the amendments in my name first as with amendments 17 and 18 in the previous group that we debated last week it was clear that there is a strong desire on the part of the Six Local Authorities with island interests that they should be statutory consultees for the consultation on the guidance which must be prepared in relation to the section 7 duty island proofing therefore in line with those views and the recommendation in the committee stage 1 report, amendment 21 requires Scottish ministers to consult the Six Local Authorities as listed in the schedule, again as with last week this amendment would future proof this consultation requirement in case new local authorities are added to the schedule in the future and as a consequence of amendment 21, 22 is a technical amendment that adjusts section 10 to B to make it clear that persons other than local authorities that represent the interests of island communities must be consulted as to the other amendments in the group when I first read the amendments from Jamie Greene I was unsure as to what effect they would have and especially 45 in so far is capable might have the effect of limiting the island proofing duty and maybe watering it down slightly so Jamie said that he was going to give us an example in his summing up and so I'll look forward to that amendment 73 seems to make the relevant authority the sole authority on which it is compliant and I wondered if he could explain how that's going to work alongside the guidance again in his summing up and amendment 23 from Tavish Scott requires Parliament to approve the guidance on island proofing and while I understand that this might be helpful and accept his good intentions my concern would be that this might restrict the involvement of island communities into inputting into the development in such guidance but I will wait to hear what he says and reply to Jamie Greene 21 is not the same as 23 my amendment wants us to consult local authorities as we go on in the development of the guidance as far as I can see and Tavish Scott will speak to his amendment it consults Parliament at every change to the guidance would require a parliamentary vote and in my opinion that's quite limiting on how we can take it forward with the communities involvement as well so I'll leave it at that at the moment thank you Gail and Tavish Scott can I ask you to speak to amendment 23 and any other amendments in the group thank you convener 23 asks and requires ministers to lay guidance they propose in relation to matters of the bill in front of Parliament for approval last week I reflected on the debate the committee had last week about the exhaustive or otherwise nature of the island's plan and other matters therein and I entirely take the committee's point that there's a debate to be had about whether one includes a list or does not include a list and I think that for example a broadband works both ways should there be a right to broadband coverage in the islands at a certain level absolutely but is that future proof because technology moves on there's certainly a debate to be had and I entirely take the committee's views on that therefore I think it follows that if so much is going to be laid in guidance and that is the theme of this bill that much will be done by way of guidance it's appropriate that Parliament has an opportunity to see that and indeed to approve that I entirely take Gail Ross's point no way would the intention of this amendment be to restrict any ability for islands in any group, organisation, business or local authority to take a view of the guidance or indeed to be involved with Government in ensuring that guidance is correct and appropriate for the islands that would be entirely counterproductive but nevertheless Parliament should have a role in this we do an awful lot as a Parliament in terms of seeing guidance now and given how little is actually in the bill as opposed to what will come through in guidance I think it's appropriate at least to test the arguments as to how Parliament then oversees that and ensures that it carries out its proper role in scrutinising ministerial activity and on that basis convener I would so move Thank you Tavish Stuart Stevenson I support what Gail Ross and Colin Smith have already said about 45 and 73 on 43 when we insert the word due in front of regard how does that qualify the word regard and I take it that it restricts rather than expands the regard because it's only due regard not undue regard so therefore I can't see the argument for including due Thank you Mike Rumbles If I could just say with due respect to Jamie his amendments actually don't achieve what he thinks they do I think what what if we pass this it will weaken the bill and I would urge him not to move them when he comes to his amendments because I don't think that it would be particularly helpful weakening this bill and as far as Tavish Scott's amendment number 23 is concerned I think he's absolutely right Parliament by resolution should approve the guidance there's a lot of this going in the guidance and we had this discussion about what goes in the bill and what doesn't go in the bill I cannot see what's wrong with a minister going away and producing the guidance and then putting it before Parliament so we can actually have our say on it and so I think that's and we can only say yes or no it's not as though we are interfering with the guidance as it were and I think that's a proper role for Parliament so I think that's absolutely essential and I would support the other amendments in the group Thank you Mike John Finnie I'll shake my comment to Tavish Scott's amendment and as Mike Rumbles has just said this is an enabling piece of legislation and I think this would be certainly very complimentary to it and I think importantly it would give Parliament joint ownership and that can only be positive so I speak in support Thank you John Gail Ross I've just got a point about number 23 or a question would it be that Parliament would approve the guidance when it's completed or would it be that Parliament would have to approve every small change to the guidance as it moves along because it won't be a fixed document it will be a flexible document so how many times does the member expect this to come back to Parliament Tavish Scott I assume that was you asking for an intervention I wasn't sure what you all put a call on this committee but the direct answer to Gail Ross's question is once it would be logical that this would come to Parliament once it cannot be sensible for this committee or indeed Parliament to be bogged down with every change as she rightly points out and therefore my contention will be at the stage when the minister wishes that guidance to be approved Okay, thank you Minister, would you like to say a few words on this? Yes, thank you and I have almost a page and a half of rebuttal to Jamie Greene's first amendment but I don't think I could put it succinctly as Stuart Stevenson managed to do so let me just say that I and that is a first that I absolutely with the central argument that Stuart Stevenson made around the use of due and due regard and I don't think it does perhaps which Jamie Greene maybe intended it to do I think it weakens the regard and there's many examples, again I won't go through them many examples in our legislation where we use regard as opposed to due regard and it has excused me the desired effect so I don't think I'll I'll take too much time on that particular amendment other than to say I associate myself with the remarks that Mike Rumbles and Stuart Stevenson made in that regard as well I think on some of the other amendments, amendment 45 again for me seems to have the effect of limiting the duty to where the authority believes it has the ability of resource to undertake the requirements of the duty and again and other members have talked about perhaps could this be a good way out in terms of perhaps talking about financial pressures and so on and so forth in my position and the chief is that the amendment limits the impact of the section 7 duty among public authorities creates a really unhelpful, subjective test which might result in public bodies behaving differently in different localities amendment 73 provides that it is the relevant public authority that determines what is compliant within the section 7 duty under section 9 so as I say I wasn't entirely sure about the intended effect while I believe that review mechanism is not required in the bill. It may also limit what we could put in the statutory guidance in any potential dispute resolution mechanism, or it could mean that each public authority has discretion over how to interpret or implement such guidance. I would ask the member to withdraw amendment 43 and not to move the other amendments in his name. Amendment 90 was lodged last Thursday by Colin Smyth. I am grateful for his outline of the need, as he views it, for the amendment. However, I cannot support it in its current form. The amendment is almost word for word identical to the provisions in regulation 5, paragraph 5, of the Equalities Act 2010, specific duty Scotland regulations 2012, while I appreciate that the equality duty and the equality impact assessment legislation are similar to section 7 of the Eileen proofing duty. The assessment process in the bill is not the same. We cannot just lift the section from one piece of legislation and slot it into another without a good deal of consideration as to the impact it will have. In this case, I do not think that it will be fit for purpose. First, I will outline why I do not think that it is for purpose. I will return to a feature of the amendment, which I think is worthy of further consideration. The amendment has a requirement to review and where necessary revise any policy, strategy or service. I would argue that that is not needed, because it is already incorporated into the bill process. The duty in section 7 already covers the redevelopment of policy strategies and services. Where a policy strategy or service is to be redeveloped, the section 7 duty that is in the bill applies. A section 8 of the Eileen community's impact assessment might need to be done, and, if not, the section 9 compliance provision requires authorities to take other steps that are needed. Sections 8 and 9 act as alternatives, depending on what the circumstances are. The amendment that is brought forward by Colin Smyth would seem to require a third process, which is not covered by sections 8 and section 9. We would have to make significant changes to the bill to make it work, changes that are not needed as it works. That is why I cannot support the amendment. However, the duty to review policy strategies and services as expressed by amendment 90 is an interesting proposal. The requirement to have on-going flexibility and proportionate review processes to me seems to be a very reasonable and sensible proposition. That would seem to be good practice that public authorities should do, and it is certainly something that I would be happy to see how we can cover in guidance. It could also perhaps have another benefit. I know that the committee and others are keen on retrospective island proofing for many reasons. I say that I am not, but perhaps the suggestion of an on-going review process is a good compromise position. Asking relevant authorities to make such arrangements as they consider to review any policy strategy or service to ensure that compliance with section 7 would seem to provide the same benefit as a retrospective assessment process. I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 90, but instead to work with the Government to come up with a fit-for-purpose review provision at stage 3, which captures the spirit of what he was trying to take forward. Briefly, I am happy to support amendments 21 and 22 from Gail Ross. He meets the recommendations of the committee to make each local authority mention the schedule statutory consultee in relation to statutory guidance. If I turn to amendment 23 from Tavis Scott, I fully understand the tension behind the measure. Indeed, we have had similar amendments in legislation right throughout the history of this Parliament, including—no doubt when he was a minister—I dare say that we will have more in this vein. I accept that the content of the guidance will be key to understanding what is the expectations of public bodies in practice in terms of implementing and delivering the island proofing duty. As Mr Scott knows, we are required to consult, to expect it to do so meaningfully and wholly committed to developing the guidance in collaboration with the relevant authorities and communities, the guidance will be detailed but will not stand still. We will need to be quick and flexible to respond, as Gail Ross mentioned, her intervention of how duties are being used across Scotland. Given that the island proofing duty is new and innovative, I anticipate that the process of getting it right in the longer term probably might well need to adapt and change with experience. Moreover, where we see good practice emerging, the guidance should be updated to be able to reflect that practice. The guidance will be a working document or a series of documents that may need to be quickly adapted, especially in the early days, to what is happening. We want to encourage innovation among public bodies and our public bodies to be flexible and responsive to the needs of island communities. That is not just about the legislation but a culture change. As I read the amendment—I will wait for Mr Scott to sum it up—it would require every iteration of the guidance to come before Parliament for approval. That would not allow us to be responsive to those sort of changes. In my view, it has the risk of reducing flexibility, adaptability and maybe I will slow things down. It is not normal practice for the Parliament to approve guidance for the very good reason that the Parliament has limited time and to look at detailed guidance every time as the change would be quite a burden. However, I want to be absolutely as helpful as I can. Given the innovation that is involved to you and perhaps bearing in mind what Mike Rumbles and Tavish Scott both had to say, I would be willing to bring before Parliament the first version of that guidance in draft before it is published and implemented so that Parliament could contribute to the development process. I hope that that would be a fair compromise. I therefore ask Tavish Scott not to amend amendment 23 for the reasons and concerns that I have outlined. I hope that my compromise position of bringing forward the draft guidance to Parliament for comment would be a good compromise. I would give them reassurance. Thank you, minister. Jamie Greene, could you wind up please and pressur with drawing your amendment? Thank you, convener, and I would like to thank other members for their feedback and comments—very useful and helpful. It is absolutely never my intention to weaken the bill. It is a good piece of legislation that is all working hard towards strengthening, as best we can at stage 2. I will comment on some of the statements that were made. In addition to the word due, in my experience, it has always been to strengthen not weaken, but I do accept Stuart Stevenson's point that it may also be interpreted as restricting or expanding the definition of having regard to. I take that comment on board. I want to touch on 45 again, because I think that it is an important point that it is trying to make. Absolutely in no way am I trying to give any authority listed in the schedule, any loopholes or any regular room to not fulfil its obligations under section 7. That is a really important point that I want to make. In my head, there are hypothetical examples where that authority may be unable to have regard to island communities and their actions for a number of reasons, given the scale and the broad range of agencies. I promised some examples, and I am happy to be correct if I am wrong on those, and feel free to intervene if you think so. However, if you look at some of the agencies in the schedule, for example David McBrain, who is limited to operating CalMac ferries, I know, for example, of a situation where they have made timetabling changes that will affect an island community in the west coast, but they obviously take their direction for timetabling under decisions made by Transport Scotland. Therefore, we are unable to intervene on that decision. That decision inevitably will have a negative consequence on the island community. If I could just make the point then I will. That decision will inevitably have a negative consequence on islanders and the island community. Nonetheless, the listed body, David McBrain, was unable to have regard to the island in that decision because it is a decision made by another body. For that reason, it is an example of where the additional wording of insufferters capable will allow that body to make decisions based on the limitations of its decision. I will bring David McBrain in a second. Other examples could be, for example, visiting Scotland as a listed agency. If visiting Scotland decided to close a visitor centre on an island, that decision was made so under funding restrictions or a wider general central government policy to reduce numbers of buildings, for example, or staff numbers. Again, that would be a decision that they would be implementing but not necessarily introducing. In that respect, how can they have regard to the island community? Again, it is around that organisation's capability to have regard to island communities when the decisions are external to the body that is making the decision. The final example that I wanted to give was of colleges, for example, where a consolidation, where there may be a study facility on an island and there has been a central policy to consolidate, as has happened in other parts of the world, in Ershire, for example. Again, would that body be able to have regard to island communities if it was being forced, by another hand, to make decisions that had a negative impact on islands? I will give it to the member. First, I will agree with amendment 43 that it is better than regard. On that specific point, it seems to me that having regard means taking into consideration thinking about all of those kinds of things. It does not guarantee that you are then going to do what the island communities actually want. I wonder if amendment 43 is necessary and changes anything. I think that my fear would be that it gives those authorities an excuse to get out of things. As it is, they have to have regard to, listen to and consider, but it does not bind them to do what someone else wants. I accept that point. It is a very important point that the member makes. The fact that the island-proofing concept that the bodies listed in the schedule will have regard to island communities does not necessarily mean that they will always be able to mitigate. I will comment on the member's intervention first. Yes, that is the case, but the point that I am making with amendment 45 is that it may not always be possible for that authority or body to have regard to island communities if it is outside of its capability. In the examples that I gave, Mr Stevenson wants to intervene. On 45, when you say that, insofar as capable, what you end up doing is, in effect, saying that a relevant authority may disregard island communities in carrying out its functions if it is not capable. I think that that is what the meaning turns out to be if you accept the amendment. I think that that is simply a blank check for a return to the status quo, and I could not possibly accept it. I am sad that the member cannot accept that. However, I understand the interpretation of the words that I have used in amendment 45. If that is an unintended consequence of those proposed words, I take that on board. I would like the minister to reflect on the point that I am trying to make with amendment 45. There will be decisions that the bodies in the schedule will make that are outside of their control. I do not think that that has been adequately catered for in the bill as it stands in terms of its ability to comply with section 7 of the bill. I would be minded to not move amendment 45 in that respect. On 73, again, I think that I have made the point that I would like to think that all this will be in the guidance in terms of very clear instructions to public authorities what compliance is, what it means to each of those bodies and how they interpret it in the way that those very individual bodies work in their working practices and how they make decisions, policies and develop strategies with regard to Ireland. Again, I would be minded not to press that. However, subject to what Mr Scott does on amendment 23, I was quite taken by his argument in respect that the Parliament should have the opportunity to review guidance. However, if he chooses to take the minister's offer that the minister will present a draft to the Parliament, I accept that decision from Mr Scott. However, if he were to press that amendment, I would be minded to support it. Thank you. Jamie, can I just ask you to clarify please? Are you pressing or withdrawing amendment 43? I'll press 43. Okay. The question that we have at this stage then is that amendment 43 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. I call a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against and no abstentions, so that is six votes against, five votes for, so the amendment is not agreed. I'd like to call amendment 44 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason, to move or not to move? Not moved. Okay. I therefore call amendment 45 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 43. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not moved. Okay. I then call amendment 5 in the name of the minister group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister, can you move amendment 5 please and speak to all amendments in the group? Yes, I move the amendment in my name. I'll speak to my amendment first and then the other amendments in the group. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in its report stage 1 recommended a minor change to the power in section 7 sub section 3. The committee recommended that the bill should be amended to include a power to vary the description of an entry in the list of relevant authorities in the schedule. That is in addition to the existing powers to remove excuse me or add an entry to the list. Amendment 5 lodged in my name gives effect to this recommendation and provides a new power to vary the description of an entry in the schedule of the bill. Any regulations made by virtue of this new power will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope, therefore, that members will support amendment 5. I move on to amendment 46. In the name of Jamie Greene, I would find it helpful to hear from the member his thinking about the particular amendment. From my reading of it, it seeks to give ministers a very wide-ranging subordinate legislation power to amend the function set out in parliamentary legislation of the relevant authorities as they relate to island communities. However, it is not clear that the sort of function that the member has in mind for the use of this provision, nor does there seem to be any criteria for the exercise of this power or any real process envisaged before ministers can make such regulations. Such a wide, dare I say, Henry VIII type of power might normally be avoided, as is often seen to give Government too much power. There have been many occasions previously when this Parliament has been somewhat loath to do that. On that basis, perhaps somewhat counter-retreatively, I would ask the member to not move amendment 46 and then his consequential amendment 86. Turning to amendment 47, in the name of Colin Smyth, again, as with previous amendment, I would appreciate hearing the member's reasoning for this amendment. On the face of it, I do not think that it is necessary. The amendment appears to allow those who are contracted to provide services for relevant authorities to also be added to the schedule, making them subject to section seven, island proofing, duty etc. However, section seven, subsection three, already allows quote unquote any person to be added to that schedule. What the amendment cannot do is remove overarching competence restrictions, which limit, of course, the use of that section seven three power. As we discussed during stage one, that is not required. The committee agreed with that assessment and said that they accepted that the Government will not be able to require public or private companies to island proof their activities. It is clear that the bill through the section seven duty will require that relevant authorities who create the policy strategy or service then deliver it through commercial companies will have to have regard to the needs and circumstances of island communities when drawing up a contract. Amendment 48 and 49 seek to add boundary commission for Scotland and the local government boundary commission for Scotland to the schedule of the bill. The effect of that change would mean that those bodies would now be required to comply with the duties as set out in part three of the bill. Unfortunately, I am told that the boundary commission for Scotland is a reserved body, so it cannot be added to the list. I would ask Mr Smith not to move amendment 48. As for the local government boundary commission for Scotland, it already has a set of quite specific duties in legislation in relation to boundary reviews. Given its independent role, it does not seem to me appropriate to include the commission as a relevant authority, so I would ask John Smith not to move amendment 49. Amendment 50 to 59 in the name of Colin Smith seek to make changes to the bill schedule and add in the remaining NHS health boards. I mean, in principle, I have no objections to those amendments. However, before confirming the Government's willingness to accept them, I would appreciate hearing the member's reasoning for bringing them forward. Amendment 59 again in the name of Colin Smith is in a similar vein to amendment 48 to 58, in that it seeks to make changes to the list of bodies that are set out in the bill schedule in relation to integration of joint boards. As with the last amendments, I have no real objection to this other than perhaps a minor technical drafting point, but I would appreciate hearing the member's thinking behind this amendment before I confirm the Government's willingness to accept it. The minor drafting point is about referring to an order or establishing a board when it might be better for future proofs if it refers to an order under the 2014 act itself. I am happy to work with the member to address that point. If he does not press amendment 59 at this stage, with a view of course to bring it back in an appropriately technically drafted amendment at stage 3, convener, I move amendment 5 in my name. Thank you minister. I call on Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 46 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you convener and thank you to the minister for his comments. Far from wishing to add unnecessary additional powers to ministers, that would be far from my intention here. I would point out however that a very similarly awarded amendment was welcomed by ministers in the recent continuity bill and indeed was accepted by the committee. I think that it was actually one of my amendments that he would be pleased to note, so I am not making any political points. I think that this is just more of a technical point and it was actually trying to be helpful to the ministers and if it isn't then I am happy to take it away. Section 7 at the moment, subsection 3, allows ministers to add a body or remove an entry in the schedule, which seems to be very straightforward. Perhaps not reflected in the final language of the amendment. The point that I am trying to make here is that the bodies listed in the schedule do change in their nature, name and function, in which case I think it would be helpful for the minister to have some flexibility in the future to amend the schedule with regards to the agencies that are already in it, without necessarily taking agencies off the schedule or re-adding them if they were to change. I guess that my line of thinking would be the situation with regards to, for example, the Forestry Commission Scotland, which currently sits under an existing structure, but in the future may have a different organisational structure and which may not necessarily be reflected in the schedule as it currently stands. It is really just to give some flexibility around the bodies that are in that schedule. There may be bodies in the schedule at the moment that currently have functions that relate to island communities, but in the future it may not. If the remit was worth a change, at that point we wish to keep them in the schedule, so they still must have regard to island communities or we would simply only be able to remove them. Again, I am happy to accept that if the wording does not do that, then it could be looked at again at a later stage, but that is really the purpose of it. Section 86, again, is a technical change. It means that Section 21, around the regulations, I have removed section 73 and changed that section. In retrospect, if all section 7 was subject to the firmed procedure, it could be quite an honourous task, so I will probably withdraw that amendment. Thank you, Jamie. Colin Smyth, can you speak to amendment 47 and other amendments in the group, please? Thank you very much. Amendment 47, in my name, aims to widen the list of relevant authorities to include public-funded service providers. Public-funded service providers often provide vital services for island communities. Given that they receive public money, it is my view that they should be required to have the same regard for island communities as public bodies. An example of the type of organisation that I am thinking about is Cercoferries, for example. They would fall under this category. They provide vital services to island communities and, in my view, should be required to island-proof their policies as a public body. On amendment 48, that adds a boundary question to the schedule of relevant authorities. I think that this addition strengthens the protection of representation and participation in island communities and, likewise, that is the aim behind amendment 49. Jamie, can you speak up when you do that? Sorry, I could hardly hear that. Jamie, can you speak up a bit when you ask for an intervention? Oh, I apologise. I think that I thought that the member heard me. On amendment 47, it is an interesting one. I think that we debated this at a great length in committee around whether subcontractors would already be mopped up in this legislation or whether they would need to be specifically referred to. I think that the member makes a very interesting point around the fact that the duties should relate to all parties involved in the delivery of public services in island communities, but I am unclear as to what the consequence of adding that might have on subcontractors who are, by default, subcontractors to the public bodies who are subject to the act. As one of you, I confirm that you have given any thought to that. I mean the first thing to point out, this is something that has been requested by island authorities or local authorities themselves. They are concerned that, because those organisations receive public money, that would strengthen the requirement for them to have regard for island communities in the same way that public bodies do, so it actually strengthens existing provisions. I take on board what the member says and the minister says, and I will listen to what the member says during the course of the debate. The member identified Serco as an example. Serco is a company that provides services to both the private and public sector throughout the Ereitig kingdom and beyond. Does he mean Serco, or does that question simply illustrate the difficulty of applying this amendment in the way that he describes it? Do not entirely recognise at the point that the member is making, and I think that this is very much in provision of island community services, and I think that that is the aim of the amendment in this case. Support of this amendment, and I wonder whether you agree with me that this would be entirely consistent, for instance, with the guidance that the Scottish Government gives people regarding fair work provision, and I forget the specific title, but that we want to commend good practice. I think that John Finnie makes a very valid point. I think that the fair work conditions are something that we should be expanding beyond simply public bodies in a whole range of areas, whether it is the provision of bus services or the debate this afternoon, or fairy provision. I think that it is important that more and more services are being provided by bodies that are not classed as public bodies being subcontracted, and I think that there are deep concerns about the way in which some of those services are being provided, and that is why the aim of this amendment is to strengthen existing provision. I think that I have touched on amendments 48 and 49. Turning to amendments 50 to 58, I think that anybody who represents a rural area will understand that it is not just health boards that geographically cover that area where people will have services. It is other health boards as well. People have to travel often up with a rural area to receive health care. The amendment is to include all the NHS boards, because they will ultimately, in some cases, provide services to island communities. Those who do not provide any services to island communities will not be subject to any additional burdens, as none of their work will impact on the island communities themselves. However, I do not think that it is reasonable to include health boards that only geographically cover an island community when services are often provided by other health boards to an island community. The same can be said about amendment 59, which covers integrated joint boards. This is another interesting addition to the debate around other bodies that are not currently in the schedule. The member is very right to bring it up. We know that other bodies deliver services on behalf of NHS boards that have islands in them, but are they doing so under contract between health boards to health boards? What regard will be given to the legal and transactional relationship between health boards in the sense that it is the home health board that is responsible for delivering the service, but in the case where it is unable to deliver that service, it will subcontract that service to another health board? Is it fair for that third-party health board to have to conform to the act when it is the home health board, or IJB, which is delivering the service on behalf of the patient? I am keen to make sure that we do not put onerous responsibilities on health boards that do not have island communities that are doing the best that they can under subcontract arrangements. I am sure that that is a point that might come out in debate. My concern is that there is an existing loophole in a body that a health board does not cover geographically. An island community may not ensure that their policies are fit for purpose when it does come to providing that service. That is almost a belt and braces approach, but if there is clear evidence that shows that that will be covered by the responsibilities of the home health board, that is a valid point, but I have not been convinced by that argument today, I have to say. With regard to other amendments, I have no problem with amendments 5 and 46 that appear to do the same thing, so we will see what happens when it comes to the vote on that matter. Mike Rumbles In the 19 years since I was first elected to this Parliament, I have never come across a minister before, and I would like to congratulate him for doing this, for refusing to take on Henry VIII's powers, which a member is proposing in this amendment. I cannot believe that this amendment has come forward. I generally would like to say well done to the minister for A, recognising that fact and for B for refusing to take them on. That is a welcome addition. I really do hope that 46 has not moved, and if it was moved, I would most certainly vote against it. I think that amendments 50 to 58 are well intended, but I am reluctant to put any more onrous tasks on health boards. However, I wanted to make the point about amendment 46, and to make sure that my congratulations to the minister are unique. I will put down on the record. I am not sure that I would labour that too much. It might come back to both of you. Tavish, I think that you are next. Thank you very much, convener. Can I just speak to the 50 to 58 amendments that Colin spoke to introduce this morning? He makes a really strong point for those of us who represent areas where patients have to go to health boards in other parts of Scotland, which happens pretty regularly. He is simply asking that they take that into account, and those are good amendments. I could give you and Liam McArthur, Gail Ross could probably do the same. Huge numbers of examples of patients who, for example, have to go to Aberdeen or to Edinburgh Glasgow for different procedures, and those of us who represent such folk having to make representations to health boards in relation to what has happened or some difficulty about transport or some difficulty in terms of their treatment. Can I just finish this point? It is not a criticism at all of health boards. It is simply that we ask, as Colin Smith's amendments rightly do, that they take that into account. I am fairly convinced by what I thought Jamie Greene put forward was a strong argument that it would be the responsibility of Shetland health board to tell Glasgow or Grampian or whoever that they must take the island factor into account. For example, they do not have an appointment first thing in a Monday morning or something like that. Well, the island health boards, and no doubt Highland health board does as well, certainly make best provision in that regard, Mr Mason, but it is not a full proof system. The simple nature of health board bureaucracies mean that you do not necessarily get to the right person. Can I just suggest to you—and I am sure that you are the same as a constituency member—that when there is a letter or an email from the MSP's office that simply says, look, Mrs Mason has not been able to get the treatment at the right time, she is coming all the way from Shetland, would you please chase it up? That has some effect and we are just seeking to make sure—Colin Smith's amendments are that—that is taken into account. I would associate myself with his comments about Colin Smith's amendments. I think that one of the problems in response to John Mason's intervention there is that at the point of transfer, patients then become patients of NHS Grampian, and therefore the extent to which the island health boards can then intervene. I am sure that there is on-going dialogue, but essentially the responsibility and the onus passes to the mainland health board, which there is good reason for. I think that that underscores the importance of what I think Colin Smith's amendments are driving at. Before responding, I would like to take a further similar point. I have certainly got constituents who are sent by health boards in Scotland to have treatment out with Scotland and indeed out with the UK. Great Ormond Street, for example, is a regular outpost for specialist care for young people. I have had constituents go to the Netherlands and to Leeds. I am not objecting to extending the list, but we are excluding things. I am slightly conflicted on what is going on here. I suppose that the logical answer to Mr Stevenson's point, and I take the point that I have the same in terms of constituents who travel out with Scotland for medical procedures of one or another logical argument, is that we are dealing with the Scottish Bill in the Scottish Parliament in relation to Scottish public bodies. That would be frankly the only argument that I would have in relation to his point. I simply ask the committee to reflect on Colin Smith's amendments, because I do think that there is considerable merit in them in terms of I am sure that I am going to... Of course. I just want to place on record that I am also now convinced by the argument that my colleague has put forward, and I will be supporting Colin's amendments. It goes to show that the level line without quips has never written until the last speech is made, but I would simply like to ask the committee to reflect on Colin Smith's reasoned arguments, which, certainly from my constituency perspective, would be enormously helpful. I think that that is it, as far as members. Minister, would you like to wind up, please? Just most briefly, can I begin by saying that having received such a gushing praise from Mike Rumbles that I am actually reconsidering my opposition to Jamie Greene's amendment, but having reconsidered it, I think that we would still object that I am not convinced, despite Mike Rumbles' best efforts that these amendments in the bill are needed, so therefore I would ask the member not to press them. In terms of amendment 47 for Colin Smith, I still believe, having listened to him carefully, as I did, that they are not necessary. He gave the example of Serco. If I took that Serco contract example, that contract would be, in essence, island proofed, because it would be Scottish ministers who, of course, are the ones who are awarding that contract, so therefore I do not think that I am not convinced with the example that he gave. Indeed, there are other examples that I can think of that they would not be within the ambit of the bill and within the remit of the bill. I also think that there are still some questions to be asked around, which I know that the committee agreed with in the stage 1 report about placing a duty on private companies. In relation to amendment 48 from Colin Smith, the boundary commission is a reserved body, so it cannot be added to a list of bodies in the bill schedules, so I would ask him not to move that amendment. I listened carefully to an insightful and interesting discussion from members who clearly represent rural and island local authorities. In relation to amendment 49 to 58, in the name of Colin Smith, that added bodies to the schedule, listened to the reasoning that was brought forward. I am happy to support them. Subject 49 to 59, subject to the minor drafting change in amendment 59 that I referred to earlier, so we can perhaps work on that. Of course, I would ask members to support the amendment in my name. Thank you minister. That brings us to the question that is amendment 5 agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Therefore, I would like to call amendment 46 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 5. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. Okay. I would now like to call amendment 47 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 5. Colin Smith to move or not move? To move, convener. The question, therefore, is that amendment 47 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. I would therefore call those in favour, those against, and there are no abstentions. Therefore, there are three votes, four, eight votes against, it is not agreed. The question, therefore, at this stage, is that section 7 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I would call amendment 48 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 5. Colin Smith to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I would call amendment 49 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 5. Colin Smith to move or not move? Move. Move. The question, therefore, is that amendment 49 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. No. We are not agreed. Therefore, I would call a division. Those in favour of amendment 49, those against, and there are no abstentions. There are seven votes, four votes against, that is, therefore, agreed. I would therefore call amendment 50 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 5. Colin Smith to move or not move? It moves. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I would therefore call amendment 51 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 5. Colin Smith to move or not move? It moves. The question, therefore, is that amendment 51 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I would therefore call amendment 52 in the name of Colin Smith, already wrth amrywiaeth i yma, ond volom gweithdo. Mae'r gwheith address a gyda Cymru! Diolch yn fawr hyn umiddiale gradredau, er defnyddio ni'n gyfsigio. Finl Mean mobất, 53. Mae'r gwheith address led earthly-tof hyn zidiorbaeth, ma' f Fedf, 50. Mae hi o ffoight da – Gening, 14. Mae gweith address yma mor dimfaen. Mae'r gwheith address rocks are the 14 of Sol circle, Wil gerchelio ar gyfer llinwi59 yn callsmith i wnutod o'r平an olygu o'rannau wrth neo yn Qowerham, 5 cwrnwysaf, 4, 4 ar ganlfi니까eth, 5 cwrnwysaf i hefyd i'w straff, ples i gweith myös Nows A, 57 yn eff erweddyd a ywe sydd y cybwin ddahl hynny fel Model 50. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 58 in the name of Council reasonable that committee The question therefore is in the amendment 58 be agreed are we all agreed? We are agreed I therefore call amendment 59 an in the name I will move the amendment that I am sure that the language could be taken up at stage 3 if there are concerns on the exact wording, but I will move it at this stage. Thank you. The question therefore is that amendment 59 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that the schedule be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment therefore 60 in the name of John Mason already debated with amendment 10. John Mason to move or not move? Not moved. I am now going to call amendment 61 in the name of Cronuswith, grouped with amendment 65. Cronuswith, can you move amendment 61 and speak to the amendments in the group? Thank you very much, convener. These are very minor amendments and are edits to the wording of the provision on impact assessment. They have come from discussions with the local authorities themselves. In both instances, the wording was considered to as objective. The term, significant, is not clear and the inclusion of in the authorities opinion ultimately allows the authority in question to determine whether an impact assessment is necessary. I think that potential get-out risks undermining the purpose of the creation of these impact assessments, hence the two very minor amendments. I support Colin Smyth's first amendment 61. It is a small but important change that he is bringing forward. A lot of today's amendments seem to be bringing me back to the same point that this is a community empowerment bill. Local action groups, community groups and constituents should be able to bring forward issues with legislation that they feel warrant an island impact assessment. It should not just be done to the authorities opinion, so I support that. However, I do not agree with amendment 65, which removes the word significantly. Living on an island, you are always going to have different experience to those living on the mainland. A piece of legislation has to be having or has to have had a significant impact on an island community to warrant an island impact assessment. Therefore, I would be voting against amendment 65. I thank Colin Smyth for bringing forward the amendments. I think that they very helpfully try to address a problem with the bar being set too high. I think that particularly in relation to the first amendments 61, deleting the reference to in the authorities opinion, I think that removal of that will at least avoid some of the problems being created where public authorities are constantly in conflict with communities who take a different view, a different perspective on the policy proposal or piece of legislation that they are taking forward. I have some sympathy with what Peter Chapman has said in relation to significantly. Every time the additional removal of significantly arises in the context of a piece of legislation, we have the debate about how subjective that is. I would be the first to accept that legislation, however well-crafted it is, is likely to have a different impact in island communities and mainland communities. I think that the more important amendment in this context is certainly the one in relation to 61, which, as I say, removes the scope for public bodies to be, essentially, arbiters in what falls within the ambit of this legislation. I would be very keen to see that in the past. My question in relation to 61 is if it is not in the authorities opinion, in whose opinion is it. Removing that leaves that perhaps somewhat uncertain and ditto significantly. I think that we also have to read the amendments in the context of what section 9 says, which is relating to the compliance for section 7's duty, which section we have already just passed. That is, of course, the one that requires, not due regard but regard, to be carried out by relevant authorities or relevant authorities to being the authorities described in the schedule, et cetera. You cannot detach the amendments that we are seeking to make to section 8 from the overriding requirements in section 9 to implement what is in section 7 in a particular way and to provide evidence of what they are doing. I am not yet persuaded that Colin Smyth's amendments are helpful. I think that the particular 61 carries some danger that it introduces a lack of clarity where, at the moment, it is perfectly clear where responsibility lies. I think that I am minded to agree with amendment 61 in the sense that the current ambiguity—this is about preparing impact assessments—and the inclusion in the bill of the words, in the authorities opinion almost does what my point of view is the most important. That has introduced some subjectivity to the authority to decide whether there should be an impact assessment, which we collectively agreed was not the right way forward. I would be minded to remove that subjectivity by taking out the words in the authorities opinion. I think that that would have a positive effect on section 8. On the issue of which is significantly different, it is an interesting one, because there will always be decisions that these authorities will make where the outcome will be different on islands as it is on the mainland. I think that the inclusion of the words significantly merits an impact assessment. Otherwise, we may end up in a situation where there has to be an island impact assessment for every decision that is made across all levels of every authority, every 66 or more authorities in the schedule, which I think would place unparalleled amounts of work on those bodies. The inclusion of the words significantly is a reasonably well-enough defined term. In other words, something is sufficiently great or noteworthy that requires or merits an impact assessment. The removal of the authorities opinion, the two hand-in-hand, has a net positive effect on the section. I would be minded to support the first but not the second. Liam McArthur, I was not sure that you caught my eye there or did you not catch my eye? No. Perfect. We will move straight on to John Finnie. I want to align myself entirely with Stewart Stevenson's comments about the bit in the authorities opinion. I accept that, as someone who represents the area, it would be very easy to discount that. Stewart Stevenson says that, if we have to go to the very first line of that, a relevant authority must prepare. Obviously, it will have to have regard to a number of factors, but I do not think that the phrase in the authorities opinion is redundant and I do not think that it should, in itself, be restricting. I won't be supporting Colin's first amendment 61, however I will be supporting 65. Thank you, John. Minister. Thank you very much. Can I first challenge the premise that these are just minor amendments? I think that their impact could be not to use the amendments, but it could be significant. I do welcome Colin Smyth and other members' explanation of all of the amendments and their opinions of that. Amendment 61 removes, in the authorities opinion, from the bill. I do not agree that it is required, but, again, going back to my colleague Stewart Stevenson, it takes that away but does not replace it with anything. The decision to undertake an impact assessment will always require some kind of subjective judgment. When placing this kind of duty and legislation on a public body, in my opinion, it is entirely appropriate that it is the public body that makes that initial judgment of the impact of its policies. The guidance under section 10 of the bill will make it clear that the opinion should be based on a sufficient screening process that provides that those persons who may be affected by the legislation, the policy strategy or the service, have the opportunity to provide input and I hope that that would address some element of Liam McArthur's concerns. Stewart. Reading in particular what the bill says, which, in the authorities opinion, is likely to have an effect. In other words, we are leaving in, if we accept this amendment, is likely to have. In other words, someone has to exercise judgment because that is what the is likely to have requires. In removing, in the authorities opinion, we are no longer clear who has to exercise that. Therefore, we would have difficulty in holding them to account for any decisions that they make in that regard. Is that not the crux of the issue, minister? That is entirely the crux of the issue of which I was exactly about to come to. He is absolutely right to make that point. At some point, a decision absolutely has to be made. The bill is clear. Of course, Harold. Felly, in contradiction to what Stewart Stevenson has just said, if it is in the authorities opinion, likely to have an effect on that in the community, it could be in other organisations, the communities themselves, that might take a different view. If they try and address this, their views may be overrided. If you remove in the authorities opinion, it makes it absolutely clear, and then it will simply read that it must prepare an impact assessment, which is likely to have an effect on an island community. It is quite clear that this, as it is written, is a get-out clause for the authorities. Where we perhaps disagree with the member is that if Collins misamennement replaced, in the local authorities opinion, with the communities opinion, he may well be right. Of course, that does not stop the scenario that the member articulates playing out. What I would do is go back to the point that I made before Stewart Stevenson's intervention, which under section 10 of the bill will make it clear that there is a screening process, but it also provides that those persons who may be affected, i.e. island communities, by any legislation policy or strategy, have the opportunity to provide input. As I said, the bill is clear who makes that decision, and the amendment would make that less clear. So a decision has to be made around who makes that decision, and my belief is that the amendment makes that less clear. It is likely that in practice it will still have to be the public body that makes that assessment, but there would now be an unwelcome element of doubt and some uncertainty around that. It has been, I have to say, a very fascinating debate, but despite that I would still ask the member to withdraw amendment 61, if Mr Smith does press on it. Of course, I would ask other members not to support it. The amendment 65, put forward by the member, removes the word significantly, and has again been a very insightful and helpful discussion on that. I would align myself with the comments made by other members, Jimmy Greene made this point and others too, that currently the bill provides that relevant authority must prepare an island community impact assessment if the new revised policy service or strategy has an impact that is significantly different from its effect on other communities. I note that Mr Smith's amendment does not suggest any alternative term that may be used, so the effect of his amendment would mean that any new or revised policy service or strategy that has any differential impact on island communities, no matter how small, would require an island community impact assessment to be done. That amendment could lead to unnecessary assessments being required for relatively small and minor changes. By removing the threshold of significance, it would impose, I would argue, an undue regulatory burden on public authorities with all the resource implications. If I look at one of the new bodies that the member's amendment has now been included in the bill, NHS Fife, are we now saying that, for every policy, strategy and service decision in Fife, they should undertake an island community impact assessment? That seems to me wrong, it seems burdensome and it seems the making of a bureaucratic nightmare. Of course, I will give way to John Finnie. I am grateful for the minister giving way. The reality is that it is incumbent on everyone to consider all the factors that this Parliament would wish them to consider. There are reserved issues around equalities, health and safety and the like. I think that this could become a default position. I do not think that this needs to be a huge bureaucratic task, but I think that there has to be a recognition and we have heard the examples of hospital appointments, for instance. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask that the implications are considered by each of those bodies. I will go back to the point that I made about NHS Fife. On most services, policies and guidance that NHS Fife would put forward, I suspect that on most of them, on all of them and on most of them, there would be some differential impact on the island community. There would be, for example, those that they predominantly serve in Fife. I just think that the bureaucratic nightmare that would ensure if they had to do an impact assessment for every single one of them is something that this Parliament would want and certainly is not the intent of legislation. I believe that, as the bill is introduced, it does strike the right balance with section 7 duty, applying even when there is no requirement for an assessment and section 9A recognising that an assessment can be carried out in any case. The other point that I would make is that the committee and the island communities, the evidence that you have taken from them, a lot has been mentioned about having a tick box exercise, about having a system that is agile and fit for purpose and avoiding that tick box culture. I believe that, because of the extra burden that this would create, that any policy with any differential impact on island communities would therefore effectively encourage that tick box culture, diminishing the objective that we are all seeking to achieve for islands and island communities. The use of those assessments will be seen as an impediment to change rather than a useful tool to bring others into the decision making process, and that would, of course, be unfortunate. We would urge Constance Smith not to press his amendment, but if he does that, are the members not to support it? Thank you, minister. Colin, would you like to wind up, please? Thank you very much, convener. I think that, in terms of amendment 61, I don't think—first of all, to say that the phrase minor was in reference to the actual extent to which it changes the word in, certainly not in terms of the impact itself. I think that the phrase in the authorities opinion moves the balance too far in the direction of the authority, and it is, in my view, a potential risk that it could be used as a way out of carrying out an impact assessment. I think that the phrase in the authorities opinion is unnecessary, and I am certainly going to move amendment 61 to remove that, because it does push the balance of power far too much in that direction. I take on what people are saying with regard to the word significantly. I still think that that is very unclear at the moment, and I don't anticipate that this is going to cause the huge chaos that people say in the language that has been used so far in terms of authorities having to write reams and reams of impact assessments. That is not the way impact assessments work on the ground. Local authorities, for example, carry out assessments on a regular basis when it comes to policy changes. I do not agree that that is going to introduce a massive burden on local authorities if the process is carried out appropriately in a sensible manner. On balance, I am not clear what the word significantly means, and I see no harm in moving that amendment as well. I do not think that it puts on a new burden on the local authorities themselves. I think that the minister is right that there is no alternative phrase that I have suggested that might be for others to bring forward at a future date, but certainly I will move. It is just a brief technical one. If members were to choose to remove the word significantly different from section 8, there is no amendment currently that removes it from section 12, which is the same impact assessment by ministers, not local authorities. We would be in an unfortunate situation where the meaning of difference would be in section 8, one thing in section 12, and that would need to be tidied up by the legislation team, but I am just pointing that out. I am sure that that will be tidied up, and if not, I am sure that Jamie Greene will bring forward an amendment for that section at a future stage to remove the word significantly at that point. Can I just confirm, therefore, that you want to press your amendment 61? Thank you. The question, therefore, is that amendment 61 be agreed? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. I call a division. Those in favour of amendment 61 are for those against and those abstaining. That is four votes in favour, six votes against one abstention, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 62 in the name of Peter Chapman, group with amendment 64. Peter, can I ask you to move amendment 62 and speak to both amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I do move amendment 62 and 64 in my name. Those are small changes to the wording, but I think that they have a significant impact, much like what was said about Colin Smyth's previous amendment. The relate to the concept of retrospective island impact assessments. It was widely agreed during stage 1 that retrospective island impact assessments on a large scale and with regard to every piece of existing legislation was unrealistic, and I accept that. However, it was also agreed by the committee that, in severe cases, where existing legislation is having a major impact, it would be the only way for that bill to achieve what it is setting out to do. I think that when existing legislation is seen to be having a major impact on island communities then, I think that that bill needs to be able to look at it. The member explained to me that, when it says that it requires all relevant authorities to prepare an island community, does that include North Lanarkshire Council? Does it not have any islands? No, it does not include an island. It does not have an island. Will you take it further? Your amendment does not say that. Your amendment says that all public authorities would have to review all previous policy services and strategies. That means that councils that do not have islands would have to review their policies and strategies for something that they do not have. It seems a bit stupid to me. All that I'm doing here is adding two words or three words to which existing in the bill. I can't understand why it creates any uncertainty in regards to the authorities that have violence within their boundaries. It's just a relevant authority. It makes point and out that it sees as an relevant authority. Let me help you, Mr Rumbles. Would you like to make an intervention? Yes, Mr Rumbles. Doesn't the section say a relevant authority? Exactly. Richard is saying, as I'm afraid, nonsense and simple. I think that your question to Mr Chapman is a relevant authority. Will you agree? Mr Chapman now can answer and will ignore everything you said after that, Mr Rumbles. I do agree. It is perfectly clear in my opinion what I'm saying. Would the member take an intervention? I'm just trying to think of an example. If we took crofting legislation, which is quite major, that would affect islands, would include islands, and that would mean that all the crofting legislation would have to be reviewed. It may be reviewed anyway, and if it is reviewed in the future, an islands impact assessment would have to be done. Are you asking for incredibly complex areas of legislation and policy like crofting to be completely reviewed? Would there be a cost to that? Obviously, we are in the midst of reviewing crofting legislation, as we speak, as Mr Mason knows. He does make the point. What I am saying here is that there must be a mechanism where existing legislation, which is having major impacts, must be looked at. I stand by that. It may be fairly complex and fairly difficult, but nevertheless, if it is having a major impact on that island's community, then I think it's only right that it should be looked at. John Finnie. Again, it's not dissimilar from the previous amendment 61, where it would be very simple for someone representing the area. I represent to say, yes, that's really good, but what we're doing here is we're making law here and the retrospective implications here, some of which have been touched on. Peter Chapman used the term severe in major and talked about existing legislation and policy. I think that there will be a severe deficiency in existing legislation and policy if, as part of an on-going basis, there is a detrimental effect on any sector, be that a group of individuals, a group, a workforce, Edinburgh city centre, Glasgow city centre, whatever, the northern isles, the western isles, if that's not being addressed. Now, there is the mechanism of post-legislative scrutiny here. I think that this is about expectations and what I want is realism injected into things. If there is any policy that's on-going, then I hope myself and fellow colleagues from across the Highlands Islands would be drawing attention to the deficiencies of that legislation, seeking to have it addressed. That has the potential to turn into a significant bureaucratic exercise, just as has been highlighted by the intervention from John Mason there, and I won't be supporting it. I'm listening with interest to debate on this. My understanding of what Mr Chapman is trying to achieve here is to introduce the technical option of retrospective assessment, which at the moment, in my reading of the bill, doesn't exist. It's all very future-proofing and rightfully so. We did discuss in committee if public authorities and ministers should have the ability to retrospectively look at decisions that have been made historically, which have a significant impact, and nowhere in the bill does it currently technically do that. In a second, the point that I want to make is that it's not saying that all pieces of legislation, all decisions, all policies and strategies have to be retrospectively assessed. It doesn't say that in the amendment. It just simply adds the word in the context of where we previously discussed in which the authority's opinion, which has stayed in, is likely to have or has had an effect. It gives those public authorities the option where required to retrospectively create an impact assessment. I think that's a good thing. I think that it would be welcomed by islanders and island communities. I'm happy to give way to Ms Ross. I thank Jamie Greene for giving way. We did discuss that, both on the island and in committee, to a great extent. We also discussed it last week, and the minister gave a commitment that any local authorities that come forward at the moment with any legislation that they feel is detrimental will be given a fair hearing. Is that not enough? It's a welcome commitment from the minister, but it's not just local authorities. There are 66 bodies in the schedule. In fact, there are now more—over 70 bodies who will be affected by this bill. I make the point that the inclusion of Mr Chapman's amendment does not automatically mean that every piece of legislation will have to be retrospectively assessed. It's simply—to respond to Gail Ross's point—whilst the minister's commitment that anyone who comes forward wishing to retrospectively assess its decisions is welcome to do so, nowhere in the bill, technically at the moment, does it enable them to do it in the context of their obligations, especially under section 7 of the bill. Although the bill is a forward-thinking and forward-moving bill, I don't see any harm in the technical addition of being able to retrospectively look at decisions that have already been made. I'm happy to go back to Mr Mason. I thank the member for giving way again. He suggests that authorities at the moment do not have the ability to carry out an assessment or review. Is he really saying that neither the Government ministers nor local authorities nor health boards have the ability to go back? Surely they currently have the ability, but they're not required to. Surely, if this was passed, section 8 starts off with a relevant authority that must prepare. He suggests that, if they think that there's a significant difference, they must prepare an impact assessment. It must prepare where, in the authority's opinion, it has had an effect if Mr Chapman's words were included. Again, it's not a blanket. It must prepare an impact assessment on every decision that's been made. The same argument that was used in the previous group-grouping debate about whether the subjectivity of an authority's opinion should stay in or out, we agreed that it should stay in, is the authority themselves to make that decision whether an impact assessment should be created. They have the ability at the moment to do that for future decisions, and Mr Chapman wants the ability to do that for historic decisions. I can't see any harm in that. Again, I reiterate the point that it must be surely a welcome addition. It's not going to create any additional burden on them or additional requirements. It simply allows them to do it where it's not even my amendment, but I'm happy to continue the debate. Before we go on, nearly every member of the committee now has had a chance to speak or is on the list to speak. It gets quite difficult if people are coming into interventions the whole time when they've already spoken or they're about to speak. Can I ask members to be cautious of timings? I don't want to curtail this, and I want to give everyone the intervention. John, your intervention. I'm grateful for the member taking intervention. You talked about creation. Do you think that there's the potential that this could create some unrealistic expectations, some of the information that we heard when we went out and visited islands? That's a really good point. A lot of the discussion has been around whether it creates unrealistic expectations in the island communities. I don't think so, is the answer. If anything, it will open up the opportunity for those public bodies to retrospectively make island impact the system. I thought that that would have been more welcome. It's important that we set expectations with regard to that. We must make it clear that, as a result of this amendment passed, not every piece of legislation that's ever been passed by Parliament or every policy decision that's ever been made by a public body will be reviewed. That's absolutely not going to be the case, nor does it require it to be the case with these specific words. It just simply gives them the option to. That's, in my view, very welcome. Jamie, I'm now going to call Mike Rumbles, followed by Stuart Stevenson, followed by Tavish. Let's get to the nibblet issue here. This is a fundamentally important question. We took evidence in stage 1 on this, and there is an expectation from islanders—certainly I took that. I'm quite surprised with John Finnie's comments. We took evidence on this from islanders, and there is a perception that this bill that we're passing will enable public authorities to have an examination of retrospective significant effect. Really, this is a fundamental issue, which I'm surprised seems to be dividing the committee. If we accept Peter's amendments, then we are in favour of having retrospective examination. If we reject Peter's amendments, which I know John Finnie has minded to do, then we're making it absolutely clear that we're not in favour of allowing on the face of this bill—we're not in favour of allowing on the face of this bill retrospective examination. John Finnie is going to leave this to ministers or public bodies to do themselves without any legislative requirement. I'd be interested to hear that argument, but here we are making the law of the land, and Peter's amendments are quite clear. If we accept them, we're putting an onus that we're in favour of retrospective examination, and if we reject them, we're not. I think that if we don't pass these at stage 2, they'll certainly come back at stage 3, because it's a fundamental aspect of this bill. John Finnie, sorry, I missed that. Were you wanting to intervene there? I was, thank you very much indeed, and I'm grateful for the member giving me the opportunity to come back. Of course, it's not that simple binary choice. I explained that good practice would be that any organisation would, on an on-going basis, be reviewing its policies, and if there was any disadvantage to any group or any geographic area as a result of how that was being applied, then that should be addressed. It should be happening anyway. I understand what John Finnie is saying, but basically what John Finnie is saying is that it's good practice for organisations to do this. We've got to give them good faith to do this. We are actually making the law, and there's a requirement to have them to do it. That's the difference between this whole argument. Do we put it in law or do we not put it in law and allow people to have good practice? That's the key. I'm genuinely surprised by John Finnie's view. The first and most straightforward point to say is that no one has pointed to a power that prevents anybody on the list from retrospectively assessing something that's happened in the past. That's point one. There is no requirement to create a power because there is no prohibition. Under recent legislation, through community empowerment, we have said that councils and others can do whatever they want unless it's forbidden. The second point is that if we've preserved in the authorities opinion in section 8, that creates the legal opportunity for people who have a different opinion or believe that the authority has perversely exercised an opinion to legally challenge. That's good. That is right and proper. If we include or have had that challenge that people can make, is extended to their failure to review previous legislation. Let me just give some examples. Let me start with a common good act of 1462. I would ask you to be very brief on this in the sense that there is a very real possibility at this stage, and one of the conversations that I'm having with the clerk that we might not get through this stage of the debate before the end of this committee session, which means that while this is going on, we will have to seek authority to carry stage 2 forward. I would be mindful to ask all members to keep their comments as short and pithy as possible. It was affected by the local government's act of 1947 and 1973, in particular the 1973 act, which basically reorganised local government and affected the common goods fund. Is there an island differential? Yes, there is. Because Ilan and Scher had no common good funds, therefore there is a differential effect associated with the operation of common good and legislation in 1462, 1947 and 1973. The Franchise Act of 1872 is differential in its effect on islands, and of course the crofting legislation starting with the 1886, crofting, holding, Scotland Act is differential in its effect on islands compared to elsewhere. There are a whole host of things there that people could go to court and challenge that the authorities opinion is that we should not do something in relation to any of this, and you could come up with a much, much longer list. Tavish, you wanted to briefly come in. It will be one point, convener, given your stricture. The principle behind this amendment strikes me as right, but I am not sure about the language because there has to be some trigger. I am not clear from Peter Chapman's opening remarks, and I am sure that he can clarify this in his wind-up, what the trigger is here. Otherwise, I think that there are some concerns—I speak as an islander—that we could have everything back on the table. There are areas of policy that this kind of amendment should rightly deal with, but my suggestion is that this might be a stage 3 refinement of the principle that Peter Chapman is seeking to achieve, which I agree with. A really insightful discussion, and I will speak to both amendments 62 and 64. I understand what Peter Chapman is trying to achieve. I do not think for a second that his amendments quite do that at all. The amendments would seem to require all the relevant authorities to review all previous policies, services or strategies, which he believes might have a significant differential impact on island communities. I take you to the wording of section 8, which John Mason mentioned in his contribution, that a relevant authority must prepare an island's community impact assessment and so on and so forth. Even if they chose not to proceed with an impact assessment, they would have to go through the burdensome process of reviewing all their policies, strategies or services going back, potentially, years, decades, maybe even centuries. They might not choose to do an impact assessment, but they would have to review that, and that would be quite a burdensome bureaucratic undertaking. Of course, I will. Is not the spirit of the bill to improve outcomes for islands? Improving those outcomes is not necessarily predicated on future policy decisions. It is absolutely relevant on the ability of them to look at existing decisions that are made. Would the minister commit at this stage to revisit the concept of retrospective assessment somewhere at stage 3 so that it could be properly addressed on this bill? Perhaps not in the way that Mr Chapman is suggesting at the moment, but it is a very important point. I will go back to Stewart Stevenson's point, and the first point that he made was that there is nothing preventing local authorities coming to me or to any of my ministerial colleagues to review legislation, to look black at legislation, to gather parliamentary support for a change in legislation, or policy or services strategies or guidance. Although I was interested in hearing about the 1462 commons good act, this is not about legislation, it is about policies, strategies or service. The point here is that there is nothing preventing local authorities from doing so. There is also a number of forum where they can raise that, the island strategic group probably being the most prominent one. My feeling on this amendment, which chimes with a few dollars, is that this is far too much of a blanket approach. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare for local authorities to have to review all of the policy, strategies or services. What I can do, I understand this, but I do not believe in a retrospective assessment being needed, I have to say, in the legislation, because I do believe that section 8 2's application of the duty to the redevelopment of policy, services and strategies will largely cover this area. Further, when I remarked earlier when looking at the new amendment 90 put forward by Colin Smyth, that amendment contained an interesting proposal in relation to on-going reviews, I believe that that would be a more flexible and perhaps proportionate approach to that. In addition, let me reaffirm to the committee my commitment to take forward any issue that is brought forward by a member or a local authority where they believe that there is a detrimental impact on island communities. I make that commitment again. On my next meeting of the island strategic group, I will raise that issue once again with the local authorities around the table. I am not at all closed-minded to looking back over our legislation and reviewing that legislation. I will take away from this committee to have a conversation with my other cabinet colleagues to see whether there is a conversation to be had around their portfolios in this regard. Given my view and the extremely negative impact of those amendments, I would ask the member not to press 62 and 64 and ask committees not to agree with those amendments should they come forward to the vote. I now call on Peter Chapman to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please. I will be very brief because we have had a huge amount of discussion around the table. I think that that is fundamentally important to the bill. The trigger is in the authority's opinion. If the authority thinks that it is correct to look at it, it can thus do it. Other folks have been saying that it should be happening anyway. If it should be happening anyway, there should be no problem with my amendment because that is all it does. It allows it to happen. Will it raise expectations? Yes, it will raise expectations, but the bill raises expectations right across the whole gamut of the bill. I do not take that as a reason to push my amendment and therefore I will move it. Thank you, Peter. The question therefore is amendment 62, to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. I call a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, and there are no abstentions then. There are four votes, four or seven votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 63 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason, to move or not move. I therefore call amendment 64 in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 62. Peter Chapman, to move or not move. The question therefore is amendment 64, to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. I therefore call a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. There are no abstentions. There are four votes, four or seven votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 65 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 61. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question therefore is amendment 65, to be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. I therefore call a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. There are no abstentions. There are two votes, four or nine votes against, therefore the amendment is not carried. I therefore call amendment 66 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason, to move or not move. I therefore call amendment 67 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason, to move or not move. I therefore call amendment 68 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason, to move or not move. I am now briefly going to suspend the meeting for a maximum of five minutes. I would ask you all to be back promptly as quickly as you can. I would like to reconvene the meeting of the Royal Economy and Connectivity Committee to discuss stage 2 of the Ireland's Bill. I would now like to call amendment 69 in the name of Colin Smyth, group with amendments 70 and 89. Colin, please can you move amendment 69 and speak to all amendments in the group? Thank you very much, convener. This amendment requires irrelevant authorities to provide an explanation for not doing an impact assessment if it's used to do so. Given a debate on other amendments, some members may argue that it does add additional burdens to authorities. I believe that in practice, if you think through the way an impact assessment would work, the reasons and the basis for not conducting an impact assessment in one area will be very similar to a decision in another area. I do not believe that it will add significant additional work to the authorities. The amendment is reasonable in good practice on its own, but it also helps to provide clarity that will be useful when it comes to amendment 89, which is also tabled in my name. Amendment 89 creates an appeals mechanism within the island impact assessment. It is a committee recommendation at stage 1, and it is one that I know is strongly supported by local authorities. Without any recourse to appeal decisions, it is impossible for island communities to have faith in the impact assessment system, in my view. It is particularly important that, given the lack of input, local authorities and communities have the decision to conduct an impact assessment in the first instance. The Government rejected the proposal on grounds that the administrative burden would be unreasonable. However, I believe that this amendment outlines a fair and manageable system. We should be working to empower local authorities and communities in this bill, but, as it stands, I do not believe that they have sufficient oversight and very little input in some areas. We should trust that local authorities and communities will only use this power when it is necessary. Will the member take a brief intervention? I have just finished my comment, so I do not know if that will have an intervention. I wonder whether the member could confirm to us or otherwise that, for 69, it is not the intention that subsequent minor changes to policy strategy or services would again require an assessment. I think that minor changes certainly would not know. I now call on Peter Chapman to speak to amendments 70 and the other amendments in the group. My amendment is very simple. It is clearly set out as an amendment. It is key that it places a duty of care on authorities to tell all people and bodies within the island community a duty of care on all people. It is logical that, if an island impact assessment shows areas that are negative, local authorities and the Government should be putting in place steps to mitigate that. If not, the authorities should have to explain why they have not carried out the process. That is simply what it says and it does. I will stop there. Stuart, if you would like to speak. I am just unclear in legal drafting terms for dialing communities' means. It was not an intervention. I have made my contribution. That is sufficient. There are no other members who wish to speak. Minister, would you like to speak? I appreciate what Colin Smyth is attempting to do with amendment 69. I can see why authorities that go through the process of determining if a local policy services strategy needs an impact assessment but conclude that it does not meet the test should make public the reasoning for doing so. The amendment has the potential to create an accountability to local communities. That will ensure a thoughtful screening process. Requiring authorities simply to state that information should not, I agree, be overly burdensome if it remains like touch. The detail of that, of course, can be set out in guidance, which I have now committed to bringing forward to this Parliament draft. Accordingly, I am happy to support Mr Smyth's amendments but would reserve the need for officials to go and look more carefully at its construction and, if necessary, bring forward amendments at stage 3. I would undertake, of course, to advise Mr Smyth should that be necessary. Turning to amendments 70 from Peter Chapman, I cannot support him. I appreciate what he is trying to do but I cannot see the need for it to be in the bill. The island communities impact assessment process is designed to ensure that islands interests are considered in the development of policy services and strategies to be open and transparent about the impacts on island communities, including any of the negative impacts. However, the amendment goes a step further. It asks that all relevant authorities write to ministers when they have not taken any steps to improve or mitigate the negative impacts. It is not clear the effect that amendment might have beyond the potential for a number of letters to come to myself, including my ministerial colleagues. I am not sure what any of that might achieve. I believe that that sort of issue would be dealt with much better as part of guidance. The guidance could provide more detail in the context of the impact assessment, having particular regard to looking at how to deal with potential negative impacts on island communities. I am happy, of course, to discuss that with Peter Chapman, the effect of what he is trying to achieve to ensure that the matter is appropriately addressed when we come to developing the guidance. Therefore, I ask Peter Chapman not to move amendment 70. Amendment 89, from Colin Smyth, creates a process to require a relevant authority to review the reasons for not preparing an island community impact assessment. It allows any person to request a review and sets out a process and timescale for response. The committee knows that I am not necessarily in favour of having a review process on the face of the bill, not least because other similar and successful impact assessment processes, such as equality impact assessment, do not set out a review process in legislation. The creation of a review process in this bill will, I believe, lead to more bureaucracy, that tick box culture that we want to avoid and not lead to the change in culture that we want to see. In this case, the potential number of reviews for all new and revised policies, services and strategies across all 66 relevant authorities will be huge. There will be cumbersome and potentially expensive. If I take the practical implications very briefly, for example, four weeks is a reasonable timescale for a response that is suggested in the amendment. The member has now changed it so that it is limited to one request per review, presumably to stop multiple requests on the same topic. However, I am not sure how that would work if the request for review was based on different grounds or different facts. It would surely be unreasonable to refuse a request for review made in different grounds for the only reason that another review had been received earlier, so that distinction is not made in the drafting. I wonder if that was the intention of Colin Smyth, and he may want to comment on that in closing. Further, the review is open to any person, not limited to someone with a direct interest in the decision not to conduct an impact assessment. Any person in Scotland could request to review the decision, regardless of whether they are in an island community or not, whether they are affected by the decision or not. First, that might be the only review that is allowed. There are no particular grounds for review, such as unreasonableness or procedural unfairness. That is also left entirely open. As I indicated in my response to the stage 1 report, I will give a cast-iron commitment that the consultation on the guidance covers this area and an appropriate dispute resolution process be considered as part of that. To give perhaps some further impetus to the member to not move his amendment, I might also suggest an element of compromise. In stage 3, I will bring forward an amendment that ministers must evaluate the operation of this part of the act three years after it comes into force. I will also bring forward an amendment to put in place an order making power that will allow ministers to make regulations with respect to reviews. The evaluation after that period of time shows that the review process is required, so we can provide for one based on the evidence that is provided for me. I think that that is a good compromise. I would ask Mr Smith to give it consideration and not to move amendment 89. I will ask the minister to wind up or press or withdraw amendment 89. Amendment 69 stands on its own as a good practice. Members appear to agree with that, but it also helps when it comes to the aim of amendment 89, which is a review process. I will not go through the arguments for that particular review process. That was a clear view of the committee at stage 1. The minister raised the issue about the fact that it had changed the amendment to limit the number of reviews to one to reduce the burdens on local authorities. If the concern is now that there may be several applications for a review based on different criteria, I say no reason why guidance could not be published that allows authorities to take into account the different reasons why there may indeed be a review. I have a take on board the point that the minister makes about additional amendments to look at the process again and additional guidance. On that basis, I will move amendment 69, but I will not at this stage move amendment 89. Obviously, reconsider the matter at stage that the additional information that the minister will provide between now and that process. The question therefore is amendment 69, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. I call a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, do, and abstentions. Those for, 84, those against, too, one abstention, therefore the motion 69 is agreed. I call amendment 70, in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 69. Peter Chapman, to move or not move. Given what the minister said, if he would look favourably on it, I will not move. I call amendment 89, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. I call amendment 72, in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason, to move or not move. I call amendment 73, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 43. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. The question therefore is section 9, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 20, in the name of Tavish Scott, in the group on its own. Tavish Scott, to move and speak to amendment 20. Thank you, convener. Firstly, I'm grateful to the Government for giving this legislative vehicle to allow this issue to be raised, something that's gone on for some considerable time. This is a bill about the islands after all, and my contention is that the islands should be in the right place on the map. There are many examples of Government documents, including when I was a minister, of the Government getting this wrong. I'm grateful to the letter that I had back from the permanent secretary, Leslie Evans, on this document, which is tackling social isolation and loneliness. This is an extremely good document, an extremely good Government policy, but the map, as colleagues will astutely notice, even those on the far side of the table, has shettled next to Orkney. I am sitting next to Liam today, but we don't geographically sit next to each other. We're lonely at times, but this is taking it a little too far. I would like in future for Government publications to be in the right place. Here is one that I found last night. The Food Standards Agency of Scotland has a stand in Parliament, and I came across this as I was walking up to the Ministerial Corridor last night. This is actually a pretty awful map of all of our ears of Scotland, so zero out of ten to the Food Standards Scotland generally. It puts a line right through Shetland. It actually puts a tape measure around the Minister's constituency, so he may have his own concerns about that one. All in all, that is a pretty dreadful piece of cartography by any standards. I'm very happy to. Before we do, Tavish, I just wanted to note for the official record that, amusing as the maps may be, that they can't obviously record what they show on the official record. Richard Lam. Does this map not actually show that what it's trying to convey is that Scotland, the Scottish diet, needs to change? Does that know why the map is like that? As an intervention, that may be amusing. It won't gain you an extra point, and we're going to go back to Tavish Scott. I thought it was worth an extra point in that classic fashion, but anyway. This document is actually called It Needs to Change, and that's my contention today that this needs to change. What I'm simply asking here, in clause 3 particularly of the amendment I've tabled, amendment 20, is that maps accurately and proportionally represent the geographical location in relation to the rest of Scotland, and that's what we seek to achieve by this. Scotland rightly highlights, for example, two industries that are important to its economic future, one of which is oil and gas and the other of which is seafood. Shetland is central to those two industries, and where Shetland is is why those two industries are so important and economically significant for the Scottish economy and indeed the wider economy. Therefore, I would simply ask colleagues to bear in mind that when in an island's bill we are dealing with the reality of what islands faces in terms of challenges, particularly on transport, then if I was closer to the Murray Firth or even deed in the Murray Firth, I wouldn't need to spend 12 hours going home on the boat from Aberdeen overnight, instead it would be an hour into Invergordon in the highlands. So that is the contention I want to make today, that our maps should be accurate. I'm very grateful to all the geography teachers in my constituency and various others who've been in touch to say thank goodness at last this is going to be addressed. I hope that the Government would take this argument for one other reason. This will not cost up any. This is simply to ensure that in future government publications and documents reflect the reality of Scotland in terms of its geography and not something that fits neatly on to an A4 sheet of paper. Thank you, Tavish. Stuart Stevenson, followed by John Mason. Thank you, convener. Just a few minor points about the drafting. It ends at clause 3 by saying rest of Scotland. Given that Lyric is closer to Bergen than it is to Edinburgh, I think it should be drawn more broadly because you would equally wish a map showing the correct relationship between Shetland and the coast of Norway. Similarly, and this is a very minor and geeky point, it probably in the two references to maps should say maps and charts because the different things, albeit it's extremely unlikely a chart would misrepresent the issue because it's used for navigation purposes. The real point is that this is a very important point and I don't think it's just Shetland as Liam will readily acknowledge as others would. Forty-five years ago we did a little computer model for something and it required mapping information in. When we looked at the outputs of the model, it was clear that there would be something wrong with the model and it turned out that the agency in London that had mapped the locations of bank branches had used a map that had the Shetland Isles in the Murray Firth and that totally threw the model. Of course, fortunately it was such a gross distortion that it was obvious. It's when it's more subtle and not so obvious that things become more important. So I think the point under the amendment is a very important point although whether this amendment has constructed fully meets the need I'm a little bit dubious. I'm very sympathetic towards the amendment. I have long thought that it is Shetland, despite Arkney and the West Nile. I think that it's Shetland that suffers through all of this because people want to keep the maps fairly big or small and if they put Shetland in that does change the scale that they can use. So I would be enthusiastic about this. I don't know if this is the right wording. We'll hear from the minister probably as to whether this is the way it should be put. I suspect there might be a cost even if we're not getting back over things but I'd want to be guided by that. To be fair, one of my colleagues was extremely unhappy when the BBC used the weather map with the whole of Scotland reduced in size and I think a lot of us supported him in that. So I think it's a very valid point and something needs to happen whether it's in this legislation or elsewhere. Thank you. Fulton MacGregor. I'm picking up from John Mason's point. Practically the same point. I've got a lot of sympathy with this as well. I think that Scotland itself has BBC maps and stuff documented in the past and the world as a whole. I think that there's always been issues with that in terms of not showing the true size of some countries and overestimating the size of others. So I've actually got a lot of sympathy with this but I wondered whether Tavish Scott would consider working with the minister and the Government to bring something in stage 3 rather than just now because I don't know what the effect is going to be is totally clear at this point and it might limit public bodies in other work that they're doing. I don't know exactly what that might be. I need to look at it more but it just could be the case and I wonder whether we've still got stage 3 to go or that's something that they would consider at this point. Thank you. Peter Chapman. I mean I have some sympathy with Tavish's point. I really do but there's a big but actually and I'm not even sure that this is relevant to this bell to be honest. And I do not agree with it anyway because I have been contacted by map specialists from my own constituency who have advised me that this would be inappropriate. The basic point would be that it would reduce the scale of any map by about 40 per cent because you've got a whole chunk of sea that needs to be represented. And that's an important point because we need to have maps that show detail as much as possible. This movement of putting islands into boxes inside of countries is well recognised and well known and has been done by map cartographers for centuries. And I just feel that the loss of detail in any map that was produced under this system would be very counterproductive. So I'll be voting against. Thank you Richard Lyle. Yes, I'm actually sympathetic to Tavish's point. Even the law of the point of the earlier thing of how Scotland has been represented in a brochure. It annoys me also when I see BBC, you know, don't correctly show Scotland. So if he presses it, I would take the point that Philip McGregor has made. I think he should maybe consider going discussing it with the Government in order to bring it forward. But if he is going to press it, I would support it. Thank you Richard. Jamie Greene. Briefly convener. Nobody puts Shetland in a box, clearly. I think it's a fair point. Mr Scott is making his point very valiantly in committee today. I think there is a technical matter around the fact that if it was all publications and all maps of charts that were published by any body ever had to show the proportion and scale that suggested in the wording, it would prove technically quite difficult in relation to the purpose of that. However, I've got great sympathy with the prospect of getting Shetland given its due place on the map, but I'm not sure that this wording is the way to do that. So support the principle in the ethos, but perhaps not the wording. Thank you, Gail Ross. I, too, support the principle. I just wonder if the minister can give us any tangible examples of where this is already happening and if there's any plans to move that on without being in the legislation. Liam McArthur. I think I should make it clear that there is a legitimate concept of a Shetland box, but it relates to fisheries and involves some fairly exclusive rights in relation to access to those fisheries. I don't think for a moment that Davish Scott is arguing against that concept. I think it's fair to say that this is a problem that has affected Shetland more than it has Orkney. Orkney has not been left untouched by it. There have been a number of occasions where we found ourselves bundled into a box and stuck in the muddy furth. I think that it's more than a presentational or superficial concern that arises from this. Over time, it does give rise to a misconception about our islands. Some of the issues that we're wrestling with as part of this bill and where we're seeing some helpful amendments being brought forward is not made any easier by that misconception that somehow the islands are a good deal closer to the mainland than is the case. I strongly support the amendment that Davish Scott is bringing forward. If it needs to be revised ahead of stage 3, I'm sure the minister will work constructively with Davish on that. I think that there's an important concept that, while it refers to the Shetland mapping requirement, it needs to encompass the concerns that have been raised less often but still been raised by constituents in Orkney as well. I'd like to thank Colin Smyth, John Finnie and Mike Rumbles for listening to this debate. I now call on the minister to make his comment before I ask Davish Scott to wind up. Can I just become on Liam McArthur's point that he made in his contribution that there may be a temptation to think about this issue flippantly? It's absolutely not. It's a really serious issue in respect that if I put myself in Davish's shoes on, did any of his constituent shoes, I certainly wouldn't like to see map after map after map misrepresenting where Glasgow is on, where Glasgow Pollock is within the map of Scotland. I wouldn't stand for it and I would be, frankly, pretty miffed about the whole situation. I absolutely accept the spirit of the amendment and I thank Davish Scott for bringing it to this committee to discuss. Mrs Scott has already described the issue that arose around the depiction of Scotland and Shetland, particularly in a recent Government publication. I agree with him that the depiction was not a good one and that the portrayal of Shetland was misguided and unfortunate. As Davish Scott has already said, he wrote to the permanent secretary about the publication in question. I hope that he found her response useful. She indicated her regret to any offence that was caused and I echo those comments wholeheartedly. In her letter, the permanent secretary also said that she had taken further steps to ensure that there would be no repeat of this in future Scottish Government publications. A standing instruction was prepared to a publishing contractor to ensure that future images of Scotland in publications should seek to portray the geographic location of all of Scotland's islands, not just Shetland but all of Scotland's islands, accurately. To further reinforce that, I am happy following stage 2 to write to all Scottish public authorities highlighting the specific issue and issues that Mr Scott has raised to encourage them to follow the Scottish Government's lead on this matter to contact their contractors and to avoid any incorrect and accurate depiction of the Shetland island and any of our island communities. I would also be willing to discuss with the member, indeed, any other members, who represent island communities, who have concerns on the issue of other practical ways that we can reinforce that message. A couple of members have touched on the word during the technical drafting of it and so on. In terms of the amendment itself, its current scope on a, quote, publishing in any form a document that contains a map of Scotland is very wide and my concern is that it provides a little flexibility. As a member, in fact, acknowledged in his own letter to the permanent secretary, and again I'll just quote it, there can be, quote, unquote, graphic design difficulties in presenting an accurate depiction of Shetland's geography, especially depending on the type and detail of the map that's being produced. For me, the way that the amendment is drafted perhaps doesn't give any leeway in allowing and always requiring an accurate representation, even in those instances perhaps it would be helpful for the reader of the map for a different format to be used. There may be other unintended consequences if Mr Scott's amendment was to apply across the whole of the public sector. We cannot know what maps are in use and how they portray Scotland. Indeed, it could be argued that it would be iniquisible for such a statutory requirement to apply solely to Shetland and not other islands, though I understand why Mr Scott would of course focus on his constituency. I would suggest that perhaps the right approach to this matter is to change, of course, practice and behaviour in the way that I've described and worked with Mr Scott to see what further we can do as well as me writing to Scottish public authorities. Perhaps we can also look at changes of practice, behaviour but also possibly in guidance. We can do that by agreement rather than what I would view as a largely unenforceable provision in the legislation. I'm also told that the amendment might be out with competence as conferring this function on all Scottish public authorities and the way it might go beyond devolved competency. Notwithstanding all that, I think that it's a very worthwhile issue to have raised at this forum to have brought it to the committee. I have enormous amounts of sympathy for it but I have an agreement with it. I would ask him not to press the amendment to withdraw his amendment and to have a discussion with myself, my Government officials, to see how we can practically take forward the spirit of his amendment in a way that is practically enforceable. Thank you minister. Tavish Scott, would you like to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment? Thank you very much, convener. I'm grateful to colleagues across the committee for their thoughts on this matter. I take the charge that this isn't technically perfect and the drafting may or may not have some deficiencies and I absolutely take the minister's point on that as well. I'm happy to work with Government officials to get drafting right. I do want to see something in law on this. For the very reason that the minister gave in his opening remarks about other public authorities, he has offered, and I'm very grateful for this. I'm sure that people who live in islands will genuinely be grateful to write to public authorities across Scotland and encourage them, quote, to follow the Government's lead. I want to do more than encourage them. I want to make them do this, but I absolutely take his point in that context about language in my amendment, which says in any form, so when publishing in any form a document. That is a fair criticism of the drafting, and I'm happy to look at wording that is more… Is one of the important things that if Government doesn't get this right, why should private industry get this right? Indeed, and that is entirely correct. I simply want to ensure that in making this requirement that I totally accept, Government will now get right in the future, that we do that in other public authorities as well. The food standard in Scotland may be a bad example, but it's certainly an example of where that's not the case at the moment. I'm happy to withdraw the amendment today on the basis of working with the minister's team in relation to getting this amendment right in terms of a correct technical drafting for stage 3. Thank you, Tavish. I have to ask, does any other member present object to the amendment being withdrawn? No one objects. Therefore, we'll move on to the next question, which is, I want to call amendment 90 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 43. Colin Smyth to move or not move? The question therefore is that amendment 90 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed, I call a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. That's two votes in favour, nine against. There are no abstentions, therefore the motion is not agreed. I therefore would like to call amendment 21 in the name of Gail Ross, already debated with amendment 43. Gail Ross to move or not move? Move. Is that amendment 21 be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 22 in the name of Gail Ross, already debated with amendment 43. Gail Ross to move or not move? Move. The question therefore is amendment 22 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 23 in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 43. Tavish Scott to move or not move? Based again, convener, on the minister's remarks on this amendment, I'll withdraw with a view to resubmitting stage 3. I therefore would like to put the question is that section 10 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is then that section 11 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Good. I call amendment 74 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment 75 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment 76 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment 77 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason to move or not move? Not moved. I now would like to call amendments 78 in the name of Jamie Greene, group with amendments 79 and 24. Jamie Greene, to move amendments 78 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Section 12 is around the preparation of impact assessments by ministers. Subsection 3 describes what should be in that impact assessment. It says that it should describe the significant effect of legislation that is brought before Parliament. The slightly significantly different effect of legislation. More importantly, B says the extent to which legislation can be developed to improve or mitigate the outcomes resulting in the legislation. My amendment simply asks a third requirement at the end of that, that the ministers must also set out the financial implications of the steps taken under the section to mitigate the outcome for island communities resulting from the legislation. It is an important addition. When ministers perform their island impact assessments, they do so not just at describing how they can mitigate the consequences of legislation. It is important that Parliament has an understanding of what the financial implications of that mitigation might be for obvious reasons. I have no further more to say on the matter. Thank you, Jamie. I now call Peter Chapman to speak to amendment 79 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Again, I am going to be very brief. That amendment seeks to ensure that there is an appeals mechanism that is put in place for island impact assessments. I just feel that the communities feel they have been or are being significantly impacted by a piece of legislation. There should be a due process for appealing that decision and I will leave it there. I now call Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 24 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I start by welcoming the intention behind the amendments from Jamie Greene and Peter Chapman. In my own amendment 24, as colleagues will recall, throughout stage 1, and again throughout the consideration at stage 2, one of the real anxieties about this bill is that it raises expectations and there is a risk that it will fail to deliver. I say particularly the case when it comes to the concept of island proofing. I will not rehearse the arguments about how assessments of the impact any policy or legislative proposal might have on island communities and how that is then used to shape changes to it. However, I have always felt that the best way of demonstrating the benefit that island proofing can and should have is by applying it to examples of existing policy and legislation that all of us would accept takes little, if any, account of the needs of island communities. I appreciate and we touched on this earlier on today that this cannot be open-ended government or the Parliament cannot be expected to trawl through every piece of legislation that is on the statute book, but now, I am going forward, we must ensure that this bill offers a means of redressing the most damaging examples of a one-size-fits-all approach. The way in which current building regulations work, that means that fuel poverty is being locked in for the future in places like Orkney is one illustration that I have used and with which the minister and his colleague Kevin Stewart will be very familiar. Lightwise, I have had discussions with the health secretary and her officials about the rules surrounding direct payments and the regulation of care workers that could result in services just not being available to some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency and not in the too distant future. Those are the sort of cases that I do not think will be addressed by the bill as it stands, and this would be a missed opportunity and one that risks the bill, as I say, failing to meet the needs and the expectations of island communities. That is why, whether through my amendment 24 or some other means, we need to find a way of making sure that this bill allows those past mistakes to be corrected as well as future ones being avoided. Thank you. Yes, if you are happy to take the intervention. How far would we go back? How far would we ask authorities to go back? I do not take away the point that you are making, but what do you need to fix? Stewart Stevenson came away with 1426 earlier on. How far would we need to go back? I do not think that we need to go back as far as that, but we do not need to go back. I think that that is perhaps a bit of misdirection. I do not think that it is the distance back that you have to go. I think that it is the impact that it is having. I think that the point that Tavish Scott rightly made in relation to earlier amendments is the trigger that allows this to happen and the mechanism that allows it to happen. I fully accept that it cannot be an open-ended commitment, but I think that we need something within this bill that opens up the possibility for existing policy and legislation to be looked at, whether that is from the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s or the 2000s. It does not really matter what is important, it is the significance of the impact that that legislation or policy is having on the island communities. It needs to be constrained only by the trigger and the mechanism for taking that forward. I will close it up. I am just going to speak to Liam McArthur's amendment. His remarks that he has just made slightly puzzled me, because the phrasing that he uses is that it would apply to acts of the Scots Parliament and subordinate legislation. Therefore, I do not think that there is much from the 1970s and 1980s. There might be something before 1707, if you wish, but the real point is that I wanted to make that there appear to be approximately 8,000 pieces of secondary legislation that has been passed by this Parliament since 1999. First two years, not surprisingly, were relatively low, 124, 281. The highest year is 582, the lowest is 360, even in the current year and we are still in March. We have already passed 109 pieces of secondary legislation. Even though it is clear from the remarks that Liam McArthur has made to the committee that he expects action to relate to only a small proportion of that, it is necessary to prepare and publish a retrospective assessment in relation to existing—in other words, you need to look at the 8,000 before you know the sex that you need to do. I am not trying to cut the feet from the principle of what is being said, but I just think that, as an amendment, it leads us back into this territory of doing too much. Yes, the common good act of 1462, I suspect, wouldn't be caught by this in terms of legislation.gov.uk, before 1707, described as acts of the old Scots Parliament. I think that probably excludes that. Gwmira. Minister. Thank you. Can I speak first to the amendment 78 forward? Excuse me, by Jamie Greene. I know that he has been very keen throughout this process to understand the financial implications that might arise from the process of an island community impact assessment. The bill, as I said before, the impact assessment process is designed to bring issues regarding the effects of legislation on to our island communities into the open. That includes, of course, any negative impacts. However, the assessment is not the end of the matter. Ministers will have to take a view on what they do about the negative impact and potentially find a different way of achieving the goal of that piece of legislation. That might be to change the drafting before we introduce or possibly allow for a variation for the islands in a particular bill's provisions. That will be the expectation on Scottish ministers to prevent the negative impact identified in any assessment from arising. We already have financial memorandums built into the process as part of the standing orders, which would be the best place for this information to be set out alongside any other financial implications. I am, of course, happy to commit to look at how the guidance can make that clearer for future legislation. For that reason, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary and I asked Jamie Greene to withdraw amendment 78 for other members not to support it if it is pressed. Amendment 79 from Peter Chapman suggests an appeals process for section 12, but we need to look closely at the practicalities and the practical implications of how that might operate. The effect of the amendment and what is to be appealed is unclear in the way that the amendment is drafted. As drafted, the amendment operates when ministers are already preparing an assessment, so we would not apply to a decision on whether to prepare an assessment, so therefore what else may be appealed. I do not think that there should be an appeal on the decision to legislate or in the context of the impact assessment. The amendment is also not clear how, quote-unquote, anilum community itself can appeal, as opposed to individuals within it, or a community body, which is a point in all of what Stewart-Stevenson has made in previous amendments. While the amendment offers a regulation making power and procedure, I am not clear if this can cover specifying who it is that decides to appeal. In short, the terms of the amendment potentially create, I believe, a cumbersome process that may hold up legislation, including, for example, emergency bills. Perhaps more fundamentally, I do not necessarily think and appeal as necessary. All government legislation comes before this Parliament. It is the job of this Parliament of MSPs here to scrutinise that legislation. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendment is required. I would ask the member not to move amendment 79 for other members to reject if it is put to the vote. Last but not least, amendment 24, brought forward by Liam McArthur, requires Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a retrospective island communities impact assessment in relation to existing legislation and national strategies, which have significant different impact effects on island communities than other communities. I would go back to the point, and I would start at the point that Stewart-Stevenson perhaps made, that the effect, similar to Peter Chapman's previous amendments, would be that we would have to review all legislation, regardless of whether we decided that an impact assessment was needed or not, a retrospective island impact assessment was needed or not. We would have to go through the process of reviewing all legislation and national strategies, some of the numbers of which Stewart-Stevenson has already given and I am not sure whether that included even the national strategies. We are talking about the secondary legislation, the secondary legislation, let alone strategy. I agree with the point that I do not think that the 1462 commons good act and so on would be included. The amendment is pretty specific around the Scottish Parliament legislation, therefore we are looking at 1999 onwards, but still the amount of national strategies, let alone legislation, would go into the tens of thousands. I would certainly appreciate the comments both that the ministers and Stewart-Stevenson made earlier, which is why I was trying to reiterate in my opening remarks the point about trying to find a mechanism that was not open-ended. I think that the reason I gave for citing two very obvious examples of where a retrospective application of the provisions that have been taken forward in this bill is necessary, because I have had on-going engagement with the Government, the local council has had on-going engagement with the Government about how those particular provisions are not working in an island context. I have had a sympathetic hearing, but there has not been a willingness to carry out an independent impact assessment. I appreciate in relation to the building regulations in terms of direct payments and regulation of care workers that those provisions are generally working fairly well, I think, in other parts of the country. Therefore, in that balance between is the policy by and large working in achieving the objectives and the interests of island communities where the circumstances just mean that that national approach is chafing against the... Indeed, achieving the objectives that the Government makes, there isn't currently a mechanism for applying pressure either to the Government or public bodies, and that's what I'm seeking to achieve. If the Government could come forward an amendment at stage 3 for that, I'd be happy to withdraw this and support that amendment. Just before you answer that, can I just say that that was quite a long intervention? I know it was a salient point, but an intervention should, in my mind, be as shorter as pithy as possible. Minister. Regardless of the length, I should say that I thought he makes a point really well and I think he makes the point really well and I hope you understand where I'm coming from and, by some of the remarks that Stuart Stevenson made, the difficulty would have with this particular amendment if it was pressed. Let me go back and look at ways that we can, of course, improve the bill and the respect that Liam McArthur would like us to do. I'd be happy to speak to Liam McArthur and lead up to stage 3 and how we might look at different options. Can I just throw in there that they would also be potentially non-legislative options, but let's have a consideration of all the options that might be developed. I'm sure that if we collaborate on this issue, then between us we can come to an agreement on the way forward. So I would ask Mr McArthur, based on what he says, not to press the amendment 24, not to push the amendment and we'll have a conversation about how we get to where he wishes to get to. Thank you. Minister, Jamie Greene, to wind up and press and withdraw your amendment, please. Thank you very much. Not much more to add to that discussion other than the minister said that he would improve guidance, but I do feel that that's perhaps not a strong enough commitment. I see no harm in putting in my request for financial implications of his impact assessments on the face of the bill, so I'll move 78. Thank you. I'd just like it noted for the official record that Mike Rumbles has had to leave the meeting, but the meeting will continue. Therefore, you are pressing that amendment. Therefore, the question is that amendment 78 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. I therefore call a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against? Thanks, Mike. Thank you. Sorry. You were for that. Yeah. So, sorry, can we just... Can we just do that? Can we just do the votes against again, please? Could you raise your hand just so it's completely clear? That means that I believe that I have the casting vote, and I've always cast my vote in the same way that I've voted in the original thing. Therefore, the casting vote means there are six votes for, four against, therefore the amendment is agreed. I therefore call amendment 79 in the... Six votes for and four against. Sorry, six votes for, five against. Five against. Thank you. Thank you. My mistake. Thank you. Cymru, just for the record, I think it's 5-5, but you've cast your vote in favour. Okay. Sorry. It's 5-5. Right, thank you, because we haven't come across this before or I haven't. There are five votes for, five votes against. With my casting vote, the amendment is agreed to. Therefore, I call amendment 79 in the name of Peter Chapman already debated with amendment 78. Peter Chapman, to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I therefore call amendment 24 in the name of Lear MacArthur already debated with amendment 78. Lear MacArthur, to move or not move. Sorry. Stop. I have to go back because I forgot a question in my rush. I apologise. The question is that section 12 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Now I can move on to calling amendment 24 in the name... No? No. No. I think I'm coming to that in a minute. I'm going to call amendment 24 in the name of Lear MacArthur already debated with amendment 78. Lear MacArthur, to move or not move. Bison, the minister's offer, not moved. Thank you. I therefore call the amendment 80 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 29. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. You are moving that amendment. Therefore, the question is that amendment 80 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. I call a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Almost jumped the gun there, Mr Billy. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes, four, eight votes against. Therefore, the amendment has not carried out. Therefore... What was that one saying? Amendment 81 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 29. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. Move. The question, therefore, is that amendment 81 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. I therefore call a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There is one vote, four, nine votes against. Therefore, that amendment has not agreed. John, the question is that section 13 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I now move on to the calling amendment 82 in the name of Colin Smyth, group with amendments 6. Colin Smyth, please move amendment 82 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thanks very much, convener. I propose amendment 82 because I was concerned that the current word in the bill was somewhat ambiguous and potentially restrictive that the reference to the word mainly concerned me that you would effectively have a situation where a ward in Orkney would have to cover the majority of an island if it wished to have effectively one or two members. I thought that that was significantly restrictive and could have real difficulties. Since that amendment was tabled, I note that the minister has tabled amendment 6, which I think helps to clarify the matter and is very welcome. The only thing I would therefore say is to ask the minister that when he talks to his amendment, he can give an assurance that every ward in Orkney, Shetland and the western hours, for example, will be covered by the provision that would allow them to have one or two members even if they were wholly contained within an island and that was not the majority of the island. That is the only comment that I would make. I welcome amendment 6. Minister, I ask you to speak to amendments 6 and other amendments in the group. I will also be brief. I note amendment 82 from Colin Smyth and I will be keen to accept the amendments that seek to improve the bill. I do not think that amendment from Colin Smyth is particularly necessary. The bill is drafted works and I do not think that amendment 14 in this way will have the effect that Mr Smyth is necessarily seeking. If the reason is to expand the one or two member wards to non-island wards, then the policy behind this bill, which followed from the consultation, is to allow for one or two member wards containing inhabited islands. It was not to expand one or two member wards into other areas. There has been a consultation on electoral reform, which proposes the creation of two to five member wards. Any legislation that follows from that consultation would be the most appropriate vehicle to take that policy intention forward. On that basis, I would ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendment and for members to vote against it if pressed. Amendment 6, in my name, yes, I can confirm and give assurances to Colin Smyth to that which he seeks. The stage 1 committee report recommended that the Government should follow the suggestions of local government boundary commission for Scotland and amend section 14 of the bill to change the wording from holy or mainly to holy or partly. That is to increase the flexibility in what the local government boundary commission can propose in order to, as the committee put it, better balance a ward, and that is what amendment 6 does. Therefore, I move amendment 6, in my name. Thank you, minister. I'll ask Colin Smyth to wind up and press or withdraw his amendment, please. Thanks, convener. Let's be clear. The amendment, in my name, isn't to expand one or two member wards onto the mainland, although I do actually have a sympathy for that. That's not the aim of the islands bill, and it's certainly not the aim of my amendment. The aim of my amendment is to avoid a situation whereby you would restrict on an island because it didn't mainly cover that whole island, but amendment 6 deals with that concern. Therefore, I won't push my amendment and support amendment 6 instead. Thank you. Does any other member present object the amendment being withdrawn? No. I therefore call amendment 6, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 82. Minister, can you formally move it, please? The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question therefore is that section 14 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Further question is that section 15 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I'd now like to call amendment 25, in the name of Liam McArthur, in a group on its own. Liam McArthur, to move and speak to amendment 25. Thank you, convener. I note your earlier chastisement. You have heard from me enough already today, but let me try and be as brief as I can here. As well as addressing problems in relation to a one-size-all approach to legislation and policy, one of the objectives of the bill is to put in place safeguards against future attempts at centralisation. Those are always portrayed as delivering cost savings, greater efficiencies and improvements to the service to the public. In truth, however, they almost invariably involve stripping away powers and decision making from our island and rural communities. Already in this session alone, we have seen attempts to centralise economic development through the abolition of HIE's board and proposals to merge health boards that could have seen island boards subsumed within larger mainland bodies. Closer integration and more efficient working are objectives that we would all support, but we have got to recognise that the needs and interests of island communities are never going to be properly heard or prioritised where those needs and interests are not the laser-like focus of those responsible for taking decisions. Amendment 25, which I have a pleasure in moving, seeks to put in place safeguards against such centralisation in the context of island health boards and local authorities without the expressed consent. Therefore, I have a pleasure in moving amendment 25 and listening to the minister and others. Thank you, Liam. I think you misrepresented me. I never said that I'd heard enough from you and I'm not going to ask you to withdraw that, but I'm going to ask Stuart Stevenson to speak. Briefly, it prevents alteration of boundary functions or powers, which, of course, prevents the addition of functions or powers as well as the subtraction of functions and powers, and I don't suspect that that's what Liam McArthur actually was seeking to do. I also think that there's a more fundamental problem in that, for example, if we look at the interests of Argyllia, where there are islands but very substantial mainland parts, it may well be that the mainland parts will determine what decisions they take rather than really being in the interests of islands. The fundamental point around all this is the question of who is responsible for providing the health services under the National Health Service in 1978. What we now have is the decisions essentially being made by local authorities, but the responsibility being carried by the health board. I think that that's a very unhealthy position to be in. You could see a permanent inability of the health board to respond to changing needs in an appropriate way. I'm not saying that that would happen, but in legislative terms it opens up that possibility. For my personal part, it would be more supportive if I saw co-decision making, whether responsibility was carried by both or other ways of dealing with this problem, which I recognise is a problem that I understand why Liam's brought it forward. I don't think that this is the way of delivering better health services for the islands. I enjoyed listening to what Liam McArthur had to say. It gave me a bit more of an idea of the intent behind his amendment, but I still have some severe reservations surrounding it. Naturally, whenever change is considered, whether it be to functions and powers relating to local government or health boards or other bodies that have a local delivery role to fill, it needs to be properly informed, at least through a full consultation and achieved as he knows well in the role that he has had in this Parliament on as much a consensual basis as possible. I'm mindful too that in seeking to take forward this bill and its aims to provide for the unique circumstances of our islands and island communities the key role of the relevant local and health authorities that they will play in this. There's a fine balance to be struck in doing so in a way that does not unhelpfully impact on powers that rightfully sit within other portfolios or indeed institutions, or create a substantive difference in how the powers that those agencies have that can potentially create an uneven playing field. I'm also conscious too of the need to future-proof this legislation to ensure that it does not create unhelpful, unintended consequences in the long term. In that context, I note that there's considerable satisfaction with current provisions and no clamour for any current island communities for substantive change to local authority and health board boundaries. That, however unlikely it seems now, of course might change. Therefore, it would be wrong for any council to have a power of veto in relation to any proposal brought forward by Scottish ministers to change the powers and functions and boundaries of any local authority. By extension, that view would apply to giving island local authorities such a power as well. I suppose it would effectively, in my concern, deprive the Parliament of its rightful opportunity to consider and agree to such proposals. Indeed, it would create the potential for those local authorities even to resist the will of local communities and indeed local residents should a situation arise where they want change and the current formation of local authority does not. That would therefore be an extraordinarily wide power. Ms MacArthur rightly draws our attention to the need to ensure that there's not unhelpful interference in those powers and functions by the centre. Should island communities not agree with any proposed change, I can offer him this reassurance. In terms of any changes to the boundaries of health boards or local authorities, I can assure the member that there are no such current plans. As the health secretary said at the publication of our health and social care delivery plan in December 2016, we want more services and more care delivered closer to home. When someone does require specialist care in hospital, we want it to be delivered in a centre of real expertise that is underpinned by our unswerving commitment to patient safety. While delivering those changes will require reforms to how boards work and work with each other in partnership across disciplines and boundaries, we do not currently envisage our patient-facing boards being reduced in number. There could also be unanticipated effects of the proposed amendment as it blurs governance arrangements and lines of responsibility between local authorities, health boards and, indeed, the Scottish Government. I fully understand that Scotland's islands are very distinct communities and their respective local authorities and health boards are experienced in the demands of serving those populations. I will witness very much firsthand during my many visits over the past 22 months the delivery of these excellent local services which the staff of the island should be rightly proud of. The unique nature of the islands is the reason why this Government has brought forward the island bill in the first place, and that includes island proofing of new and revised Government legislation. That duty would provide further protection against the situation that Mr MacArthur fears, and I hope that that provides the reassurances that he needs if, in future, any Scottish Government decides to undertake a review of local government boundaries or health boards or proposes a change to the functions and powers of local authorities, the Scottish Government would, of course, have a duty to have regard to island communities. I was tactfully trying to bring it to a logical conclusion. May I ask you to conclude what you are saying very briefly so that Liam can have a chance to respond? I will. The power of veto over Scottish ministers and potentially island communities, I believe, would be unhelpful as a Government. We must be able to come forward with ideas and proposals for change. It must be for this Parliament to discuss and debate these. Therefore, I urge Mr MacArthur to consider withdrawing his amendment. Of course, as with all previous amendments, I am more than happy to have a discussion with him on how we can give effect to the spirit of his amendment in a variety of options. Liam McArthur. I thank Stuart Stevenson and the minister for their comments. In response, I would make a small number of observations. In terms of Stuart Stevenson suggesting this, perhaps limiting the potential addition of powers. It is important to point out that this is without consent. Therefore, where there is consent, presumably those powers could be added. I think that the point that he makes in relation to co-decision making within islands is one that I would entirely accept. It happens to an extent that probably should happen more. In terms of co-operation between islands, either authorities or health boards, and mainly counterparts, that happens already. We discussed that in relation to earlier amendments. I do not see this as cutting across that at all, and I would certainly expect that to happen more, not least given the points that the minister made in relation to health specialisms and the requirement for patients to travel to centres to receive that treatment. I do not think that that cuts across the responsibilities of others. I think that it is future proofed, but if Parliament in due course wished to come back and amend the legislation for whatever reason it would be free to do so. As I understand it, currently the parliamentary boundaries are set out and protected under legislation. This in a sense reflects a similar approach to relation to island authorities and health boards. Therefore, on that basis, while I respect the comments that Mr Stevenson and the minister made, I will be moving my amendment 25. Thank you. That brings us to a question that amendment 25 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. I call a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Being no abstentions, there are two votes for eight votes against. Therefore, amendment 25 is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 26 in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 29. Tavish Scott to move or not move. Not moved, convener. Thank you. I now would like to call amendment 7 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 8, 9, 83, 84 and 85. Minister, could I ask you to move amendment 7 and speak briefly to all the other amendments in the group, please? I got the inflection. I, of course, move the amendment in my name. Thank you, convener. On stage 1, I report the committee recommended that the Scottish Government should bring forward an amendment to clarify that dredging. As referred to in the bill, means the excavation activity and not fishing by dredge. Amendments 7 and 9 seek to achieve this and I hope members will support them. Amendment 8 is a minor technical amendment. Section 16.2 sets out the exceptions to the meaning of the development activity in the bill. It explicitly excludes activities relating to the reserved areas of oil and gas, defence and pollution from the definition of development activity. Therefore, those activities cannot be subject to the requirement of licence under regulation under section 18. I support amendment 83, put forward by Stuart Stevenson. It is an issue raised by Stuart Stevenson MSP during the committee evidence session on 8 November. It is a technical issue. I will leave Mr Stevenson to describe how it improves the bill. Turning to amendment 84 from Peter Chapman, I confess that I am still struggling to understand its purpose, but we will listen carefully to what he has to say. Peter Chapman's amendment 84 removes text from section 192D of the bill relating to exceptions arising from the Orkney County Council Act and the Zeldin 1974 Act. Section 19 is designed to exempt existing development activity from a new licensing regime. I am unsure exactly the intent here. Of course, as I said, I will listen carefully to members' explanation. I suspect that the effect might be to make it possible for the new licensing regime and the 1974 act to run together at all, even for future developments. That is not the position of the Government and we want the interaction with the 1974 act regimes to be considered closely when the coverage operation and exemptions of the new scheme are being consulted on and implemented under section 18. If it is a technical issue, of course, I would be happy to look at that and see how we could give effect to it, so I would ask the member not to move. Amendment 85 from Colin Smyth relates an issue that, as there is not an Orkney, I understand that the council cannot find a partner to allow for a delegation of the marine licensing planning functions. I will listen to the member carefully but I am minded to support the principle behind the amendment. I am not sure that the amendment, as it is currently drafted again, does that in the best possible way. I have a couple of concerns in the technicalities, which I will not go into the detail of right here. I prefer if the member did not move his amendment. I will give him a commitment to liaise with him and come back with an appropriate amendment at stage 3 because I understand the spirit of what he is trying to do. To close, if possible, I move amendment 7 in my name. Thank you, minister. I call on Stuart Stevenson to speak to amendment 83 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you. I believe that this is essentially a technical change that relates to something that I brought up at stage 1. I just give an example. If we require there to be an island wholly inside a Scottish island marine licence area, we might, for example, have a marine protected area adjacent to an island that would not be reasonable to include within the marine area licence, which would deprive you of the opportunity of having that island wholly inside. So, this technically simply says adjacent to an island, and I think that that would reflect what we are trying to do. Thank you. I now call Peter Chapman to speak to amendment 84 and other amendments in the group. Peter. Thank you, convener. I mean, I hope I can explain what I am trying to achieve. I hope the amendment is worded correctly, but I am beginning to wonder now after the minister's comments. I mean, it is a technical one, and I believe that that would protect the existing powers to grant work licences under the existing county council act 1974 and the Zetland council act 1974. We welcome the new powers for marine licence and this bill gives to the island authorities, but we need assurance that if a licence is granted that the area is designated as an island licensing area that existing powers will be exempt. That is what I am trying to aim for. I know whether that is what we are managing to achieve. I know Hema Dutes, as they say. Hold on. I will take Tavish first. Tavish, grateful to Mr Chapman. Could I just ask, in the context of the remarks he is making, has he checked this amendment with the both island authorities to be in a position to confirm or deny the effect of these amendments? To be fair, I have it, no. Good. Just reading what the bill would then look like as amended, it would read the person, comma, was designated as an island licensing area. I am just not clear that that drafting means very much whatever the intention behind the amendment is. I am going to leave that hanging for the moment. You can decide whether to press you or withdraw your amendment. Colin, can I ask you to speak to amendment 25 and other members? 85, sorry. Briefly, at present, local authorities require a delegate partner to carry out delegated functions for regional marine planning on behalf of ministers. Finding a delegate partner can prove difficult for some local authorities that, as an issue as the minister says, Orkney Islands Council, in particular, have highlighted that amendment would give the flexibility to allow local authorities to have so delegate authority if they can demonstrate difficulty fulfilling their obligations in relation to a delegate partner. When Orkney Islands Council consulted stakeholders, the feedback that it received is that the overwhelming majority of stakeholders had no desire to be a delegate partner. Take on board what the minister says about the spirit of the amendment, but it may be to look at the word in relation to stage 3. At this point, I will not push the amendment, given the assurances that the minister gave, to work on the word in for stage 3. Thank you, and just to prove a point, Leigh MacArthur, I am going to bring you in because I have not heard enough from him. Thank you very much, convener. I am very much welcome, Colin Smyth, lodging this amendment, the assurance from the minister, that the scope for reaching an agreement that achieves the objectives that Orkney Islands Council legitimately seeking to achieve here should be, hopefully, relatively straightforward. Thank you very much. Thank you. I would ask the minister to wind up, please. I just say that I am not convinced by the explanation from Peter Chapman of what he is trying to do. I am not sure that he is convinced, necessarily, about what he is trying to do, but I do not mean that in a disparaging way at all. The technical drafting of it could be difficult and I accept that, so if he works with us, if he withdraws the amendment, we will work together to see if we can try to get to a position and give him the reassurances and needs. As I said, I am happy to support the amendment 85 from Colin Smyth, the large one not to press it so that we can work at the kinks. We will draft that as something together to bring it to stage 3. Of course, I support the amendment brought forward by Stuart Stevenson to fix an issue in the definition of Scotland, the Scottish island marine arena area, and I would ask members to support the amendment at my name. Thank you minister. The question therefore is that amendment 7 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore like to call amendment 8 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 7. Minister, will you formally move it please? Move. The question therefore is amendment 8 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I therefore like to call amendment 9 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 7. Minister, will you formally move it please? Moved. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed, the question therefore now is that section 16 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. The next question is that section 17 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. I therefore like to call amendment 83 in the name of Stuart Stevenson, already debated with amendment 7, Stuart Stevenson to move or not move. Move. The question therefore amendment 83 be agreed, are we all agreed? A mur i ddaen nhw'r eich awnid o hydrHE? Moneddon? Mor hyn. Rwy'n un� crime? hyvä. Rwyf wedi bod wedi util suggestions yn cyfeuluad yr allwch vei i he세요, mwaevwy! I would like to call amendment 85 in the name of Colin Smyth, who is already debated with amendment 7. the question the question therefore is that section 22 be agreed, are we agreed we are agreed We are now on the final section, and that is to call amendment 87 in the name of Jamie Greene, in a group on its own, Jamie Greene, and move and speak to amendment 87. Thank you, Greene. Richard Law is waving at me furiously, but I'm not sure what he's trying to say. I think he's saying hurry up and keep it short and sweet, so I will. We're all moulding into our seats here after five hours. A very simple amendment, but I'm looking to put in a review of the act at the end of section 22. It simply says that the minister must lay before the Parliament a report on the impact and effectiveness of this act. It's a very simple ask. If members are unhappy with the time period, maybe it thinks one year is slightly too aggressive or a bit too soon, I do take that on board, but what I will do is I will push for this amendment to be included, and any member of the minister is very happy to change that period as they see fit, and we can debate that at stage 3. I think that that's a reasonable compromise on my part, but I would like to see the inclusion of this review. That's all I have to say. Richard Law. Can I accept the proposal by Jamie Greene? You don't need to push it. I'm sure that everyone accepts it, and it's a reasonable ask. I'm not sure that's your gift to do that. You might feel that it is in your position to speak for the whole committee and for the minister. He may have different opinions. John Finnie. Thank you, convener. First, I have no problem with reviewing legislation. I think that the time period is ridiculously short, to be perfectly honest, and you would have to commence the work to produce that before even the year had concluded, so I certainly won't be supporting it. Thank you. Can I ask the minister to make a comment, please? Yes. Can I confirm that, as enthusiast, Dick Lyle was slightly different to my opinion, but only in the timing of it. I think that the spirit is welcome. I think that we should never fear post-legislative scrutiny at all. Of course, it is possible to have post-legislative scrutiny without having a section in the bill. The reason why I think that one year from royal assent is not appropriate is because it assumes that all parts and sections of the act will come into effect by that point. Of course, that is not the case. There may be parts of it which take more than a year to come into effect. A national islands plan, for example, will likely only just have come into being. The island proofing duty will likely only to have been enforced for a short time, etc. I will have that much information that is meaningful in the space of a year. I am happy to listen to a call to place provision in the bill requiring ministers to conduct a review of it. Given what I have said about timing, I think from our thinking here on this side of the table, that around four years after commencement we will provide more useful information. That is three years into the substantial operation of the act in that island's plan. I ask the member not to press his amendment but to work with us to introduce an amendment that says that he is setting out a timescale for a review that is more appropriate. If the ministers give me the commitment that, as it is currently worded, perhaps with different time periods he would look at it at stage 3, it would seem suitable to bring it back at that stage rather than press something now, which may be more difficult to bring back to the bill. On that note, I will not move stage 7. Can I ask if there is any member present who objects to the amendment being withdrawn? No one is subjected, so I have to ask the next question that sections 23 and 24 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I would like to call amendment 88 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason, to move or not move. The question is that the long title be agreed. Are we all agreed? That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Could I just say that it has been a marathon session for the committee and thank you for everyone for the input that they put in at all stages? The members should note that the bill will now be reprinted as amended and this will be available online and in hard copy from 8.30 tomorrow morning. Parliament has not yet determined when stage 3 will take place but members can now lodge stage 3 amendments at any time with the legislation team. Members will be kept informed of the deadline for amendments once it has been determined. I am delighted to say that that concludes today's committee business and I now close the meeting.