 Mae gael i gael i'r 9 ym�io 2017 o'r Cymru Rhawn Llywodraeth i Gweithio Ddiogel a Gweithwyrdau Cymru. Rwy'n gilydd i'r ddych chi'n gwybod bod hynny'n ffurth ac i'n gwybod i'r ddim yn siŵn. Rwy'n gwybod i'r ddim yn ei ddweud ac mae'r 1st iawn i'ch gwychio'r agenda yw y LASER misused vehicles bill UK, yw Llanff yng Nghymru. Rwy'n gwybod i'r ddweud y Cymru, mae hynny'n gwybod i'r ddweud o'r Merhond Dŵr, lodged by Fergus Ewing in the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity. The LCM relates to the laser misuse vehicles bill, currently being considered by the House of Commons. As the lead committee, we are required to reflect upon the memorandum and then consider whether we are content with its terms. We will report our findings to the Parliament. Scottish parliamentary standing orders provide that an LCM should normally be lodged with the Scottish Parliament's two weeks after amendments relevant to that bill being tabled or agreed by the UK Parliament. However, in this case of this LCM, the Minister for Parliamentary Business has written to the Presiding Officer explaining why the Scottish Government was unable to meet this requirement. A copy of his letter is included within the committee papers. I would like to welcome from the Scottish Government the Minister for Transport and the Islands, Bertrand Dees, the head of road safety policy, and Stephen Rees, the solicitor. I would like to invite the minister, if I may, to make a short opening statement on this, and then I would like to move to questions from the committee. I thank the committee and clerics for showing such responsiveness in allowing the LCM to progress as quickly as possible through Parliament to allow the final stages of the laser misuse vehicles bill in the UK Parliament on 16 April. At the timetable of the LCM has been constrained at, frankly, either end of the process. At the first end, the Minister for Parliamentary Businesses, USA, convener, wrote to you on 14 March to explain why it has not been possible to lodge an LCM in accordance with the Parliament's standing orders timescale. At the other end of the process, DFT notified my officials on 14 March about their 16 April timing, meaning that the LCM would need to be passed by the Scottish Parliament before 16 April. Due to the forthcoming recess, the plenary debate would take place on 29 March at the latest, with committee report issued five working days prior. The Government shares the UK Government's concern, if I take the bill itself, that there have been an increased number of reported incidents of the deliberate misuse of laser pointers, with consequences that could have been fatal. You may recall that a man was jailed two years ago for shining a laser pen at a police helicopter flying over Glasgow in 2013. We support the provisions of the bill and for the UK Government legislating on a pan UK basis to address this transport safety issue. The legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is required for clause 1 of the amended bill. That is the offence of shining or directing a laser beam towards a vehicle. The wider definition of vehicle means that laser misuse will be an offence in some context where the creation of such an offence is not reserved, such has, in relation to carriages drawn by horses or other animals, motor vehicles and bicycles being used away from a road. That is all that I have to say, and I am happy to answer any questions that can be done. Thank you, minister. We have several questions. The first one is from Richard Lyle. I personally welcome that in the notes of the legislation that is princely aimed at addressing the shining of laser pens or pointers at pilots of commercial aircraft and will also criminalise the shining or directing of laser beams towards any vehicle used for travel by land, water or air. For the record, do you know what the range of fines are? You said that a chap was jailed. Is there a range of fines? Can you inform the committee of that? We look at the recent case that I referred to in my opening remarks. It was an offence under article 225 of the Air Navigation Order, so it is to do with aviation. It is an offence to shine or direct a light in an aircraft which dazzles or distracts the pilot of the aircraft. The penalty for that offence is a fine of up to £2,500, but the offence, and I suppose the important part of the legislation, does not apply to other modes of transport. It is a very sensible provision, a very sensible measure from the UK Government. If we did not grant the LCM the other way of doing it, it would be pretty messy for us to have to unpick that legislation for the devolved parts, while the UK Government just legislates for the reserved parts. It does not really make much sense, so I think that a pan-UK approach is a sensible one. I should have also said—sorry, I am being pointed out quite rightly—that maximum penalties are also—there is a possibility, of course, of an indictment of up to five years imprisonment, so you mentioned the fine, but, of course, it can carry a hefty imprisonment as well. The next question is from Stewart Stevenson, followed by John Mason. I have a number of small points, so I will ask them all at once, if I may, just to try and shorten things. It relates to the carriages drawn by horses and other animals. Is it intended that it also relates to horses when they are ridden? Of course, that is not a vehicle, but it would seem that the risk and the danger might be pretty much similar. I think that I know the answer, but I would like to hear it. The other one is that the bill is described as the laser misuse vehicles bill, but in your previous answer, minister, you said that it was actually a light that would distract. I take it, you are indicating that it is not necessary that the light is produced by a laser for it to be caught by the provisions of the bill. I suppose that the final point, which I suspect I know the answer to as well, is that are there any modes of transport, in other words, that are excluded, that are not intended to be caught by this? I always appreciate Mr Stevenson's questions, and this is no different, especially when he already knows the answer to them as well. I am sure that you will say that you will pass out a term on your answer later, but if you could start off with the answers. I am not convinced that there will be high marks. I will do my best, and I will pass over to, of course, the legal expert, Stephen Rees. In terms of the carriages drawn by horse, he asked a question around whether it would apply to just horses that are ridden. My understanding, again, I will pass over to Stephen, is that it applies to vehicles only, and therefore it would have to be a carriage. For the other questions, if you do not mind, I will pass over to the legal expert, perhaps Stephen and then Bertrand, if he wishes to come in on the other two questions as well. Yes, I can confirm that the bill only applies to vehicles. Is there any vehicle used for travel by land, water or air? Therefore, I understand that it would not capture horses being ridden without a carriage. In relation to the laser beam issue, the bill only applies to the shining of a laser beam towards a vehicle or to an air traffic control facility, but laser beam is defined as a beam of coherent light produced by a device of any kind. The use of the phrase coherent light, which, in technical terms, is generally only capable of being produced by a laser, is to produce an intense high energy. However, there are other high energy beams that are produced that are not coherent light, but this is really a matter for the UK, and I just want to be clear here what it said. I would personally suggest that it would be appropriate for it to cover other sources of intense light that are not simply coherent, such as arc lights, which are not coherent light, but are equally intense under appropriate circumstances. It might be wonderful for us to take away and reflect on that one and potentially have a conversation with the UK Government on it. You are going to give us your thoughts after this meeting, but you will have to do it fairly quickly if we are going to complete with the time scales. I think that we may be out of time by the time that you have done that. I am going to move on to the next question, which is John Mason. On the width of the vehicles that are covered, I am not really in favour of legislating on things where there is no problem. I absolutely support aircraft motor vehicles trains. I do wonder how much problem we have had with lasers and hovercraft, given that we have got very few hovercraft and how much problem lasers are to submarines. They could be on the surface, I accept that. With cycling as well, do we need legislation covering all of those things? I think that there is something around future proofing. If I take his last point in particular, I accept that hovercraft and submarines will be relatively minimal and we will not see them very often. Of course, our own Government is committed to increasing the rates of cycling and increasing them quite ambitiously. I could perfectly envisage that. For example, I took part in Pedal for Scotland last year, in a Pedal for Scotland where thousands of us chose to cycle from Glasgow to Edinburgh. For the second year in a row, there was an attack on those who were cycling. There were tax that were left out purposely to try to disrupt that cycling event. Many people punctured and some of them crashed. I saw some people crash in front of me because of the tax that was laid down. There were people deliberately out there to cause harm to cyclists. To think that that does not happen, it does. I do not know whether there is an incident specifically of cyclists being attacked by lasers, but could we see that in the future at an event like this? If we are going to be doing more of those events, which I hope we do, we absolutely could. Let us future proof the legislation is the important point. I do not know if any of my colleagues wish to add anything else to that. No, that is a fair point. Jamie, you are next. If I could ask you to give focus questions, I would appreciate that. No problem, convener. I will ask questions that I do not know the answer to. Can I just clarify a general overview? There already is legislation covering the shining of beams into aircraft, but this additional legislation is basically to cover everything else that has a motor in it. That is helpful. Secondly, it is only to cover use of laser where it has a demonstrable negative consequence, or it has been appropriately misused, or any appropriately used is a better way of phrasing that. In other words, it will not cover any existing use of laser which are used against moving vehicles such as directing aircraft into docking areas or any other piece of technology where laser is used in the direction of vehicles. Yes, so Stephen can come into it, but is it around the intention of dazzling and distracting, but Stephen could probably go into more detail. Yes, that was really the point that I was going to make. It is a requirement that the laser dazzle or distract was likely to dazzle or distract, so the adjustment uses presumably would not have that effect. The other aspect that I would mention is that there are defence provisions in the bill where, if the person has a reasonable excuse for shining or directing the laser towards the vehicle or does not intend to shine or direct the laser towards the vehicle and emphasise to all due diligence and to call reasonable precautions to avoid doing so, then there is a defence to the offence. So presumably that should capture legitimate uses. Okay, so if the perpetrator can demonstrate a legitimate use for making the action that is unlikely would be prosecuted in the sense that, for example, in sailing, one of the first things you learn is that get people's attention in any way you can and if that is a laser then so be it given that they are more commonly carried by people these days. So I would hate to think that that use would be unintentionally captured by this. I think in that example you would hope that the fiscal would not prosecute in the first instance and if they did there would be a defence in the legislation that I think that individual could deploy. Last question then from Fulton MacGregor. I'm just wondering if there's been any research done either by the Scottish Government or by the UK Government about exactly how many charges there may be under this offence. If, for example, it had been in place last year or whatever. So obviously we have the law at the moment in terms of Askel 222 as I've already mentioned in the air navigation side of things. On that side I've just been passing some useful statistics here on the convictions that have taken place since 2010. In 2010 there was 26, in 2011 there were 48, 27, 23, 21, 16 and 10, diminishing of course but there has been as the statistics show that a number of people that have been convicted under that is a problem and is an issue. Anecdotally speaking I have spoken to a number of airlines in my time and they tell me that their pilots do report it not often, frequently. I have to say the smaller airlines and I think of companies like Loganair and others have said to me before that again their pilots have unfortunately been in a situation where they think somebody's been pointing a laser towards them. Anecdotally I can certainly say that it's been raised with me that there have clearly been some convictions since 2010. In terms of actual research in terms of how many have been done I'm not sure that there has been. I'm just looking at records from the British Transport Police as well so obviously the patroller railways and they show that approximately there's been 85 incidents per year between 2011 and 2016. So we've mentioned the airlines, British Transport Police obviously see it as an issue too. So I'm not convinced that there's been necessarily detailed research into how wide an issue and a problem is but certainly the statistics that we do have show that it is a problem. Okay, thank you. Thank you minister and thank you to both your witnesses. I'm now going to ask the committee, our members, content to recommend that the Parliament agree to the motion drafted by the minister and approve the legislative consent motion. That is agreed. I'd now therefore like to briefly suspend the meeting to allow the panel to change over. Thank you. I'd now like to reconvene the meeting and we're going to move to agenda item two which is the Island Scotland bill. Today we're undertaking a stage two consideration of the island's bill. I'd like to welcome back the Minister for Transport and Islands of Yousef and his officials from the Scottish Government. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshaled list of amendments that was published on Friday and the groupings of amendments which sets out the amendments in the order which they'll be debated. It may be helpful just to explain the procedure albeit briefly. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will then call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and speak to all other amendments in that group. I'll then call other members who have lodged amendments within that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way. If he has not spoken on the group, I would advise the minister to contribute to the debate just before I invite the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press it, I'll put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it's been moved, I'll ask if any other member present objects to them doing so. If any other member present objects, I will put the question on that amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment before it's called, they should say, not moved. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote, and voting in any division will be shown by raising of hands. I'd also remind members it's important that they keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote. I would like to state formally that it is considered and agreed each section and schedule of the bill. I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. I have a note that's saying that we aimed complete stage 2 today, but I doubt that that may be possible. We will see how we get on during the course of the debate. I'm now going to move straight to the listing. The first is to discuss the purpose of the act. I'm going to call amendment in the name of Colin Smith in a group on its own. Colin Smith, to move and speak to amendment 28. Thank you very much, convener. I'm conscious that we have a number of amendments to get through today, so I'll keep my comments relatively brief as members are familiar with what is classed here as a purpose clause. A purpose clause is aimed to clarify and state the overall aims of the bill. That ensures, in my view, that the purpose of the bill is explicitly stated in law. Underpinning the purpose in law, I believe, captures the overall spirit of the bill rather than just a letter of the law and any individual clauses. I think that it also helps to prevent the misinterpretation of passages or the dilution of ambition over time. Island economies suffer because of geographical disadvantage and distance from markets. I believe that it must be the overall purpose of this bill to try to redress this disadvantage. A greenness clause at this early stage will help when considering the detail of the individual clauses throughout this stage and future stages. There are examples and other legislation of a purpose clause, and I believe that a purpose clause will help to strengthen the bill and certainly not weaken it, so I'm happy to propose my amendment. Thank you. John, you've... Thanks, convener. As has been said, and as I said yesterday in the chamber, I am in favour of purpose clauses, so I would like to see the Government or anyone who brings forward a bill start off with a purpose clause and then write the rest of the bill. I think that it is extremely difficult to come in at this stage when the bill is there to put in a purpose clause, but I still fundamentally think that a purpose clause should be there. I think that it guides the lawyers, I don't think that the lawyers like it particularly, but it forces them, as Mr Smith has just said, to focus on the overall purpose. My specific problems with the wording of this purpose are three. Firstly, the word create, which suggests it's not there to start with. So in some cases we are continuing or wanting to continue a sustainable island community. Secondly, because it focuses purely on island communities and as will be seen from my other amendments, I am also interested in islands which don't have communities. And thirdly, because it focuses purely on the economy, whereas we are looking at culture, natural environment and various other issues as well. Thank you. Stuart, you were next. Thank you, committee. I understand and have sympathy with what Colin Smith is trying to do, but I think that the effect of what's before us carries with it the risk of actually diluting the ambition of the bill because it's simply saying to create sustainable island communities. Now, if we actually look at, for example, 3.2, which follows where this amendment would go, what is said there is drawn more widely because it's more broadly improving outcomes for island communities by carrying out a function of a public nature. In other words, it isn't simply about sustainable island communities, it might improve the outcomes for island communities in a way that isn't directly addressing sustainability. Now, that is the risk, I think, in the particular formulation that Colin Smith has brought forward, that I think would subject to what I hear in the discussion here would lead me not to support this in this instance, in this form. Thank you, Stuart. Peter. Thank you, convener. I'm minded not to support this, and although it does discuss this and think it may be necessary at stage one, I do not feel it as necessary going forward. It's a bit like the bill that we just discussed and debated yesterday, the force and land management bill. If you put a purpose on the face of the bill, it can be actually limiting on the bill and then it becomes too prescriptive. And for that reason, mainly, I would say I am not in favour of the amendment. Thank you, Mike. There shall be a Scottish Parliament, Scotland Act 1998. I like that, Donald Ewer. I think it's really important to give us the favour of a bill to have a purpose of the act there. I think I'd like to commend Colin Smith for bringing this forward. Whether we have a debate whether this particular purpose of the act is the right one or not, that's the advantage of discussing it now in stage two. Because I hear what John and Stuart have been saying, and the minister's listening, if the minister thinks that there is a better purpose of the act, then he could bring forward an amendment to this at stage three and we could look at this again as a Parliament. But I think it's important actually to start off with this in stage two and say, let's support this, let's have it on the face of the bill, because I think from our evidence that we were gathering in stage one, that Islanders, I certainly took from the evidence that we received that they wanted some sort of purpose. There was something missing in the bill and I think this is a good start so I would be inclined to support Colin Smith's amendment. Thank you, Mike. John Finnie. I'm supportive of Colin's amendment. I think that we could and I suspect you wouldn't want us to spend all day discussing every word and every possible interpretation of it. But I don't think there's anything inferred or I suspect Colin would confirm intended criticism in the word create but we all know that we're far from the situation where any of our island communities are entirely sustainable. And again, discussions around the word sustainable, I'm sure it will have due regard to the environment, to cultural and economic matters. And certainly the word build their economies while that in itself wouldn't ordinarily when green support were it not for the preamble first about creating sustainable because it's not going to build it in any other way than an appropriate way if it's going to be sustainable in the first place. So for these reasons I won't be supporting Colin's amendment. Thank you, John. Jeremy Green. Thank you, convener. Just to add to some of the previous comments briefly, I feel strongly that the bill should have an objective. And I take that from the evidence that we heard in speaking at many of the focus groups from islanders themselves. So these aren't really necessarily my words but they are the words of people who we've met throughout this journey and process. Now whether these are the words that should be in it, I'm minded to agree with Peter Chapman. I don't think that this is all encompassing but I think it's heading in the right direction. So whilst I won't support this amendment I would like the ministers to reflect on the strength of view in the committee that there should be a purpose. I think the problem with a specific amendment is for example on inhabited islands it may not necessarily have economies or communities in the same way that inhabited islands have and I wouldn't like them to be ruled out of any such. But there's nothing to disagree with in the words that Colin Smith uses here. I just feel that it doesn't entirely the essence of the feeling of where this bill is heading and I think there's general agreement of where this bill needs to be going but how we encapsulate that in wording I think would be a difficult task to do but I'm hopeful that the minister can do that by stage 3. Thank you Jeremy Minister. Can I say from the outset and I'll speak to obviously a number of amendments that where I can be helpful where we can reflect as a Government then absolutely well because we want to take the islands bill forward in the spirit that I think we started which is to be as collaborative and consensual as possible. In terms of this specific amendment I do thank Mr Smith for articulating the reasoning behind his amendment and I also thank the other members for some very good and insightful reflections. I will however be asking the member to withdraw amendment 28 today. While I can absolutely appreciate the intent to which Colin spoke to and other members spoke to I can't agree that this is necessarily the best way to achieve the aims and the outcomes he desires and my position as a minister of course have a responsibility to ensure that the law we make is good law of course that is a responsibility for all of us a law which is capable of being put into effect I believe that as I say is a responsibility for all of us is not a partisan issue it's not an ideological position but our position as law makers while there is a place for a purpose section in some bills it is for a specific reason and to achieve specific legal effect. The creation of an overall stand-alone purpose for this bill would be problematic. All the sections of a bill must have legal effect and be able to be interpreted by a court. It's not clear how this specific amendment would be interpreted within each part of the bill. I thought that Stuart Stevenson's point was well made to that effect. It's hard to give specific examples of how the process is uncertain. We cannot always anticipate the arguments that others might make but as an example the marine development licensing regulations allow for an appeal of a decision in relation to a licence as a sensible and necessary provision. Will the appeals process have to take into account this purpose? How might those who have to consider such an appeal in relation to any decision be expected to interpret the purpose in relation to their duty and responsibilities? Will the requirement to build economies to the balance in favour of permitting a development even when there are other considerations or concerns such as the impact of the environment? While the intention behind such a purpose is laudable, to pass it into legislation risks unintended consequences and unknown consequences. Can I clarify your position on this before we move to a vote? Are you saying that you would not consider at stage 3 including a purpose of act or that you would but just not these words? I think that that may help where we're going with Mr Smith's amendment. I will come back to that. I'm just getting on to that very, very point but I have a problem with the purpose on the face of a bill but I do think that we can try to get to where Mr Smith and other members have articulated they want to get to that point just now. The intention behind such a purpose is clearly laudable. For me overall this amendment imports a set of legal risks that we do not need. I would welcome Mr Smith's view on that and his closing. After the committee report and stage 1 debate I made it clear that I saw potential for compromise that the committee wanted to achieve. My amendments 1 and 2 which we'll talk about in more detail when that group comes around will have a specific purpose of setting the objectives and strategy of improving outcomes for island communities and will include the three underpinning objectives listed in my amendment 2. That is namely sustainable economic development health and wellbeing and community empowerment. That encapsulates the spirit of amendment 28 to Jamie Greene's point and will ensure that through the delivery of the plan the aims of the member are met. I am of course always willing to discuss the member with other members how we can improve the bill and be happy to continue the conversation in the lead-up to stage 3. I would therefore ask that the member withdraws his amendment and should he press his amendment I ask the members to vote against it. Thank you minister. Colin Would you like to wind up, please and press or withdraw your amendment please? Thank you very much convener. I agree very much with the point that John Mason makes that a purpose clause should be put forward at this earliest stage as possible. I do not have any control over what the draft bill says but the earliest committee in me as a member can put forward a purpose clause is of course at this stage here and I think that is why I have put that forward today. I think that Mike Rowland makes a very important point about we could put forward this amendment today and if members are unhappy with the specific wording of the purpose clause I do not have to say fully the argument that a carefully worded purpose clause cannot complement the rest of a bill it certainly does not undermine it and I think that that is in the wording would allow that to happen I am kind of conscious we seem to be having a case of deja vu again when it came to the forestry bill I was not here but the forestry bill we had a similar debate in which a purpose clause was put forward and members expressed concern about the specific wording with a view to amending that wording I am tempted to go down that route again and not press my amendment but that would be on the basis hopefully that members can come together and agree a wording for a purpose clause that would be put in at stage 3 so at this point I won't press the amendment but hopefully that the message that would be helpful to work on the wording going forward for an amendment at stage 3. Does any member present object the amendment being withdrawn? No Therefore we will move straight on to the next amendment before I do though I have to ask sorry the question is that section 1 be agreed are we all agreed? Therefore call amendment 10 in the name of Liam McArthur group with the amendments as shown in the groupings Liam McArthur to move amendment 10 and speak to all other amendments in the group please. I welcome the work of the committee on this building and in particular thank yourself and colleagues for taking the time to come up to Orkney to hear directly from those affected both from my own constituency and that of Tavish Scott I very much appreciate that. You'll be delighted to hear that last summer I managed to visit Ausgri one of the smallest islands up in the northeast of my constituency where I met Simon Brogan who along with his partner Theresa Provert are the sole inhabitants of that island now that their sons Rory, Hamish and Owen have left home. That just leaves Gersi as the only inhabited island in Orkney that I've yet to visit and I intend to rectify that whether permitting sometime later on this year and while the needs of these island communities some of them exceptionally fragile are the focus of many of the amendments we'll be considering through the course of this morning. We can't lose sight of the importance of our uninhabited islands also. Orkney has around 80 islands which just under 20 are inhabited but all 80 play a crucial role in making Orkney the unique place that it is not least in sustaining bird populations of global significance. My amendment 10 addresses a weakness in the bill as it currently stands by making explicit the recognition of our uninhabited islands and their importance in the context of our efforts to promote biodiversity and provide species protection. The amendment I hope reflects the committee's own conclusion is that uninhabited islands have a quote, cultural, environmental and economic significance that deserves to be fully reflected in this bill and I know John Mason's amendments drive it much the same objective and I look forward to hearing what John has to say as well as the contributions for the ministers and other colleagues but for now I have a pleasure in moving amendment 10 in my name. John Mason speaks to amendment 30 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Some of my thinking was in line with what Liam McArthur has just said. So they're really a package and they're all doing effectively the same thing. So for example in section 3 subsection 2 where it says that this is in relation to the island's plan that Scottish ministers in relation to improving outcomes for island communities the addition of my amendment would say improving outcomes for islands and island communities therefore suggesting that islands have a value in themselves as well as the people that live on them. I mean this is called an island's bill yet almost exclusively it does deal with island communities and absolutely I agree that the communities are the number one thing the most important thing in relation to any island but we do have islands and we've had some examples in Orkney but I suppose the one that I'm most interested in is St Kilda which are officially uninhabited albeit the military and the national trust obviously have a presence there but they are of huge importance both in regards to wildlife the environment and I think our whole history as a country and our culture and the whole story of St Kilda how the population struggled and was evacuated in 1930 and I do think that uninhabited islands should be referred to in the bill and that would be my key point Liam McArthur's amendment 10 I have to say is gentler than mine and I don't know if that's common for the Government member to be taking a more extreme line than the opposition he says may include a single uninhabited island which I feel is quite I'll not say weak but at least is gentler not very compulsory and also it talks about contributing to the natural or cultural heritage or economy of an uninhabited island I suppose I've got some reservations about that because again I think islands like St Kilda and I think probably others as well have a value in themselves not just in relation to another uninhabited island and I suppose I would have to accept that may be a weakness on my side of things that some uninhabited islands do have a link more to the mainland but are still important in their own rights St Kilda however I accept would be included in this because I think its most strong links have been to the western isles and to Skye traditionally so I'm happy to listen to what other members might have to say on this happy to listen to what the minister says on this but my bottom line would be I would like to see in the bill somewhere mention of uninhabited islands John Stuart Thank you just in 1930 of course Herta which is the only uninhabited part of the St Kilda group was actually part of Indonesia rather than the western isles but that's history and doesn't matter amendment 10 in Liam McArthur's name I think does capture something quite important I will say however that if we choose to pass it now we may want to revisit the wording a little bit and I'm not concerned about the use of the word may and my specific issue is uninhabited islands etc etc and associated ecosystems which contribute to the economy of an uninhabited island now I could make the argument if I wish to that Australia or an uninhabited island off the coast of Australia by the climate change issue contributes to the natural heritage and economy of an uninhabited island in Scotland I don't think we're actually trying to capture that as part of what we're trying to legislate here but I'm content with the generality of where this amendment is trying to take us but we might have to look at whether that is actually what we mean which I don't think it is and perhaps tweak this amendment stage through if Liam McArthur successfully braids the committee now or brings it back in a modified form that's a matter for him now turning to John Mason's plethora of amendments all of which address exactly the same point I've just got a very simple issue with what he's trying to do the words he's using I don't know what an outcome for an island is I just don't know what it means I know what an outcome for people on an island can mean but an island has no personality in a legal sense I just don't know what it means and I think there is a danger in putting it in there that we dilute the importance of what we're focusing on in 3-2 et al when we focus on island communities I think we really are trying to legislate in this bill to make lives better for the people who are on islands that is the core purpose we've just had the discussion of purpose act which properly said island communities in the purpose albeit we're not presenting with that yet and I think there is a danger yes he will I mean would you accept that for an uninhabited island having a community on it would be a positive outcome yes but I'm not sure that's an outcome for the island that's an outcome for the community that would then be on an island but I'm conflicted on this because to be quite straightforward about it I just think the formulation that Mr Mason has brought forward is not one until I'm persuaded that I should do so that I feel inclined support Peter Chapman followed by Rich Laugh Thank you convener I do agree with Liam McArthur's amendment 10 as I think it's important that uninhabited islands are referred to in the key definitions of this bill in sections 1 and 2 of the bill we speak about an island we speak about inhabited islands and we speak about island communities there is no reference to uninhabited islands and I think it's important that there should be because as we've already heard uninhabited islands although they have no constituents they still have natural heritage and cultural heritage that needs to be respected also some smaller uninhabited islands maybe neighbours to larger inhabited islands with fishing interests for instance which would require them to be mentioned also so amendment 10 I support John Mason's list of amendments which are mainly technical in nature but I think they are correct and I would support the whole gamut of the amendments in this section Thank you Richard I'm tended to support Liam McArthur's amendment in regard to John Mason's basically I would ask John to withdraw them and discuss with the minister I don't doubt his enthusiasm with the amendments and as he knows the definition of an island is land surrounded no sides by the sea but he said would bring in every piece of rock that's above water at high tide and that seems a bit of a large expansion I would suggest that he possibly wishes to withdraw and discuss with the minister for stage 3 I support Liam McArthur's but I want not to support Mr Mason I've finished I'll bring John in very briefly and then I'm going to come to the minister so John, sorry I certainly support Liam McArthur's amendment and I speak in support of John Mason's and I think we can dance around and I appreciate that lawyers will chore for other than where there was but there can be outcomes that are uninhabited of course there can be there can be positive environmental outcomes which have wider ramifications so I'll be in support of that where he depressed it Thank you John, I'm not going to come to the minister Thank you I welcome the opportunity to speak to this group on uninhabited islands and I appreciate that it has become an issue of significance for many the focus of this bill is on improving outcomes for people those who live and work on islands uninhabited islands in the seas around Scotland of course the three inland islands not covered however I was always keen to stress that this did not exclude the importance of other islands which are uninhabited but which are important features of Scotland's natural and cultural heritage the two that have often been mentioned I think even today have been St Kilda as an obvious example of course Ailsa Craig whose claim to fame is in relation to curling stones to that effect there is nothing to prevent the national islands plan making reference to and provisioned for uninhabited islands however there are also instances when a group of islands in close proximity some inhabited, some not can have an interdependence or indeed a linked interest that acknowledgement means that Liam McArthur's amendment 10 is very worthy of consideration for that reason I'd be happy to support amendment 10 I do however have a technical concern about the amendment and how easily understood section 2 would be in the bill if the amendment 10 was inserted in its current form and I think that St Kilda's team has also referenced some of the issues around perhaps the wording section 2 does have a particular structure and we'd be adding four lines to it which don't seem to fit so I'd be happy to work with the member and perhaps he can work with our legal team in terms of wording on that but notwithstanding that I'm more than happy to support what I think is a very worthy amendment I'm hoping in support of in supporting amendment 10 then there shouldn't really be a need for John Mason to necessarily press his amendments so I'm hoping he will withdraw I can see what the member was trying to do but I was concerned that in his enthusiasm he was potentially widening the scope of the bill beyond what we in Parliament intended his amendments expanded the duties in relation to island communities to islands more generally this would mean that for every island off the coast of Scotland no matter how where it was sorry or how small each relevant authority would need to consider the impact in relation to the island notwithstanding that there would be no effect on island inhabitants or communities from a quick cursory glance we're talking about about 800 islands that is a significant extension from the 90 the bill currently covers I'm not sure that is what the member intended at all but it would certainly lead to a lot of potentially unnecessary work and indeed cost it's also worth noting that other duties of course I mean I would concede at this point that both Mr Lyle and the minister have made a valid point that I was not thinking of the Bass Rock for example and there would be an issue because we have not consulted I think that's probably with East Lothian we've only consulted with the six council areas and I was thinking primarily of islands in the six council areas so I'm willing to concede that that is a valid point thank you maybe I should quit while I'm ahead with and join Mason and concession but I'll just end on saying it's worth noting that other duties, laws and policies relating for example to the protection of wildlife biodiversity, the marine environment, fisheries they will apply to uninhabited islands so their quote unquote their wellbeing is already being supported in a range of ways by public bodies however there may also be an opportunity to put a reference to uninhabited islands into the national islands plan I'd be happy to work with John Mason before stage 3 to see what can be done in the national islands plan in particular so that his concerns are addressed so happy to support the mcarthus amendment 10 I would ask John Mason not to move the amendments in his name thank you minister and I now call on Leah McArthur to wind up the debate and press or withdraw your amendment thank you can we just point out that one man's mental is another man's weak and it would appear that the gentle approach may be the most appropriate one to adopt in certain circumstances can I thank all those who have made their contributions and for their support I fully recognise that the amendment as it currently is framed will need some work to it hopefully perhaps an opportunity to reflect some of what I think John Mason was trying to achieve with his amendments I'd certainly take on board the point about some islands aren't necessarily dependent on the other islands around them but perhaps to the mainland and if we can reflect that better in adaptations to this amendment at stage 3 I'm more than happy to do that I'm delighted to hear from Stuart that back in the 1930s that the fact that Herta was part of Invernesia would no doubt have led to screaming headlines about centralisation gone mad even back then but nevertheless as I say I'm very happy to work with the minister and with John Mason ahead of stage 3 and we'll move amendment 10 in my name thank you very much the question therefore we have to ask is an amendment 10 be agreed are we all agreed yes we are agreed so the next question is that section 2 be agreed are we all agreed yes thank you so I now call amendment 29 in the name of Colin Smyth group with amendments 80, 81, 26 and 27 Colin Smyth to move amendment 29 in the group please thank you very much amendment 29 provides a definition of Ireland's authorities within the list of key definitions I submitted this amendment alongside amendments number 80 and 81 on local empowerment and the devolution of powers to clarify who is referred to in those amendments if amendments 80 and 81 are passed these are the local authorities who would have the capacity to devolve powers if I turn now just to talk about amendment number 80 this would create a mechanism allowing ministers to devolve specific powers if a case could be demonstrated under this amendment Ireland authorities could make a request to ministers arguing their case and ministers would have to make a decision and if rejecting the request to explain the reasons why ministers would be able to issue guidance on how this power could be used the committee urged the Government to consider such a mechanism although the Government did say that the local democracy bill would be a better vehicle I think that amendment 80 is very reasonable and workable power it would in power island communities and allow them to be more proactive and taking actions to address local problems this is the kind of bold action that the bill I believe currently lacks if the government are not opposed to this in principle then I believe that there is no reason to wait until the local democracy bill when you could bring it forward at this stage turning to amendment number 81 this creates a process for how retrospective impact assessments would work it would create a mechanism for island authorities to submit a request to the minister to amend existing primary or secondary legislation where a detrimental effect on island communities can be demonstrated as with the previous amendment the islands authorities must make their case and ministers must respond and if rejecting again explain the reasons why this would not create an unreasonable burden and certainly wouldn't require all pass legislation to be checked as some people have suggested it would simply ensure that problems in existing legislation when they are highlighted can be addressed I think that this bill is supposed to be bought in power and island communities yet local authorities are not being trusted at this stage to use this power responsibly I appreciate that Tavish Scott does have an amendment two amendments amendment 26 and 27 which are similar to my amendment 80 I suppose the difference is my amendment sets out a mechanism for additional powers but I am happy to listen to the debate on the further amendments I now call on Tavish Scott to speak to amendment 26 and other amendments in the group Tavish amendment 26 as Colin Smyth rightly says is broadly similar to 80 although Colin Smyth commendably puts more detail into the mechanism by which this would be done but it does amendment 26 simply creates a mechanism to allow local authorities to make requests for additional powers it is important to reference make requests not demand but make requests and I think that is a reasonable approach to an issue which the island authorities in particular and I respect the fact that we are dealing with more than just them in this context do have some reasonable case to make the bill itself makes provision for an application to be made for additional powers and re-licensing I think that the minister mentioned that earlier on I think that is a commendable approach and Orkneyans Council and others indeed have argued that there should be similar provision for a more general power over a range of competencies that is a process that has some broad similarity to the community empowerment Scotland Act 2015 so there seems to be a consistency there the only other observation I would make is that I appreciate the Government's argument is that there is a Government's review under way looking at which is, I think, if I'm still correct me is joint working between COSLA and the Government central Government while I have the greatest respect for COSLA there are times in my lifetime where the island authorities have been somewhat left out by those discussions and what I think this does either the amendment in the name of Colin Smyth or 26 is to simply put the authorities that do have these island responsibilities centipace in this argument and on that basis convener I would so move Thank you Tavish I'd like now to call Stuart Stevenson followed by John Finnie Thank you very much convener Right, my first comment is on amendment 29 which is just as much as anything a drafting issue it's always unhelpful to repeat a list twice in a bill and the list at the 29 after section 2 at 1 would introduce is already present in exactly the same form in the schedule to the bill and lists are always better being in schedules as a matter of drafting of the bill are actions that require to be taken rather than lists but the bottom line is the list should occur once in the bill not twice and indeed there is already powers for the ministers to amend the list so 29 if you were to require an amendment to that point I would suggest that it would have to read just by pointing at the list in the schedule that would be the proper way but that's a drafting point and not a substantive point that needs to detain us terribly long turning to more substantive point which relates to Colin Smyth's amendment 80 I've got and to some extent this also applies to Tavish Scott's amendment Tavish Scott in and I'll perhaps speak on Tavish Scott because in his remarks he specifically said that his amendment 26 is to allow local authorities to make requests it's news to me that they're currently forbidden from making requests I merely made that point I don't think this creates a new power for local authorities in any way shape or form I accept it creates a structure within which such requests can be made but I don't think intrinsically that it creates a new power and of course that same observation can essentially be made about Colin Smyth's amendment now the detail of Colin Smyth's amendment there are quite a lot of real difficulties in it if I look at section 1 may make a request to promote legislation devolving functions to the authority well let me just make an obvious point that devolution isn't simply a legislative process in relation to the Scottish Parliament's powers we do have we have legislation passed at Westminster that devolves legislative competence to the Scottish Parliament that's good we also have secondary legislation that has devolved administrative competence an example would be section 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 question mark that's the right year that allows Scottish ministers to approve requests for generation consent that's 36 and 37 for transmission lines that's devolved and then there is a lower level of devolution to this Parliament which simply relates to ministers and Parliament by agreement by letter by co-agreement agreeing that powers which lie with ministers will be exercised by people elsewhere so I think the whole issue of devolution is oversimplified in the way in which Colin Smyth has drafted this and carries with the danger that we might think it's only about one particular way of dealing with this and I'm very anxious that we ensure that island communities have the maximum opportunity to maximise their individual and specific opportunities now it also is quite is quite lax in a sense and I don't understand what this means at three where it says the island's authority must submit a business case which provides evidence of community support, including support of island communities and I'm not quite sure how that can be undertaken is that to be done in the same way that community buyouts have done by a ballot of people within particular postal areas because of course it may not simply be particularly in the island authorities the three island authorities is it to be the whole of the island authorities who have to demonstrate support or is it only the community that is directly affected by the particular devolution that is sought so I'm very very unclear and I think it's just simply not in a form and then finally of course the coup de grace for this particular amendment is the within three months I just any of us who have been ministers and there are two of us sitting before the committee Tavish and myself who I think know that that is a very ambitious I admire the ambition but I think I have to gently I've taken five bills through Parliament and I can advise the committee there isn't the faintest chance of that kind of timescale Tavish Scots timescale of course is a year in essence so it's a way but won't satisfy it in broad terms I just simply can't persuade myself that I'm going to be supporting this set of amendments however worthy the intention behind the amendments is and I'm as anxious as any other member of the committee or any island dweller to make sure that we maximise the opportunities that come from the island bill Thank you Stuart, that was quite a long discussion phrase I'm going to move on to John Finnie for you and then I'm going to come to the deputy committee Gail Ross Well it is the case that we're making law here and I think we all want to make very good law and I think it's also important that we discuss what our intentions are and maybe refine the wording so to get maybe a negative out of the way first and Colin's amendment 81 I think any organisation should as a process be reviewing all its policies and principles on a on-going basis and if there is a deficiency whether that relates to its application to islands, to cities, to rural communities then that should be addressed so I would hope that that wouldn't be a huge administrative exercise and I think when this bill is passed as inevitably it will be that will be focus minds of all the people in the schedule to look to see what we can do so the issue of retrospection clearly has to be discussed and addressed but I don't think it's a huge process but turning to the substantive one here 80 in Colin's name and 26 in Tavish Scot's name taking a different approach doesn't fragment things in fact if we get that approach right it binds people together so I think that this is an opportunity in both these amendments in 80 to look at what we should be planning to do here and that is devolve as much as we can reasonably devolve so whether that's functions, powers I think it's important that we take the opportunity that this legislation provides to do that and I'll certainly be supportive of both 80 and 26 thank you John Gelruss thank you convener to start off Colin Smith's amendment 80 I absolutely agree that it's good to have deadlines for these sort of things because I think it does focus minds I will disagree with Stewart Stevenson, I don't think you have to be a minister to realise that within three months and within six months is possibly quite constraining so for that reason and also it says it again they've got the three months and the six months I just wonder if Colin Smith could explain why he came up with the three and six months was there a legal reason behind it or that would be I'm sure he'll intervene if he needs to as for 80 we did hear from island communities about retrospective legislation and indeed when we were in Orkney, Orkney and Shetland came up with several examples that we could be looking at right now and again have great sympathy for these I just don't know if it's the right place to have them within the bill in such details we haven't again we've got the three and six months but I'll be interested to hear what the minister has to say on that point to move on to Tavish Scott's amendment I would just a couple of points about the wording on three must demonstrate reasonable cause and must not unreasonably refuse those seem to be quite subjective points and just wondered if the wording for that is quite right and I think for section sorry amendment 80 and also amendment 26 when we visited all the islands that we went to and spoke to all the island communities it wasn't just the local authorities that communities wanted to be consulted it was actually the islanders themselves and I don't see anything within those amendments that actually consults lower than local authority level thank you and of course Colin you can respond to that when you do your summing up at the end so the next person is Peter Chapman followed by Mike Rumbles thanks first of all amendment 29 29 on my right 29 in Colin Smith's name I agree with that I think it just makes pragmatic sense that we understand what the island authorities are and they are listed there and we can just refer to them as island authorities from their own so I think that we can support that I can intervention and explain why we need to have a second list when the list is already present and the bill is drafted in the schedule sorry can I just say that ask for an intervention and then don't leap straight into the question because the member may not wish to take the intervention I'm sure now that he's heard the question he'll definitely want to answer Mr Chapman I take the point that maybe they've already been listed but I think it does no harm to clarify the point again so I can support Colin Smith's amendment on that basis and as far as amendment 8 is concerned I agree with the sentiment but we have recognised that this is a community empowerment bill we want to empower everyone in the islands and the community not simply hand over increasing powers to councils with islands that are islands authority I think a similar point that Gail Ross was making I agree with that and we've got to recognise that many councils are already stretched in with budget cuts and I don't know if they have the resources to manage this and I'm not sure it's exactly what the bill is set out to do so I'm not I've simply with it but I don't think it's in the format it's in and I can support it and 81 similarly I think the same argument is relevant there and to a large extent the Tavish Scots amendment 26 I have similar thoughts on that again I appreciate the sentiment but I don't think I'm not sure this is for the bill to decide I think it causes imbalances if different authorities are requesting different powers each island will have its own experience and therefore you could end up with a mis-shape and an overrule that could end up in a bit of a mess I'm grateful for the member taking intervention would the member accept that quite often we hear indeed from a number of benches not only his own benches that one size doesn't fit all and the test is important to have responses and policies and practices that apply to the different areas that are across from it I take John Finne's argument and I think I have some sympathy with the thing but I just feel that it maybe goes too far and it might be it might be a step further than I would like to support and likewise 27 follows on from that so for the same reason I'll be saying no at the 27 Mike Rumbles, followed by Richard Lam Thank you, convener. It's interesting it's curious that John had just mentioned John Finnie had just mentioned phrase one size doesn't fit all and I've just written that down in response to what Peter had been saying because I often hear Peter Chapman saying that so I'm surprised to find Peter takes that view I have to say all these amendments are good ones between Colin Smith and Tavish Scott I think Tavish Scott's amendment is much better in as much as that it doesn't it doesn't put the timescale in I do think I listened to what Gayle Ross has just said I think the timescale is difficult but I mean that's the good thing about as I said earlier on about having stage 2 and stage 3 so we could choose either of them but my preference would be Tavish Scott simply because I responded to the comment earlier on a relevant local authority must demonstrate reasonable cause for making a request and that the Scottish ministers must not unreasonably refuse to grant the request those are legal terms actually so people do know what those mean and they are therefore reasonable and I think being a reasonable person and I'm sure most people around this table or nearly everybody around this table today is a reasonable person and I think that Tavish Scott has a better stab at this at the moment than Colin but we can of course change these things at stage 3 Richard Lyle and then I'm going to come to the minister unfortunately I don't think I could support Colin Smith's amendment or Tavish Scott's and the point that Stuart seriously made basically the points are in there and I think that Peter Chapman having previously been a councillor for decades on the mention in many years I found that 32 councils in Coesla 32 councils have 32 different ways of doing things it's commonly called local democracy and on that night we'll move to the minister thank you I'm going to ask of course both members not to press their amendments but I will come to Tavish Scott's I think that they have more appeal to them and see if I can work with Tavish Scott before stage 3 to try to give some effect to what he's trying to achieve if I may perhaps I'll speak first to the Government's policy we are committed to the principle of subsidiarity that means of course that decisions should be democratically accountable and taken as close as possible to the people that they may affect reasonably it took an important step on the community empowerment journey when the Scottish Government stood with Coesla to launch the local governance review last December which a couple of members have referenced notwithstanding the points that Tavish Scott made that perhaps island communities and island authorities don't always feel like their views are always perhaps at the forefront that is again something that we can reflect on in terms of local governance review and the legislative measures we're bringing forward the review of course looks to reform the way that Scotland is governed at the local level the approach is being shaped by listening very carefully to the development of ideas on this issue for example the Coesla backed commission on strengthening local democracy the key element of the review will be for the Scottish Government to invite individual local authorities, community planning partnerships, regional partnerships and other public sector organisations to propose place specific alternative approaches to governance one size fits all solutions risk failing to recognise the huge diversity of Scotland that's why we're interested in new local decision making arrangements that have been designed with particular places firmly in mind extensive engagement with communities will also begin shortly in order to surface the best ideas on how to transform local democracy in Scotland that again island communities will have a stake and a role to play in this we are obviously committed to introducing as members have already referenced a local democracy bill in this Parliament this will provide a more appropriate legislative option to make new place specific governance arrangements including potentially those which include or specifically for island authorities this would be a good example of island proofing in action these changes would sit alongside and complement legislative provisions to decentralise more powers to local communities more generally in last year's programme for government we made a commitment to support those island authorities who want to establish a single authority model of delivering local services and we know that island authorities are already already actively working with local partners to develop some concrete proposals these will be considered as part of the review process and we look forward to supporting new local governance arrangements which can help our island communities to thrive these amendments would pre-empt this work and could lead to a missed opportunity for the islands or result in a lack of coherence with new decision making arrangements that are later introduced so while the Government certainly agrees with the spirit of these amendments we believe that it is necessary that for something as fundamental as a transfer of powers it needs to go through a proper and rigorous engagement and consultation process including of course with local communities not just with a local authority something which has not yet happened and could be best achieved through the local governance review process I therefore cannot support the amendments as they stand although as I say the amendments from Tavish Scott certainly have more appeal to me in the use of regulations to set out the process so there may be something in this as long as we are mindful of the local governance review and as I say I'd be willing to work with the member before stage 3 to withdraw his amendments we can take forward that conversation in the group and as I say for Tavish Scott not to move them but to work with us Amendment 81 from Colin Smyth is another interesting proposal the amendment would create a duty on the Scottish ministers to have regard to requests from island authorities in respect to improving or mitigating existing primary or secondary legislation for island communities the amendment sets out the process and the timescales and there has been a lot of good conversation around this from those that have been ministers as backbenchers in terms of the timescales involved so while I understand the thinking behind this amendment I don't think it's necessary as things stand right now any island authority can come forward to ministers with concerns they have regarding pieces of legislation they can set out their concerns in ways described in the amendment and we will respond to that in my dealings in fact with the six local authorities and let me know of any difficulties they are encountering Gail Ross Does the minister have because as I said in my remarks earlier we did hear about existing legislation that has possibly happened a negative effect on some of the islands have any of the island authorities come forward with any requests at present a number of local authorities have said that they are working on concrete plans and they are not always to do with legislation sometimes they are to do with guidance so house building regulations and insulation guidance and a few other issues that actually some members will touch upon in their amendments later on have often been brought to me in fact the last discussion I had on this with local authorities was in Millport where we had the convention of Highlands and Islands and I met with the six authorities and I reiterated that offer and a couple of them indicated that they will be coming forward to looking at legislation but they said they would come forward with that but they also said they would look at opportunities for further devolution and where they thought there could be some proactive movement on that so that is in train I understand that we are short for time I would just make the point that I think other members have made just to reiterate to the convener from past experience where one island authority has indicated that they have difficulties with the requirements of a particular piece of legislation there are sometimes other island authorities who have no issue with that very same piece of legislation so the problem might be more local implementation there is a risk with the provision like amendment 81 that we create a system that could lead to endless requests to change legislation before it's even properly being embedded or indeed implemented I'm satisfied that the powers already in the bill on island proofing will give practical effect to what Mr Smith is trying to achieve with his amendment just on the timescale say things I would say that the requirements within the amendment the legislation must come forward within six months are also not practical to bring forward a bill we obviously need time to consult a standard of three months then to instruct and to draft assuming no tricky legal issues come up during consultation to work to such a timescale address the creation of bad and ineffectual legislation or indeed worse legislation that could potentially be out with the Parliament's competence even if ministers initially supported a proposal there may be other constraints on us bringing forward that legislation we know that there is a long established process for bringing forward legislation including members' bills and others but I fear that if the introduction of this provision could become the default starting position for island authorities if they don't like a particular piece of legislation rather than engaging proactively through the means that we already have on that basis I would urge Colin Smith and other members not to support that amendment I am now going to call on Colin Smith to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment please I believe strongly that amendments 29, 80 and 81 take forward very clear recommendations from this committee I don't agree with Stuart Stevenson that there are existing mechanisms in place if those existing mechanisms were satisfactory then we have a discussion about future legislation on local democracy I think that a number of points that have been made on the detail of the amendment are valid I think that they can be tidied up at stage 3, for example on the issues of timescales I mean one of the things that I've discovered quite early on as an MSP is that when the Government promises to do something unless there's a very clear timescale then you can't hold your breath spring sometimes for the local year and a half I've got commitments to do something in spring last year or even longer as Stuart Stevenson has just told me speaking from clear experience I'm sure I take on board the points that are made about timescales but I believe that they can be amended at stage 3 and the Government can put in what they regard as a realistic timescale but I think that timescales are important to focus people's minds and the final point that I'd make is that Peter Chapman made the point that the request for those powers actually comes from the island authorities I don't think that as a committee we should be telling those authorities what's good for them we should be listening to what those authorities want and that's why they've requested that this be dealt with as part of the island's bill so I'm happy to put forward my amendments That therefore leads to a question and the question is is amendment 29 agreed? Are we agreed? We are not agreed, I call a division Can I ask those in favour of amendment 29 to raise their hands please? Those against Thank you, therefore there are no abstentions we have six votes four and five against therefore the amendment is agreed and at that stage I'm going to briefly suspend the meeting for five minutes but I would ask members to be promptly back here in five minutes to reconvene so I'll suspend the meeting for five minutes I'd like to reconvene the meeting of the rural economy and connectivity committee to consider the island's bill I'd now like to ask the minister to move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group Minister This group is about the content of the plan and there are a large number of amendments in it if they are all agreed section 3 would go from two subsections to 15 so I think it's fair to say in relation to the group and others we'll need to take stock of how the bill ends up after stage 2 consideration to see what needs to be revisited at stage 3 To ensure the amended bill becomes the most effective legislation it can be with our shared ambition for the national island's plan and what it can achieve appropriately reflected in this legislation In this group I will discuss the other amendments after explaining amendment 1 and 2 in my name We've already discussed some of the issues around high-level objectives in group 1 when we discuss the purpose of the act As I said out again today I think that the purpose of the national island's plan is a more meaningful place to deliver the aims of the committee for high-level objectives to be incorporated into the bill My amendment 1, which I've brought forward seeks to adjust language in section 3 to make the purpose of the plan clear on the face of the bill The purpose of preparing a national island's plan is to set out the main objective of the strategy of the Scottish ministers in relation to improving outcomes for island communities Amendment 2 expands on the term improving outcomes It sets out that improving outcomes for island communities includes the three underpinning objectives listed in the amendment that is sustainable economic development health and wellbeing and community empowerment My level objectives encapsulate the evidence that committee heard during stage 1 and go to the heart of what we're trying and attempting to do to improve the lives of those who live and work on our islands This does not limit what can be included in the plan but will help to provide strategic direction, focusing resources and where necessary targets in key areas of activity I hope that members will support these amendments today though I recognise that members may will have a view on a mission and what might usefully be added to the strategic objectives I would of course be willing to engage and work with and listen to any of members who feel that this section can be further improved before stage 3 I also recognise that through the committee's evidence gathering there's been a wide variety of opinion on how prescriptive we should be on the face of the bill as regards to the areas that the plans will cover While I recognise there are specific issues that members might wish to put more detail on the face of the bill I would urge some caution on reports that consultation should be undertaken as widely as possible and also when the committee scrutinises the draft plan laid before this Parliament it will wish to be assured that the priority areas featured in the plan reflect the actual priority of islanders To therefore place very specific detailed points on the face of the bill at this stage seems to me to go against that very spirit of the stage 1 recommendation from the committee and prejudges of island communities That's not to say that ferries, broadband and other topics won't appear in the plan I've got no doubt in fact that they absolutely will It just seems to me that it's unfair to island communities and other stakeholders to present a prepopulated plan for them to just simply tinker around the edges That is not my aim, I'm certain of any members around this table as well as Parliament having a role in setting the parameters and aspirations for the plan We need, of course, appropriate time and we need to allow external input as well Amendment 2A from Colin Smyth seeks to add to the high-level objective list by including taking steps to increase the population of islands The goal of achieving population growth and the long-term future sustainability of island communities is something that we're all in agreement with and therefore I'm happy to support that amendment I want to go on to the other members' amendments that is this form of amendment as put forward by Colin Smyth where we can perhaps find some common ground as to the objective but does not prescribe what the solution would necessarily be If I turn to amendment 11 from Tavish Scott I'm aware of the members' keen interest in the Crown Estate through a variety of conversations that we have had He'll be aware of the on-going dialogue with the Scottish Government and now the Crown Estate Scotland interim management with island authorities and others on the issues of transferring or delegating the functions of managing the Crown Estate to local authorities I understand the reasoning for the members' amendment but the Scottish ministers have shown the commitment to further reform of the Scottish Crown Estate We've consulted on proposals to reform before the devolution from the UK level was completed on 1 April 2017 and we laid a bill in January The consultation promoted the prospect of a phased approach with further devolution of assets in the island being considered under a first phase of reforms The members' amendment seeks to include in the island's bill legal requirements relating to the process of planning for delegation of management of the Scottish Crown Estate This would lead to a confusing position as the requirements for planning reforms to management would be split across two pieces of legislation The Scottish Crown Estates Bill could interfere with planning under the Scottish Crown Estates Bill The amendment is not necessary as it stands and presents some technical problems Section 20 of the Scottish Crown Estate Bill requires a national strategic plan to be prepared and section 21 requires that plan to be reviewed every five years That being the case, the appropriate place for planning the future of the Scottish Crown Estate is in the plans of its managers and the island's plan should not predetermine the content of that national strategic plan Requiring the intentions over the next five years could frustrate the policy foundation of part 2 of the Scottish Crown Estates Bill I would be happy to explore with Mr Scott and, indeed, Roseanna Cunningham, the lead minister on the Crown Estate how we might better address the effect he is trying to achieve and therefore invite Mr Scott not to move his amendment Amendment 12 from Liam McArthur I fully understand Mr McArthur's desire to see ferry specifically referenced within the plan, given the importance of those services, not only obviously to Orkney but also to island communities right across Scotland. There's no doubt that ferries and, indeed, wider transport issues will, of course, be covered in detail within the national island's plan and I can give that undertaking Reliable and efficient transport connections whether it's by ferries or on the plains are hugely important to our island communities and in many instances are regarded as lifeline services, therefore without question as I say, happy to on the record give a commitment that there will be prominent in any future national island's plan In terms of the specific detail of Mr McArthur's amendment he won't, I suspect, be surprised to discover I don't think it's necessary at least in the level of detail that's being put forward Take, for example, the Scottish Government Back in 2012 we produced our first ever Scottish ferries plan covering the period 2013 to 2022 This was the result of extensive analytical consultation work I've recently signalled that we will renew this and produce a new plan in good time for the expiry of the current one This again will be included, of course, engagement with stakeholders extensive analytical consultation work and so on and so forth That new plan, of course, will also be island-proof given the statutory duties in this bill I also want to see the new ferries plan within the context of the national transport strategy and the STPR The timescales of the new ferries plan will not, however, be deliverable ahead of, for example, the first national island's plan So for all these reasons I want to support the member's amendment today but I'm happy again to work with Mr MacArthur to explore if we might better address the effect he tries to achieve So I would ask him and urge him not to press his amendments Turning to amendment 13 which, again, is from Liam MacArthur I think everybody recognises the huge challenge that fuel poverty presents in communities right across Scotland and can I also give credit to Liam MacArthur because I know he's raised this issue which is particularly acute in Orkney on a number of occasions in this Parliament the members are very aware that the Scottish Government has just recently concluded a consultation on new fuel poverty strategy responses are currently being considered and will help inform the development of that draft strategy to be published in May as well as inform the warm homes bill which is due to be introduced in Parliament before this summer As members will be aware fuel poverty is not just an island's issue our aim is to ensure that we direct help to anyone suffering from the impacts of fuel poverty We've consulted on rural and island issues and will seek to island proof the warm home bills ahead of introduction That said, Ms MacArthur's amendment as it stands would predetermine how elements of the warm home bills the strategy and the delivery priorities are set out before Parliament has had the chance to fully examine them potentially limiting its options and I would say hindering the parliamentary scrutiny process For those reasons I can't support the amendment to work with Ms MacArthur and the Minister for Housing to arrange a meeting to explore how we can ensure the particular needs of island communities in relation to fuel poverty are reflected in the legislation to solve On that front I would invite Ms MacArthur not to move his amendment with that guarantee On amendment 14 from Tavish Scott in similar vein to the Scottish Government he knows, I'm sure, is committed to extending Superfast broadband across Scotland by the end of 2021 Procurement is well under way a competitive dialogue to a dialogue phase with a shortlisted bidders We expect to have suppliers in place and ready to start to live in early 2019 The current the DSSB programme has transformed broadband for islands as you know thanks to our investment and that of our partners new subsea fibre cables have been deployed and extensive fibre coverage on Orkney, Shetland and the west island so our commitment is absolutely there and the coverage of the footprint to be delivered by the successful R100 bidders and a detailed deployment plan will only be confirmed at the end of the procurement process at the turn of the year so absolutely committed the member acknowledges the procurement deliverability of projects and this scale does require many months of proper investigation before timescales and targets can be identified so I caution against suggesting that the targets can be brought forward by nine months as suggested by the member's amendment but it can be met sooner than of course that would be welcomed by everybody including by Government so in conclusion I cannot support the amendment as drafted but as previously indicated with other amendments in this grouping be happy and more than happy to explore with the member an alternative form of wording to ensure the importance of digital connectivity to our island communities is recognised within the plan I hope that those reassurances can urge Mr Scott not to move his amendment amendment 15 again from Tavish Scott on discussions between the Scottish Government and UK Government and Islands Three Holy Island councils about the possibility of a future islands deal I completely understand the intention of the amendment and I appreciate the member obviously as a clear constituency interest I would like to reassure all members that the Scottish Government has committed 100% to 100% coverage of Scotland with growth deals including our Scottish islands in line with recommendations made by local government and communities committee following their inquiry into city region deals and asked the UK Government to make a clear commitment to join us in that common purpose and agree a timescale for doing so Government officials are in dialogue with local government and other colleagues leading to the development of an islands deal and it's something that I have discussed also with island local authorities I don't think that this amendment is the best way to ensure progress indeed in seeking to oblige the UK Government to be part of an islands deal through primary legislation I think that arguably the amendment might not even be competent but the Scottish Government has successfully delivered region deals with the UK Government already more are in the pipeline we don't need primary legislation to deliver these deals or work hard towards our focus on 100% coverage of Scotland with growth deals so I therefore ask Mr Scott not to move his amendment bit of course as always as I've said happy to have a discussion and dialogue about how we can make best progress towards an islands deal amendment 16 is from John Finnie it calls on the Scottish ministers to set out in the plan a strategy for the maintenance of biosecurity of Scotland's islands in order to protect the unique natural heritage cultural heritage and economy I've discovered in recent days biosecurity is a broad term that encompasses many aspects of disease and harm prevention good biosecurity has the potential to protect wildlife fragile ecosystems and animal and indeed excuse me and indeed public health the Scottish Government is fully supportive the measures biosecurity is collaborative and we recognise the essential roles that stakeholders, the wider industry and the local councils play in maintaining good biosecurity this is demonstrated in the biosecurity codes and the plans that the Scottish Government has already agreed with a number of sectors so while I appreciate the members amendment I don't feel that similar to other group amendments in this grouping I do not feel that the face of the bill is the right place for the level of detail that the amendment seeks for ministers and other authorities it is however a very interesting and commendable proposal and I am again willing to explore with the member perhaps an alternative form of words ahead of stage 3 to ensure that this important issue is recognised within the plan amendment 31 from Jamie Greene as indicated in our response to the committee stage 1 report we would anticipate the plan would indeed include a series of outcomes targets and measurable indicators such as government activities to allow for monitoring and assessment of its progress I am sure that the member will acknowledge that those will vary therefore it is not always possible to give a guarantee that every single objective especially high-level objectives covered by the plan can realistically be measured on that basis as it stands I do not think that the Government can support this amendment but if the member is willing following the conclusion of stage 2 I am happy to explore with him what the Government could support and I therefore urge the member not to move his amendment Amendment 32 again from Jamie Greene is the final amendment in the scripting and seeks to ensure that the plan lists the public authorities that have duties under the act in principle I have no issue with no objections supporting this amendment requiring the plan to list authorities I do wonder if it is necessary it would be helpful to hear from the member in the first instance before agreeing to accept it the schedule that accompanies the bill already lists all the relevant authorities that have duties in relation to island communities I know that my appearance on 8 November the member had questions around the reference to Scottish ministers in the schedule and whether that included all Scottish Government agencies I am told that it is normal for an act to refer to the Scottish ministers which is a relevant legal person under the Scotland act so that all agencies without naming them that is desirable as ministerial agencies can be created and of course can change over time if that is the reason behind his amendment then rather than moving his amendment today perhaps a member would consider withdrawing it at this stage with a view to exploring with me the best way to achieving the clarity seeks to close a move amendment in my name amendment 1 thank you minister and there are quite a lot of members now to speak and I ask you to concentrate on the particular amendment so I am going to ask Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 2A and the other amendments in the group thank you very much very briefly 2A seeks to amend amendment 2 under the minister's name to include action on depopulation I think that this is one of the key challenges facing island communities and it is important that it is included in the plan's aim and I welcome the minister's support for that and I feel sympathy for the aims of those amendments but I'll listen to what members have to say when putting them forward thank you Colin Tavish Scott spoke to amendment 11 and the other amendments in the group thank you very much convener can I appreciate the tone of the minister's remarks it's always difficult to issue a great rant in response to a minister who's entirely reasonable when knocking your amendments into touch but I'll do my best three points to make on the three amendments I've got amendment 11, 14 and 15 on the Cranestate on the Cranestate powers the minister made a very fair point of the staff's remarks about what policies are the actual priority of islanders I'm sure he would take the observation that the devolution of the seabed to the islands is unfinished business for the islands and very much a priority for islanders and that's what this amendment seeks to do I would argue that there is a difference between this particular aspect which after all was a commitment of the Smith commission very grateful to the cross-party support including the Deputy First Minister on the Smith commission for the very clear language on this particular issue and that I would argue is slightly different from the wider aspects in the National Strategic Plan on the Crown which the minister very fairly mentioned in his remarks and that is I think the one context the one aspect that I would ask the minister just to reflect on in his in his wind up but I take what he said on the other bill that his colleague Roseanna Cunningham has taken to Parliament on broadband again I take the minister's remark this is a government policy I entirely support in terms of what it seeks to achieve and I could argue also possibly not hugely successfully that this amendment actually is entirely complementary to the government's work but what I would say is that the broadband rollout is absolutely fundamental to any of the islands and in that sense the purpose of that amendment and on 15 finally convener there just should be an islands deal as well. I thought he might rather like my suggestion that he should tell the UK Government what to do but I take the spirit of what we're dealing with later this afternoon on the continuity bill that possibly I would be the least best person to make that argument given what I'll argue in a couple of hours time but I do think there's a really important role for that islands deal and again this amendment was to bring that in front of the committee because I believe that is a fundamentally important next stage in the development of the islands which in that sense is consistent with the bill and on that basis I would so move. Thank you Tavish. Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 12 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you convener and I have to start by thanking the minister for the tone and content of much of what he had to say amendments 12 and 13 follow a similar theme to Tavish Scots I believe there is bill and specifically the islands plan to ensure that safeguards and commitments are put in place to ensure the provision of services to island communities meet certain standards as a minimum in that the needs of island communities are not an afterthought is so often appears to be the case in terms of amendment 12 it deals with the issue of ferry services something I'm pleased to say that Tavish and I have managed to get the Parliament speaking rather a lot about over the last three or four months as the minister rightly acknowledged that the 2012 ferries plan does set out minimum standards for levels of service sadly though these are not always met and I think the lifeline internal services in Orkney are a case in point this can't continue I think the agreement around the budget paves the way for resolving that before deciding whether or not to press amendment 12 I'd seek the students from the minister that he will instill a degree of urgency to those negotiations with Orkney Islands Council in identifying a solution commit to updating Parliament ahead of the summer recess on progress and agree to help towards the funding of the business case upon which that longer term solution will need to be based turning to amendment 13 as colleagues will be aware Orkney has the very dubious honour of being the area with the highest proportion of fuel poor households anywhere in the country the government previously recognised the specific nature of fuel poverty in rural and island areas and the challenges in tackling it through the rural fuel poverty task force however as I understand it the revised definition of fuel poverty announced by ministers drives a coach and horses through this and risks artificially deflating fuel poverty levels in island and rural communities generally by as much as 20% and all the indications are that if that's the case the warm homes bill will fall far short of the needs of communities who desperately need a tailored approach to be taken those concerns have been raised by those active in fuel poverty measures in Orkney but across the islands and islands more widely and I welcome the use of recognition not just of my efforts but the efforts more widely and welcome also his commitment to work with myself and with the housing minister hopefully ahead of stage 3 on this bill to ensure that the concerns that have been raised will be properly picked up in the warm homes bill which will obviously follow on after the island's bill has been dealt with but on that to move on to stage 13. Thank you. I now call John Finnie to speak to amendments 16 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendment has been said is to insert a reference to biosecurity in the national islands plan in the section of the bill and I hear what the minister said about pre-populating the plan and we have the ever present debate about what shouldn't and shouldn't be in the face of the bill. Can I say in relation to this what I was going to say but invasive species are a major driver of biodiversity loss and islands are particularly vulnerable and putting in place this sort of system would not only protect the environment but also safeguard economic and agricultural interests as well and the experience suggests that this being in place would significantly reduce the risk of new incursions. The sort of thing that we are talking about is the eradication of mink, for instance, in the west Nile and the positive impact that that had for poultry, the clearing of rats from the shant islands and an issue such as the invasive species of stoats now in Orkney where it's an issue. Techniques are involvement and this was to seek explicit reference on the face of the bill to it but I do hear what the minister says and if he's minded to be supportive of this approach then I'm certainly very happy to discuss it appearing in the plan rather than the face of the bill. If I can touch briefly on some of the other amendments in the bill some of the the tidying up will be supported if I'm in the right section Mr Smith's one on island population certainly. Tavish Scott's comments about the devolution of the seabed I think are very important and I think this is a fundamental opportunity that shouldn't be lost. As regards the issue of the ferry services, of course very important and the minister acknowledges the huge challenge around fuel poverty and likewise that's very important and taking the approach that I hope perhaps my colleagues will take the approach that I've taken and not price this it's important that these issues are highlighted but I do concede that we need to promote them rather than necessarily having them in the face of the bill. I'll leave things there, thank you very much. Thank you for curtailing what you were saying. Now I call on Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 31 and other amendments in the group. Thank you convener again in the interest of time I'll shrink many of my comments as a very lengthy grouping section. I'll deal with 31 and 32 first in relation to the minister's comments. The intention behind 31 is to ensure that the objectives that are referred to in the island's plan are measurable. I think that's important for two reasons. The first is that a later amendment of mine 40 is around review of the act and its success thereof and I think that if objectives are not measurable in some way it's very difficult for ministers and indeed for us to see whether those objectives have been met or otherwise. I've been very purposely light on wording in this. I haven't said how they should be measured whether they should be targets whether they should be the different forms of how the minister chooses to measure whether the objectives are met or not but I think it's important that we do have some wording in there that they aren't just vague concepts that these objectives are able to be targeted in some way as the minister sees fit when he produces his plan. For that reason I would be minded to push amendment 31 still to ensure that there is language around the fact that objectives must be measurable unless the minister can persuade me otherwise when he sums up. 32 again. I see the point that he makes here. Let me explain why I've included this line in. When the minister produces his island's plan it is inevitable that it is public authorities and bodies who will have to deliver much of his plan. The schedule as it currently stands in the bill in my understanding of the schedule with the listed public authorities only relates to part 3 of the bill and that is the duties in relation to having regard to island communities. My interpretation of the bill is that the current schedule is only related to the delivery of part 3 of the bill not to part 2 which is around the delivery of the island's plan and for that reason I felt there was a gap there. I think it's important that I should add that I have specifically stated that the list of public authorities doesn't need to be in this bill it just needs to be in the plan. I'm not asking the minister to include all the public authorities under the jurisdiction of ministers to be on the face of this bill. I'm asking them to be listed in the plan so there's no ambiguity when the plan is produced which public authorities have to deliver the objective set in that plan. Again, I've intentionally left it so that it is incumbent on the plan to do so and addresses the technical issue the fact that the list in the schedule does not relate to the implementation of the island's plan. I hope that clarifies 31 and 32 and I hope that the minister will be supportive of the rationale behind them. Very briefly on some of the other points I think that we're happy to accept amendments 1 and 2 in the name of the minister. They do follow on nicely from the discussion we had around the purpose of the act. I think that these amendments at stage 2 have a very helpful purpose to hone in on some of the objectives that the plan should cover around sustainable economic development, health and wellbeing and community empowerment. Those are all very welcome additions. At this stage, I think that there may be room when we address this at stage 3 as a committee or as members to tighten that further but I think that that's a welcome addition from where we were before at stage 2 so I think that we'd be happy to support those. I've listened to the arguments from my colleagues Liam McArthur and Tavish Scott. I think that they make some very valid points. We had a very long conversation about these amendments and I think that they all raised some very valid issues around broadband access to islands with ferries and fuel poverty and I think that there's no doubt that these should be included in the plan but we had also a very long conversation as a committee around being specific on the face of the bill and the problem with creating lists is that they become non-exhaustive half a dozen other areas that I think should be in the plan and my worry has always been throughout this process is that we don't create lists as such but I wouldn't like to detract from these amendments and the reason they were included in the discussion today I think that there are really important issues to be addressed but for that reason alone I would be unable to support them because of the fact that I'm nervous about being specific about what should be in the plan on the face of the primary legislation. Thank you. Can I just say that there's a certain nervousness about this whole process of the legislation that we're looking at and then we've got the plan that the minister will come forward with at a later date and because of the process MSPs cannot alter the plan that the minister brings forward this is a bit like subordinate legislation so the only opportunity MSPs have to speak to get something on to the plan is to actually put it into the legislation now I hear what the minister says and I can first of all just say I do not doubt his sincerity when he says ferries will be prominent in the national islands plan I'm certain they will be my comments aren't focused on an individual minister and the next transport minister is in the room at the moment so being a transport minister I'm not sure how long an individual person will be in post I don't mean to be if I may put on record actually I have a very good relationship I hope with the minister for transport I think he does a good job and this is not meant to be personal what I'm trying to get across is the process that we're involved with here and because the national plan can be reviewed and is to be reviewed quite regularly the minister current minister may not very well be the minister that does the next one so the only opportunity we have is to put it on the face of the bill that's the problem I have finished but it is your chance now to say something anyways to you okay could I just before you do could I just record that I mean to leave for a prior engagement with the presiding officer say his substitute will be taking over Alex Cole-Hamilton say it's just innocent could I ask you that mad to speak very briefly the point I would make in response to Mike Rumbles that Mike Rumbles political colleague Ross Finnie when he was in government had it was only when he brought forward the third version of the outdoor access code that came from the land reform act that we finally consented to agreeing it so there is a process and it does work and the history of making it work but we'll stick that to all that's not what I really wanted to talk about I'm briefly going to talk about two of the amendments here firstly Liam McArthur's amendment 12 and these are designed to be helpful rather than destructive observations I'm just a little bit concerned about any strategy that defines level and standard of ferry services now the reason I do that is that I just wonder if we do that whether we would have seen the innovation that Andrew Banks brought with Pentland ferries across Pentland Firth you know if he prescribed things in a particular way and indeed for that matter the innovation that Gordon Ross brought at Western ferries across from Gwruch and also of course in only addressing the needs of island communities I don't see as I think it would be proper to see in a ferry strategy a provision for ferries that might go to Campbelltown which is definitely not on an island but which in terms of accessibility shares many of the same fundamental problems so I just think it may not be the right place to do it and and as further indications of innovation that might not naturally be included in the plan would be hydrofoils we don't currently have any in Scotland the very successful in Norway and a very effective high speed transport and hovercraft which notwithstanding that Morris Corry told us earlier this month that aviation would be coming to the Scottish Parliament is actually a form of sea transport that requires you to be a commercial pilot rather than rather than have to maritime so that's that the other one is a Tabush Scots amendment 14 where I just have a general point that actually the 30 megits per second which is presumably meant to refer to download speed I've got issues about latency and upload speeds that actually in a very short space of time we will consider 30 megbits to be rather unambitious and we will be moving towards 300 megbits and indeed gigabit delivery and I just don't want to embed the current target too firmly in our mind when actually we should be moving on to much more ambitious ones John Mason followed by Fulton MacGregor Thanks very much, convener I have to agree with the minister's argument and Stuart Stevenson's some extent has reiterated that given the nature of this bill I don't think we want to go into incredible detail and I have to say that some of these amendments I feel go into too much detail things that will I think certainly be in the plan for example, megabits per second which we have looked at considerably on this committee and this would kind of cut across what we've been doing I have to say that the exception to that I feel is John Finnie's amendment number 16 which I don't think goes into a huge amount of detail but is a big overarching theme so I have to say as things stand I don't know if John Finnie is going to push this or not but I would be minded to support his amendment if he does move it Fulton MacGregor I think that Jamie Greene made it quite well that it might not be helpful to go into a list at this point but one of the areas that I do think I'd like to see if Liam McArthur is going to withdraw at this stage how any further discussions with the minister goes around ferries and I have perhaps been influenced by a constituent coming to a surgery and giving me the book who pays the ferry man which I before him would be asked many questions I have not read and filled yet but I think that that is something for me specifically that will affect the island so I'm hoping that Liam McArthur will address that issue but I certainly would be interested to see if something could be brought in at stage 3 that includes ferries particularly on the on the face of the bill or on the plan and in terms of the other amendments that John Finnie and others have raised for the sake of the I think that they've all got a lot of merit but for the sake of time as a convener has mentioned I wanted just to highlight the ferry issue specifically Thank you Fulton I'm not going to ask the minister to wind up and to move or withdraw your amendment please minister Of course I will move my amendments in my name just to be brief if I can, I think that there's a very insightful conversation and contributions that have been made on this group of amendments on the three points that Tavish Scott raised absolutely takes his point of the importance of the Crown Estate and Devolution of the Seabed to local island communities it's something I hear when I go then it's not just conversations that I have with the communities at all but actually the communities on those islands absolutely appreciate that that is an important issue to them. Broadband again agree with him fundamental absolutely to island communities some could argue even more so to island and rural communities than perhaps in urban common innovations but I won't get into that argument but certainly fundamental and on the islands deal as I said the tricky part of that is really compelling the UK Government to do something in legislation I'm not sure that would be even competent but nonetheless good conversations are taking place between the Scottish Government and the islands authorities local authorities on a potential islands deal which is incredibly ambitious as draft proposals that have come in no doubt those conversations will continue but whenever I can exert some influence I know my colleagues similarly can exert influence to the UK Government to be involved in these discussions then we're happy to provide that weight where we can McArthur's point I would give him an undertaking around the long-term solution to the ferries that he asks of me an update before summer recess how much progress we've made by then I don't know but let's try to make some progress and put our shoulder to the wheel on that but let me give him the assurances that he seeks I would say probably more of an acute issue on Orkney than perhaps is in Shetland at the age of some of the vessels on the internal ferries but let's try to make sure that we work towards that and I'll give him the assurances that he looks for and I thought that the future proofing point was an important one that Mike Rumbles was making although he seems to have some insight into my future political career that I don't even have but I thought that the future proofing point was an important one I think that's actually precisely why we shouldn't have these issues on the face of the bill because changing primary legislations is not an easy task and therefore perhaps doing that through the national islands plan would be the most appropriate similarly for fuel poverty on Lee McArthur's point I will attempt to arrange a meeting between myself, Kevin and him ahead of stage 3 as he asks I think that would be sensible On John Finnie's point I think that there are issues well made particularly on the invasive invasive species that I have had conversations with authorities on but I hope he also sees my point around the face of the bill probably not being the best place but let's have a conversation before stage 3 perhaps around how we can incorporate that absolutely into the national islands plan and where he can be reassured that that would be given the prominence that is due so I would again urge my colleagues not to push their amendments but work with me ahead of stage 3 to see if I can give them the reassurances that they require on Jamie Greene's just to finish convener again I would ask him what I'm happy to accept if he's the amendment 32 around the lists on public authorities plan I don't think it's necessary I'm not even convinced necessarily that we'll have the effect that he wishes it to have but nonetheless I don't think it's an issue that I have too much concern over again on 31 I don't think it's necessary I do think there's some difficulties on measuring some outcomes I do absolutely believe in being able to measure them, being able to monitor them being able to assess them happy to work with them before stage 3 to see how we do that but there's some high level objectives that I think are just difficult to necessarily be able to measure in an empirical way so therefore I'd ask him not to press that amendment with me in advance of stage 3 that was as quick as I could go sorry that was as quick as I could go ok thank you minister we therefore come to a question and the question is that amendment 1 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed I therefore would call amendment 30 in the name of John Mason already debated with amendment 10 John Mason to move or not move the member has not moved does any member present object to the amendment being withdrawn sorry sorry I've got it wrong in my rush to move forward thank you Mr Stevenson was nice to be corrected by you so therefore we move on to the question sorry that amendment 2 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 1 minister to formally move so I call amendment 2a in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 1 Colin Smyth to move or not move move ok the question therefore is amendment 2a be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed therefore minister to press or withdraw amendment 2 ok the question therefore is amendment 2 be agreed are we all agreed therefore we are agreed therefore can we call amendment 11 in the name of Tavish Scott already debated with amendment 1 Tavish Scott to move or not move not move thank you therefore I call amendment 12 in the name of Liam McArthur already debated with amendment 1 Liam McArthur to move or not move what we said not moved not moved therefore I therefore call amendment 13 in the name of Liam McArthur already debated with amendment 1 Liam McArthur to move or not move again in the basis of the undertakings not moved ok I therefore call the amendment 14 in the name of Tavish Scott already debated with amendment 1 Tavish Scott to move or not move not moved therefore I call amendment 15 in the name of Tavish Scott already debated with amendment 1 Cymru am 16 am eich cymaintfyniad i John Finnie, eich cymaintfyniad i amendment one. Cymru am 34 am eich cymaintfyniad i Jamie Greene, eich cymaintfyniad i amendment one. yn mynd i'r hyn. Mahliwch, am fod â сто MAS, mae hyn yn gymryd di Graceiddio i'w Lap WHY, yn mynd i gynyddiadol, pob i'w ran lleol wedi ceisio, yn mynd i'u cerchedol, fe fic arguments eich mod i'u Cerecais i'r Gymhoeddfawr Wyllfaeth Europe' i gynyddiadol i chi, maomet fyddwn ni'n mynd i'r gymrod y gallai gilydd i chi'n hopedcer agryddio i ydw i chi. Narmut Cull amendments 17, in the name of Gail Ross group with amendments, as shown in the groupings. Gail Ross to move amendments 17 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. During the committee's evidence sessions, six local authorities with island interest did make a strong case to be included as statutory consultees for the preparation of the national islands plan, the amendment is very straightforward in line with the recommendation of the committee. It requires the Scottish ministers to consult the six local authorities as listed in the schedule of the bill in the preparation of the national islands plan, and from my own constituency, the Highland Council met on 8 March and showed support for, among other things, the inclusion of the six local authorities with island interests as statutory consultees to the plan. If other local authorities were to be added to the schedule in future, then amendment 17 would also mean that they would have to be consulted as well. In this way, amendment 18 allows for the future proofing in a way that Peter Chapman's amendment 33 in the group does not. I also believe that my amendment works better than amendment 34 and 35 from Jamie Greene, which seems to include all local authorities, rather than just island local authorities. However, I will wait to hear what Jamie Greene has to say about the rationale for that. As a consequence of amendment 17, I have put forward a technical amendment, amendment 18, that adjusts section 41A1 to make it clear that persons other than local authorities that represent the interests of island communities must also be consulted. I will be supporting amendment 19, in the name of John Mason, which inserts island communities into the consultation on the national island plan. I will also support amendment 36, put forward by John Mason, which seeks to include natural heritage in the matters that ministers must have regard to in preparation of the plan. I feel that this is a welcome addition. I will also support amendment 3, put forward by the minister, to ensure that the linguistic heritage of our island communities must be considered in the plan. Jamie Greene's amendment 4A is generally supportive of, as well, to provide information on the annual report about the actions that ministers are taking on the outcomes. I will also listen to the other points of the other amendments in his group, but I do not see that they are necessary, but I will wait, as I say, to hear. Finally, I will also support amendment 4 from Fulton MacGregor, which ensures that ministers must bring forward the annual report within three months from the end of the report in year. I think that that is very reasonable. I move amendment 17. I now call on Peter Chapman to speak to amendment 33 in the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I accept that much of what I have to say here has already been said by, as I said, in Gail Ross's amendment. I have another list here, so I suspect that Stuart Stevenson will not be overly enthralled with that, because he did not like a list last time round, but I think that it just adds clarity. It is important that the six island authorities are statutory consultees. That is basically what I am trying to achieve by this amendment. I will leave Jamie Greene to speak to his amendments, which I will be supporting. I can support John Mason's amendment 19. I can also support the minister's amendment 3. I can also support amendment 37 in the name of John Mason. I cannot agree to that. I cannot remember why, but that is why I have been helped out by my neighbour here, and he is not even a member of the committee. We need to question the term. Inhabited islands should not be uninhabited islands, as the bill more generally refers to those that are uninhabited. I am not sure that that makes it any clearer, so, to be honest, we will move on. Amendment 38, Colin Smyth, again. It is similar to John Mason's, so we are not happy with that one. Fultons, I can support. Fulton MacGregor, amendment 4, I can support. I am pleased to say, Peter, that John Mason understood why the question that you raised, so no doubt he will cover that when it gets to him. However, the next person to speak is Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 34, and the others in his group. Thank you, convener. I will briefly cover amendment 33 in the name of my colleague Peter Chapman who is to support. Listing those specific island authorities as statutory consultees is important, and I, therefore, will support that. I will move on to my amendments in this grouping. 34—just checking wherever we are at here—yes, I see a gross point. The purpose behind this was to include local authorities as part of this consultation process. I think that there is a general feeling throughout all members. I think that there are variances in the wording of how we achieve this, and perhaps some conflicting wording in the various amendments here, but there is a general sense of purpose here that we feel that it is important that not just local authorities but island communities themselves must be part of this consultation process. That is feedback that we took very strongly from our visits to islands, and I think that that is reflected on in what you see here today. That is the purpose of 34 and 35. Yes, I will. You talk about island communities, and absolutely nobody here has got any argument with including island communities. It is just the fact that it says local authorities, which would encompass all local authorities, not just those with islands or island local authorities. I take on both that point. I think that in terms of the technicality of the wording, it could have been tidier at this stage. We were up against the wire in terms of amendment deadlines. I think that there was a purpose there, and I am happy to reflect on that. If there is a way that we could strengthen the wording to include the relevant island authorities, I would be happy to look at that as we move forward. I support amendment 19. It is an important point that it is not just local authorities who are the voices of islands. I think that members of island communities must be heard about those voices. For that reason, I think that that is an excellent addition. If I could jump to 39 briefly, it is a technical tidy-up. The plan must be laid to Parliament on a day in which the Parliament is sitting. It does not explicitly state that at the moment in the bill, and I think that it is important that the plan, for example, is not published the day after summer recess begins, not that the minister will ever dream of such a thing, but that ensuring that it is delivered to Parliament on a day in which it is sitting, it, for example, allows opportunities for urgent questions to come up in the chamber or other ways of scrutinising the plan in any manner that we see fit. Again, it has not been too prescriptive on how we should scrutinise the plan, but it does make sure that we get it on a day that Parliament can discuss it appropriately. I welcome Gil Ross's comments on that. At the moment, the bill only says that the report will talk about the extent to which outcomes have improved since the previous reporting year. That is wonderful, and I hope that outcomes do improve, but the Government should also be accountable in the sense that it should lay to Parliament details of where outcomes have not improved. That small amendment does that very purpose. I cannot imagine that the Government would ever want to avoid publishing negative news or a regression in any of its outcomes. I hope that that strengthens the minister's ability to be quite forthcoming and frank about which objectives have not been met or have not improved since the previous year. That was the rationale behind that. I hope that the committee has support on that. The final one is 42. Again, around the wording on page 3 of the bill, at the moment it says that any other matters that the Scottish ministers consider appropriate, I think that the inclusion of the financial implications of the bill are important. If we find that, after a year, there has been significant effect on local authorities or public authorities' ability to deliver the objectives of the plan financially or the mitigation requirements to help local authorities to make decisions when they have due regard to island communities, I think that it is important that the minister is honest with Parliament as to what the potential financial consequence of that might be. Again, that was not explicit in the bill as it is drafted. I will stop there, convener. I now ask John Mason to speak to amendment 19 and the other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. I will focus my attention on the three amendments that I have put forward in 1936 and 1937. I think that I am picking up positive vibes already. The reason for 19 it did come out of the committee report where, in preparation scrutiny of the plan section 4, 1A2, on consultation, the ministers are required to consult such persons as they consider likely to be affected by the proposals contained in the plan. I think that there was a general feeling that that was just a little bit too vague, so the intention of this amendment is to beef that up somewhat by adding in, including members' violent communities and other persons, so I am hoping that that will not be contentious. On 36, it is the addition of natural heritage in B, following on again in section 4, where it currently says that it has regard to the distinctive geographical and cultural characteristics of each of the islands effectively. The suggestion would be that we add in natural heritage, so distinctive geographical, natural heritage and cultural characteristics, just to be sure that we are including everything to do with the natural heritage. Natural heritage itself is defined in statute under the Natural Heritage Scotland Act 1991, which means, quote, the flora and fauna of Scotland, its geological and physiological features, its nature, beauty and amenity, end of quote. The future plan should cover that and things that have already been mentioned, such as non-native species. We have examples of natural heritage, also linking in with the economy, for example the sea eagles in Mull, thought to bring in something like £5 million a year to the local economy. I think that 38 Colin Smyth's amendment is very similar to mine, we probably do not need both, but we certainly want one of them. Thirdly, 37 public interest, so that, again, and this is still in the consultation area, at the moment we are talking very much about considering the interests of island communities, absolutely correct, such persons as would be affected, absolutely correct and then regard to the characteristics of the areas that are inhabited by island communities, absolutely correct. I think that there is a principle here, we could add in this bit about public interest, it is not just any public interest, it is not totally vague, it is having regard to the public interest in the environmental, economic and social characteristics of islands, including inhabited islands. That was Mr Chapman's point, should it have said both uninhabited and inhabited. I think that because the assumption throughout most of the bill is about inhabited islands, we are using the term here islands to include all islands, but absolutely including uninhabited islands, and I accept that that could be worded differently, but that was the wording that we came up with. I think that my point here, and I believe quite strongly in this, is that islands are not just important to island communities. I believe that islands are important to us as a nation, and I am a city dweller and I like living in the city, but I love that our islands and I love going to our islands. I think that this amendment would bring in here a wider public interest, albeit specified on environmental, economic and social characteristics, but I think that it would help to emphasise that we, as a nation, have a commitment to our islands, not just the people that live on them. John Finch-East, I now call on the minister to speak to amendment 3 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I will speak to amendment 3, my name first, and then move on to the other amendments. In the group, in stage 1 report, the committee called on the Scottish Government to consider an extension to the provisions of the bill, so that in addition to having to regard to the distinctive geographical and cultural characteristics of the islands, we could also give due regard to linguistic heritage 2. We recognise the importance of the linguistic heritage of Scotland's island communities, and the bill already uses the expression cultural characteristics, which covers a range of masses, including the Gaelic cultural traditions of the Hebrides, and the Scandinavian heritage of Orkney and Chetland. However, I accept the committee's suggestion that clarification might be helpful, so I have brought forward amendment 3. To be clear that I am preparing the national islands plan, the Scottish ministers must have regard to the linguistic heritage. Turning to the other amendments, I am happy to support Gael Ross's amendments 17 and 18. Through the ministerial island strategic group, I have developed a strong and, hopefully, constructive partnership with the six island local authorities, and the local authorities with islands. As stated in my response to the committee's stage 1 report, the six local authorities have helped us and assisted us with the development of the bill ahead of its introduction. I always envisage that, through their participation in the islands strategic group, they will continue to play an active role in helping us to deliver the bill's provisions and, indeed, the guidance. Amendments 17 and 18 will ensure that all six local authorities are listed as statutory consultees for the national islands plan, and I very much welcome them. In support of those amendments lodged by Gael Ross, as others have already said, I do not necessarily see the need for amendment 33 lodged by Peter Chapman, and indeed amendments 34 and 35 lodged by Jamie Greene. Amendment 33 from Peter Chapman is not future-proofed in the same way that the amendments put forward by Gael Ross are, so therefore I ask him not to move his amendment. Amendment 34 and 35 from Jamie Greene add consultation with all local authorities where representing island communities are affected by proposals. While I think that it is useful to specifically identify the six island authorities in the schedule, adding all local authorities here is not required. If the member has concerns about other local authorities, I would note that they are already covered in section 4 subsection 1A. As under the normal rules of statutory interpretation, a local authority is a type of legal person. I would therefore ask him not to move those amendments. I am happy to support amendment 19 lodged by John Mason. The amendment is a simple and effective means of highlighting that island communities must be consulted in the preparation of the plan. I am also happy to support amendment 36 lodged by John Mason, some of our island landscapes and habitats are truly world-class and it is right that the national island plan has regard to our natural heritage. I am intrigued by amendment 37 from John Mason. I listened carefully to what he had to say on that, but I am still not entirely convinced that it works as intended, not least as it refers to, as we have already said, an inhabit islands, which we discussed in an earlier group. I understand what he is trying to do, so again can I in an attempt to be helpful to ask him not to press his amendment today, but let's work together, alongside my officials, to see what can be done to give effect to what I understand and I think he's trying to do. Of course, if he's satisfied with that, then we'll come forward with another amendment. If not, of course, he could come back at stage 3, so can I give him that offer, because I'm not entirely clear. I think there are some unintended consequences to his public interest. Amendment 38 from Colin Smyth is required if we support amendment 36 from John Mason. It does essentially the same thing, and I asked members to support amendment 36, and therefore for Colin Smyth not to move the amendment in his name. Amendment 39 from Jamie Greene requires the final national islands plan to be laid before the Scottish Parliament on a day in which the Parliament is sitting. It effectively means not in recess. I assume that the member is worried, of course, that we'll attempt to sneak it out during the recess when members aren't looking. Unfortunately, what the amendment could do is that it could mean that we might have to delay laying the plan until Parliament comes back from whatever recess it got in the way. Indeed, we'd still have an obligation under section 4, subsection 4, to publish the plan as soon as reasonably possible and practicable. Whenever we lay and publish the final plan, it will be there for members to consider and debate should they wish. Section 4 builds on a 40-day parliamentary period after laying the draft proposed plan before the final plan is made. After that, I wouldn't want to delay laying and publication of the final plan. I'm going to finish at a small point, and then, of course, I'll take its intervention. I just make the point that I completely understand where he's coming from. We've talked a lot about future proofing, so as reasonable as a minister might be or a Government might be, perhaps we need to future proof that as well. Therefore, I'm more than happy to have a discussion with the Minister for Parliamentary Business. It would be for the SPCB, of course, to have a conversation about an appropriate debate around the national islands plan. Obviously, when Parliament is sitting, I would also make the point that the collaborative approach that we're looking to take with the islands plan will mean that there will be essentially no surprises for any members of what is in that plan. I am, of course, now happy to take Jamie Greene's intervention. Thank the minister for taking my intervention. Can the minister just clarify? As it stands at the moment, theoretically, the minister could lay the plan at the beginning of the summer recess, for example, at which point Parliament will not fully address it until we come back. With regard to the draft plan versus the final plan, can he just clarify the timeline for that? I think that what I'm trying to achieve here by saying it must, at the very least, be submitted on a parliamentary setting day is that at least it has been formally presented to Parliament whilst it sits, so that, for example, then would give MSPs the summer recess to review it before it's, or could a draft be issued at that point, but then with the 40-day deadline of car during the recess? I'm a bit confused with the term of the timeline of how it's currently drafted. It is, I can confirm, 40 days, beginning with the day in which the plan is laid before the Scottish Parliament. My understanding is that it's 40 sitting days, but again, I'm happy to work with the member to try to give him further clarification of that. I can write to the committee to clarify that, but what I would say to the member is, I think that our members of the Opposition, if nobody else, I think would pull us, be the first ones rightly to pull us up if we attempted to sneak out something as important and high up our agenda as the national islands plan, but it didn't get the appropriate scrutiny. I don't expect any surprises within the national islands plan in the sense that we've all discussed and we all know some of the main issues that will be in that plan that we hear from island communities regularly. Theoretically speaking, yes, a draft could be laid at the start of just before summer recess, and then perhaps it won't get scrutiny until we come back. I'm happy to work with the member to try to avoid that from being the case, so I'm happy to work with him before and ahead of stage 3, to look to try to devise a timetable that takes into account parliamentary recesses and appropriate levels of scrutiny. I'm moving on just to conclude, convener amendment 40 from Jamie Greene asked the Scottish ministers to set out the steps that we will take where an outcome is identified in the plan that has not improved. I'm not sure if that works with his previous amendment 31, which refers to objectives that are being measurable and not outcomes, but I understand that Mr Greene is seeking to achieve here. He certainly has some merit. When an outcome or objective is not being met, the Scottish ministers should absolutely consider what they should do to seek to change that. I ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 40 at this stage, but on the basis that I'll ask officials, and I too will consider this more liais with him before stage 3, to ensure that, if considered appropriate, a suitably worded amendment in the same vein can be drafted. Amendment 42 is also from Jamie Greene. I think that the amendment is far too broad. I ask the Scottish Government to report on any financial implication arising as a result of the act. As the act will apply to a very broad range of organisations, I don't think that it would be an entirely realistic requirement for information. I then turn to amendment 4, put forward by Fulton McGregor requiring the annual report to be laid within three months after the end of the reporting year, conscious of the Parliament's focus on the desirability for transparency, clarity and accountability. I am happy to support it. From a Scottish Government perspective, it has always anticipated the annual report on the plan's progress. It would be published and laid before Parliament in a timely fashion following the end of the reporting year. I think that I will just conclude there. Thank you, minister, and I call on Colin Smith to speak to amendment 38 and the other amendments in the group. Colin, thank you very much. Very briefly, amendment 30 is very similar to John Mason's amendment 36. It does add natural environment to the bill. This was an issue that I raised during stage 1 debate, natural heritage, sorry, not natural environment, during stage 1 debate, and it's something I feel passionate about. However, if we vote for amendment 36, I won't push this amendment when it comes to that stage. Thank you very much, Colin. I call on Fulton McGregor to speak to amendment 4 and the other amendments in the group. Fulton. Thank you. I will speak to my amendment first and I will be as brief as I can. Section 5 of the bill places a duty on ministers to prepare in publishing annual progress report to provide information on the improvement of outcomes for island communities that has occurred over the previous year and also information on how ministers have complied with section 7 of the island proofing duty. The bill currently provides a report that must be produced as soon as reasonably practical. However, to help us with the tracking of progress on the annual report, we as a committee made a recommendation to put a time limit on when the annual report should be published by the Scottish ministers. Amendment 4 in my name ensures that the Scottish ministers must publish and lay before Parliament the annual report by three months after the end of the reporting year. I believe that it is an appropriate length of time for ministers to produce the information. Anything shorter than there is a risk of the information not being available and any longer, it could be out of date. I will support the amendments put forward by Gil Ross and the minister and also support John Mason's natural heritage amendment. As others have said, I am not sure if the need for amendments are 39 and 42 from Jamie Greene, but I do see the benefits in amendment 40. I will low-note the minister's calls to do further work with that before stage 3. Thank you very much, Fulton. I will now call on Richard Lyle, followed by Stuart Stevenson. Yes, because of the time factor, I will be brief. Amendment 3435, basically, Jamie Greene has said that it has slightly been badly drafted and I would ask him to withdraw it. With the greatest respect in my constituency, I do not have an island unless it is maybe in the middle of a lake somewhere. In regard to the other amendments in the group, I would take on board the points that the minister is making. I ask the members to reflect. Thank you, Richard. Stuart, you are next. Just a brief comment on amendment 39, Jamie Greene's name. What he is proposing is in conflict with standing orders at 14.1.3 of the Parliament, which states that the report or other document may be laid before Parliament at any time at the office when the clerk is open. Therefore, we would have to look at what the standing orders say and I do not know how we would change the standing orders to conform to that. That is a procedural point. The other point is that I think that the best day for laying this particular material is actually the last day before summer recess. The reason I say that is because then all of us can go and consult with our constituents over the summer recess, a two-month period, on the contents of it before the 40 days parliamentary sitting days starts to operate. So, contrary to the argument that we have put forward, the best day to lay it is the last day before recess starts. Or the day after for that matter. Thank you, Stuart. John Finnie, and then I am going to ask Gail Ross to wind up. Thank you, convener. I would just like to speak briefly on the minister's amendment number three there. I am grateful that it reflects the stage 1 report recommendation of the committee of a very deep interest in our linguistic heritage, and I am grateful that you mentioned the Norse heritage of the North Isles. In relation to this and the plan and other plans, minister, clearly there will have to be one plan that is in place for our linguistic heritage, and that is the national garlic language plan. I have had various representations made to me. I wonder if you are in a position perhaps to allay some of the concerns here. Could you confirm that, for instance, Bordna Gallach would be consulted in the preparation and would play some role in the subsequent assessment of the island's plan, please? John Finnie, is that you concluded? I am going to ask Gail Ross to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment. Thank you, convener. We have had a really third discussion on all the amendments and there are many points to consider. I would say that Jamie Greene's amendment 39, if we were going to put it on the last day before recess, it still is a sitting day of Parliament, which is very interesting. To go back to my own amendments, I do feel that it is stronger than Peter Chapman's 33, because it allows for the list of statutory local authorities to be in the schedule, which allows for future proofing, as I said, and the minister did say as well. I would ask him not to press that, but I press my amendments. Therefore, we move to a question. The question is that amendments 17 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I therefore want to call amendment 33 in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 17. Peter Chapman, move or not move? Not move. Okay. I therefore want to call amendment 18 in the name of Gail Ross, already debated with amendment 17. Gail Ross, to move or not move? Move. The question therefore is amendment B agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I therefore want to call amendment 34 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 17. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I therefore want to call amendment 19 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 17. John Mason, to move or not move? Moved. The question therefore is amendment 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Therefore, I want to call amendment 35 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 17. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not move, convener. Not moved. Thank you. I therefore want to call amendment 36 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 17. John Mason, to move or not move? Moved. The question therefore is amendment 36 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 3 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 17. Minister, can you move that formally? Moved. The question therefore is amendment 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 37 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 17. John Mason, to move or not move? Moved. Moved. Therefore, the question is amendment 37 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Moved. We are not agreed. I call a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise your hands. There are three votes for amendments, seven votes against, there's one abstention, therefore the member is, it is not agreed. Sumer on to 38. Yes. I therefore call amendment 38 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 17. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? In light of the support for amendment 36, say it and not move. Thank you. Therefore, I call amendment 39 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 17. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? If the minister will work with me, it's the history, I won't move this amendment. Okay. That is not moved. Therefore, the question we have at this stage is section 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Right. I would now like to call amendment 40 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 17. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Therefore, I would like to call amendment 41 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 10. John Mason, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. Therefore, I call amendment 42 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 17. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Moved. The question, therefore, is that amendment 42 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. There is a division. Therefore, all those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against and those abstentions, one. Therefore, there are four votes, four, there are six votes against, there is one abstention. That amendment is not agreed. Therefore, I call amendment 4 in the name of Fulton MacGregor, already debated with amendment 17. Fulton MacGregor, to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question, therefore, is amendment 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question, therefore, that section 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 6 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I'm afraid that that is as far as that we are able to go today. We will pick up next week where we've left off today. Therefore, amendments to the remaining sections of the bill can still be lodged. The deadline for doing so is at 12 noon tomorrow, the 22nd of March. That concludes today's business and I now close the meeting.